Talk:Old City of Jerusalem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opening comments

How can they have been built in the 1530s after they were razed in 1544? Danny 19:21, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The information in this article (to the extent it is correct) belongs in Jerusalem. --Zero 06:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Old City Redirect

Is there any good reason why Old City redirects to an article on the Old City's walls? Surely the Old City is prominent enough to deserve its own article? Ayinyud 14:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that IZAK successfully 'rescued' the 'Old City' title since it hadn't been taken yet. I think that it is just waiting for someone to remove the redirect and start it properly. --Shuki 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to Jerusalem's Old City

Is this article about the walls? Or the area? Ewlyahoocom 18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose that Old City should be an article in its right, and not a redirect to the walls. Thus we can have two articles, one about the actual walls, and another about the area within the walls. Any better ideas? Ayinyud 17:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree --Shuki 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to be bold soon, if nobody voices an opinion to the contrary, and more this to Old City of Jerusalem - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be moved to Old City, Crazy. It would be more suitable if someone started a new article on the actual old city at the article by that name. Ayinyud 10:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with עי on both counts...there's nothing wrong with an article about the Old City's walls, and we need a separate [new] article on the Old City itself as a whole...which article this is not. Tomer^talk 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Let's! - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent move(s)

I didn't notice the discussion here from last year prior to completing the move, but nevertheless, I do believe the article should return back to Old City of Jerusalem. In the six months since the discussion here, there has been no attempt to create an article about the Old City itself. The walls and the Old City they surround go hand-in-hand (note the coupling according to UNESCO) and, naturally, ought to be in the same article unless it gets too long. It's nowhere near too long, and thus this setup should not be problematic. I omitted the "and its walls" from the UNESCO name because it's a bit superfluous. However, feel free to disagree; nothing is binding. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Page changes

I merged the Old City article and the gates article together since it made sense. I moved it to Old City as that is what's its called, and moved the original Old City to Old City (disambiguation). Epson291 07:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also added information on the quarters, I will also make a map of the Old City. Epson291 07:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will also add the photo from 1948 of the Jews leaving the Jewish quarter. Epson291 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, still the rest of the redirects have to be fixed. Epson291 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether adding all the info about the 4 quarters is a good move, surely this makes their own pages obsolete. Also I think the old name, Old City of Jerusalem is better. A picture should be placed in the infobox and the map placed elsewhere. It would be better if more information could be added about the history of the old city itself rather than reaping information from what already exists on wikipedia. Chesdovi 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An article on the Old City should include information about the quarters. I didn't take everything, however the information on the Muslim and Christian quarters were small. They can always be merged. I prefer Old City as it is called that. I would find, Old City (Jerusalem) acceptable to, but it is a little redudent when it's the only article called "Old City".

As for the pictures, just move them the way you like, that's not an issue with me. Epson291 11:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I got the idea of puting information on the individual quarters from the German page. (Also, there is some useful historical information in that article that is useful, and I will translate it for this article.)Epson291 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Leaving the page named Old City is just too vague, as it could refer to any Old City. It can also infer that the page is about old cities in general. It makes no difference if it's the only page on Wikipedia with that name. I’m sure people in Knoxville also refer to their Old City in the same way, i.e. just as Old City. Chesdovi 10:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

True, could always call it The Old City, to prevent thinking it was about cities which are old, or does Wikipedia have something against starting articles with "The." Either way, it shouldn't be called something it isn't really called to make the title system work, since it almost is always just called the Old City, but the word Jerusalem in brackets work too as I pointed out. Epson291 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the best solution would be to disambiguate as Old City (Jerusalem). Tewfik^Talk 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation is a good idea. According to the Google results, for Jerusalem, "Old City" is more common than "Old City of Jerusalem". It appears that mostmuch of the time, "Old City" refers to Jerusalem, since "old city" jerusalem gets 885,000 out of a total 2,380,000 hits for "old city". Therefore, I think for the present, Old City should continue to redirect to the Jerusalem Old City article. But since a large minoritymost of the "old city" references are to other cities, the article's name should be disambiguated. nadav (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we'll need an admin to move it though. Epson291 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Contested move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Old City → Old City (Jerusalem) — Disambiguate, and move current disambiguation page (Old City (disambiguation)) to Old City. —Tewfik^Talk 09:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, it seems that there is consensus that "Old City" normally does refer to Jerusalem. Even without that, I feel that assertions of primary usage (or lack thereof) can only really be determined by consulting many people (i.e. a full move request). --Stemonitis 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, but a page called "Old City" could mean 101 old cities, as someone has pointed out. Beersheva has an Old City, Rhodes has an Old City, etc. The page should be called Old City of Jerusalem, and expanded to cover all aspects of the Old City.--Gilabrand 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of other "Old City"s, so I don't think it's immediate to think Jerusalem to many people. I think Old City (Jerusalem) or Old City of Jerusalem would be the best. --AW 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I reaffirm my agreement with Tewfi and Nadav1 for it to be moved to Old City (Jerusalem). Epson291 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I feel the Old City of Jerusalem" is a good title; it can be said in the intro that it is "commonly known as the Old City", etc. Chesdovi 23:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you claiming that the most common name is "Old City of Jerusalem", or that it just sounds/looks better than "Old City (Jerusalem)"? nadav (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am saying that Old City of Jerusalem is the best option. עיר העתיקה doesn't actually translate into “Old City”, but rather "Ancient City". Chesdovi 11:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• I was considering actually doing the move with the consensus above. However I looked at the article and I'm not sure what the move target should really be. It is listed in the article as a World Heritage Site, but not included in the List of World Heritage Sites in Asia. So that is not a good source for a new name. The article actually calls it Jerusalem's Old City, so why not use that for the name? Then the info box calls it the Old City of Jerusalem. Personally I think either of the two forms used in the article is better then the proposed Old City (Jerusalem). Why dab an article name when there is an acceptable name that does not need the disambiguation? Vegaswikian 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The name of the place is "The Old City." Everything else is just a descriptor to indicate which city's old city is being talked about, since many cities have historical areas referred to as the "Old City." In Israel, Akko also has an area referred to as "the Old City." nadav (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Which does not answer the question of reaming to Old City of Jerusalem or Jerusalem's Old City both of which are used in the article rather then a made up dab. If we can't use either of those names, why do they have prominence in the article? And the even better question, if both Jerusalem's Old City and Old City of Jerusalem are not a valid name for the article, why are they redirects? Vegaswikian 06:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, is the name of the place really "The Old City?" Old City of Jerusalem is apparently what UNESCO listed it as if we can believe List of World Heritage Sites in danger. That's strong support for using that as the article name. Vegaswikian 06:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)The article has been moved a number of times. If you like "Old City of Jerusalem" better, then move it there if you like. That was the previous name until it was moved here. The point is that whatever you call it, the common thread is "Old City". In Hebrew, it's referred to as the "Old City" (העיר העתיקה) and context indicates that it's Jerusalem's Old City that's being discussed and not Akko's say. In the English Britannica article on Jerusalem, the Old City is called just that: "Jerusalem has retained a diverse and cosmopolitan character, particularly in the walled Old City with its Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim quarters" and "In recognition of its central place in the traditions and histories of numerous peoples, the Old City was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1981." The Google searches above also indicate that it's more often called just "Old City" without the appended phrase "of Jerusalem." In any case, the most important thing is to disambiguate the title, and I suppose both "(Jerusalem)" and "of Jerusalem" do that. nadav (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that there is no formal place name, as it's not an independent city. It's just an area that's referred to as the Old City, i.e. the old, historic part of Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See the Encarta article [1] also, and the Jerusalem municipality's official site [2], which says "The name The Old City, which in Jerusalem describes the area encompassed by the Old Walls..." I feel sort of silly bringing forth sources to make this point, but whatever. nadav (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't called "Old City of Jerusalem," just "the Old City." And as far as I know, UNESCO cals it "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" not "Old City of Jerusalem," but the article is about the Old City, and its called that, and the name of the article should reflect that, as Nadav's sources have shown. Epson291 10:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it is simply referred to as the "Old City". I understand the reluctance to create an artificial dab, but in a sense that is what would be done by calling it any of the new syntheses (Jerusalem's Old City, Old City of Jerusalem). Rather the parenthetical dab [Old City (Jerusalem)] is the least problematic, and "fits in" with the extant "Old City (xyz)"s. Tewfik^Talk 09:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this instead? Like it is in French Quarter. Epson291 10:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Old City in Jerusalem. For other cities with "Old City" areas, see Old City of Jerusalem/Archive 1 (disambiguation).

Note: the {{about}} template read see Old City (disambiguation) prior to the page move. Tewfik^Talk 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That would do if most occurrences of "Old City" referred only to Jerusalem. This is unproven, and the Google search hints that it may be false. Compare these searches: "the old city" -jerusalem (i.e. no mention of Jerusalem, 1,890,000 hits) and "old city" jerusalem (903,000 hits). The first search includes a definite article to omit cases of "X is an old city", but may remove some legitimate uses. So we see a 2:1 ratio of non-Jerusalem to Jerusalem only uses of the phrase "old city". nadav (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

True I was thinking about what was written before, and the old cities/quarters in Europe and other places. Epson291 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Old City to Old City (Jerusalem) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

History of the gates

While well intended, these additions seem so pointless. Just like the additions that were made about the quarters. Why not just amalgamate all the gates pages onto this page?! There are already links to the various gate pages. Why make the page longer unnecessarily? Chesdovi 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaffa Road Template

What on earth does this have to do with the old city? If you want to add a map, add a detailed one of the old city itself, not some outlying road?! Chesdovi 12:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Old City of Jerusalem is in Israel

Why has nobody brought up the issue that the Old City of Jerusalem as well as East Jerusalem were annexed by Israel following the Six Day War in 1967, and all Palestinian Arabs living in the area were given Israeli citizenship. I can understand where a controversy would be considering the West Bank or the Gaza Strip since those areas have never been annexed to Israel, but there should be no controversy here.

The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as their eventual capital, and when or if a Palestinian state is established and Israel gives East Jerusalem to that State, this page can be changed. As for now, East Jerusalem and the Old City of Jerusalem are part of the State of Israel. To the right of the article it should say Country: Israel. What are your thoughts? --Shuki18 (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Fipplet (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The illegal annexation of the Palestinian capital is without legal effect and not recognized by any country and they were not given Israeli citizenship, they were given permanent residential status.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem has never been the capital of a non-jewish state, ever. Furthermore there's no "palestinian" stat which could have mad Jerusalem its capital.

Secondly the views of other nations should be noted but definetely not stated as fact. The fact is that Jerusalem is de facto in Israel according to the international law and de jure by israeli law. Fipplet (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That does not make it legal. The old city is in occupied palestine not israel, it is illegaly occupied like northern Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.170.148 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no "occupied Palestine" as there never was any State of Palestine. Israel took the old city from Jordan who itself took it in 1949 from the British mandate. Anyway, legal or not, the Old City *is* part of Israel today. Wikipedia has to state the facts as they are not as some people think they should be. Benjil (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not reconised by anyone but israel just as illegal north cyprus is not reconised by anyone but turkey. They are both illegal under international law, we are no longer in a world where you can just invade and annex any territory you like. Please take your zionism elsewhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.76 (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not occupied Palestine because Palestine was never sovereign to begin with. The British gave away 70% of the mandate area to the Hashemites (since they lost Arabia to the Sauds). When the mandate ended, Jordan captured (not occupied IMO) the Old City and performed ethnic cleansing, later captured (not 'recaptured' by the way) by Israel. Some might argue about it's Palestinian nature, but it certainly is not occupied. While my POV says that it is part of Israeland should remain such, for the sake of WP NPOV, the land is disputed. --Shuki (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your wrong, it is illegal and thats it. Also there is a palestinian state and its reconised by more countries than israel is. International law is reconised by everyone, israel is only reconised by some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.76 (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand facts and what is wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia aiming at presenting the things as they are, not as they should be according to you or someone else. There is no Palestine State, the Old City is under Israel control, and there is a dispute about Jerusalem. These are the facts, all the rest does not concern us. Benjil (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you dont understand. Wikipedia is about real Facts like that the old city is considered occupied territory by every country in the world and every organisation apart from israel, that is the purpose of wikipedia. Its not some zionist tool for people like you to spread false propaganda to further their cause. If you must spread zionism find a proper site to do it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.76 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The facts are clear as stated in the San Remo Treaty and the British Mandate, all the land west of the Jordan river (including Jerusalem) is Jewish land. This has been the subject of numerous doctorates including those of Arab Palestinians who all conclude that the Jews have title to the land. Detractors are ignorant of the facts are are just historical revisionists whose anti-semitism is blatant. That politicians and the media make false claims of illegality and occupation is not surprising given their fear of upsetting oil interests and the Moslems. Lies have no place in an encyclopaedia and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.9.37 (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

State Party

Resolved

In the UNESCO World Heritage Site infobox we list Israel as the state party with a ref saying "No nation named by UNESCO". It is not even OR to say that Israel is the state party, it is something that is not true and even the reference for it says it is not true. We should list what UNESCO lists as the state party which is nothing. State party is not a required field of the template so not having anything there is an option, arguably the best. The UNESCO site does not Say "none" or anything like that for state party, it just doesnt list include one. But either way, the infobox should not say Israel for the state party. nableezy - 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Region

Resolved

"Israel" is not a UNESCO region. That should be reverted. nableezy - 10:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To avoid any further confusion and unnecessary reversion of which UNESCO region the Old City falls under, here's the Arab World list. And here's the Europe and North America list (under which Israel is classified by UNESCO). --Fjmustak (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources for "modern city"

Does anyone have a source or a rational to say "modern city" over East Jerusalem? Search "modern Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem" on Google, and compare the amount of results. Saying "modern Jerusalem" is unnecessary POV. -asad (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing the "modern" part and just saying that it is within the city of Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is your objection to East Jerusalem then? -asad (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the old city of Jerusalem is in Jerusalem, not just in one part of Jerusalem which you happen to like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not whether I like it or not, it is because these sources say it is Occupied East Jerusalem, which is different from Jerusalem, the Israeli municipality. See here and here and here and here and here here and here. -asad (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a single one of those sources even mentions the Old City, as opposed to this for example. But thanks for making your agenda even more obvious than it was. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you denying the Old City is in East Jerusalem? Answering that would make your agenda clear. We can strive to be accurate, or you can just keep making accusations about that that are entirely irrelevant. It seems you misunderstand the context or you are conflating it to make your point look better. I am not proposing changing the name to the "Old City of East Jerusalem" I am proposing denoting its location as being "East Jerusalem", which is factually more accurate than "Jerusalem" and universally recognized. "Jerusalem" is the common reference to the Israeli Municipality which is composed of West Jerusalem, and "East Jerusalem" is the part of Jerusalem which is occupied by Israel. If striving to be accurate is considered having an "agenda" as you put it, I pity your time wasted on Wikipedia. -asad (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on what "Jerusalem" is a common reference for notwithstanding, the Old City of Jerusalem is in Jerusalem. That's not only pretty obvious, but also neutral. Your agenda is obvious by the sources you provided above, none of which talk about the Old City. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No...in fact it is withstanding BECAUSE of the sources I provided. Can you address any of the other points I have brought up? But just tell me that you deny the Old City's existence to be within East Jerusalem and then we can end this whole argument right now. Do I actually need to link a map showing its location east of the Green Line? -asad (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What you need to do is show me a source that says the Old City of Jerusalem is not in Jerusalem. The sources you provided don't mention the Old City and are irrelevant. Your personal opinions are irrelevant. Considering the infobox uses the UNESCO definition for the area's "region" we should also use what the same source says for its location: Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Show me where UNESCO claims Jerusalem to be in "Jerusalem"(the Israel municipality as the article would link to). It only refers to Jerusalem as being a district, NOT a city, as your saying Jerusalem in the lead of the article would lead to. See all other UNESCO entries for Israel. It doesn't mention their city, it mentions their district. So if we went by your source, why would we link to a city when your source is calling it a region? It doesn't make sense and it is not clear. On the other hand, this is very clear. See 1. Ctrl+F Old city, and see how many times it mentions it within the context of being in East Jerusalem, AND SHOWS IT IN THE MAP of East Jerusalem. And for the last time, please stop making accusations about me. When the hell did I ever state my "personal opinion" in this discussion? If I didn't ever insert don't claim I did. That is getting really old. -asad (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This source is used in the infobox. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is calling Jerusalem a region. -asad (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The unispal source on p 13 shows the Old City within East Jerusalem. To say "East Jerusalem" is giving a better description of where in Jerusalem it is located, it is therefor more informative for the reader. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really too sure of the details here, but I wonder whether WP:COMMONNAME might be applied here? Is it more commonly referred to as "East Jerusalem" or just "Jerusalem"? NickCT (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would apply. In the examples they provided, the names mean exactly the same between the two. Here, they mean something different. -asad (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the common name is "the Old City of Jerusalem" which would imply quite strongly that it is in Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Except when Jerusalem refers to a city in Israel and East Jerusalem refers to the occupied part of the city in PT that the Old City of Jerusalem happens to be in. That is not the same as Bob and Robert. Why be ambiguous when we can be certain here, as all of the sources we have provided state it is factually correct to list it in East Jerusalem. -asad (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There can be a sentence after "walled area[3] within the modern city of Jerusalem.", something like: "It is located in East Jerusalem - part of the Palestinian territories" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More like "It is located in East Jerusalem - part of the occupied Corpus Separatum administered by Israel". Chesdovi (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, on a personal note -- if I don't respond to a point you brought up, it is because you have rehashed it after I have already blown it out of the water. -asad (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you of the opinion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? How about West Jerusalem? Forget about capital. Is Israel's sovereinty recognised in WJ. I suppose you would say "no" to all these questions. Chesdovi (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

^^^^ -asad (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

If we can elevate this forward finally, the location should be changed to East Jerusalem per all the worldview sources provided and to give a more accurate location. As EJ denotes the area of Jerusalem under Israeli occupation. -asad (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What "worldview sources"? I have already shown that UNESCO, used elsewhere in this article, puts it in "Jerusalem". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And I have already shown that UNESCO defines Jerusalem as a region, not as a city. -asad (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You have not shown that, you've only asserted it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed you read it considering you were the one who provided the link. But I will go ahead an explain it. As you can see, in the link you provided, under the map of the world it categorizes the list by saying "Display by: Region", not city. When you proceed to find "Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)" the obvious conclusion one would reach is that is categorizing Jerusalem as a region, not a city. This is because it is listing Display by: Region not Display by: City. If you go on to click the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls link, you will find that in the info box it merely refers to it as the Jerusalem District. It said "district", not "city", not "town" not "municipality, and not even plainly "Jerusalem", no. Just "district". Now, furthermore, one can be absolutely certain that the name provided in that info box does not refer to the city of Jerusalem by simply going to the Old City of Acre entry on the link you provided and notice that the location listed in the info box does not say "Acre", does not say "City of Acre" does not say "Acre, Israel", does not say "Municipality of Acre", but in fact says "Western Galilee". That is what I was "asserting". And to put it plainly, The Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls is not recognized to be in any city by UNESCO. But there are plenty of worldview sources (which have already been provided) which show the Old City to be in East Jerusalem. -asad (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed read it. It's not very complicated. The regions that link talks about are in light blue, and Jerusalem is in the "Arab States" region, as noted in the infobox of this article. Other regions are e.g. "Africa" and "Europe and North America" (where Israel is, apparently).

I don't see your point about the "District of Jerusalem" thing. That's the general area where the site is, not the city. Just like you noted it's "Western Galilee" for Acre. By the way, "district" is the Israeli term. The PA calls them "governorates". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"That's the general area where the site is, not the city." You said it, not me. So back to square one of your point, how does UNESCO claim it is in the City of Jerusalem as your proposal would link to. -asad (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I said it, and you seem to think it has some kind of implication that proves your point. I still don't get it. We know the general area Jerusalem is in (the Israeli "district of Jerusalem", apparently) just like we know what general area Acre is in. That says nothing about which city they're in.

Look again at the original link I posted. It says the old city of Jerusalem is in "Jerusalem" (not "district of...") in the "Arab States" region. We are indeed back to square one because you WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is this, quite plainly. The link Jerusalem refers to the Israeli city. UNESCO does not imply that this landmark is in that Israeli city. Yes we all know historically that this was the Old city in Jerusalem. But, you must admit, the definition of Jerusalem has certainly changed over the past 100 years. UNESCO is simply referring to it as its classical name. So again, simply, my point is how are you going to link it to Jerusalem which is about the Israeli city, when it is not there? If you support doing that, it means you are implying the UNESCO source is saying it is in Israeli Jerusalem. Do you see my point? Why are you so opposed to it being listed as being in "East Jerusalem" to which, their is no debate. -asad (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

While I find your interpretation of UNESCO's intentions quite interesting, it is irrelevant to this discussion. They say it's in Jerusalem. Unless you have a source stating that UNESCO is talking about the "classical name" (whatever that means) rather than some other kind of "Jerusalem", of course. That they put it in the "District of Jerusalem" quite strongly implies they're talking about the same place as the Jerusalem article is. Notice they're both in the same district? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact still remains UNESCO never explicitly says it is in the same Jerusalem (the Israeli city) as the WP article describes it as. -asad (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They say it's in "Jerusalem". You're the one that's claiming there's a difference between "Jerusalem" (as used by UNESCO) and "Jerusalem" (as used by Wikipedia). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No really too involved in this discussion, so forgive an uninformed opinion, but I'm a great believer in search engine tests to solve these debates. A cursory review suggests that the Old City is more commonly referred to as being part of "Jerusalem" alone, rather than "East Jerusalem". I appreciate that there is an important distinction between the two, and I appreciate the point asad is trying to make; however, I think WP should reflect the wording found in a majority of RS, even if that wording is wrong or raises NPOV issues.... Anyways, just my two cents.... NickCT (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I don't have a problem with listing it as being in Jerusalem. But there should be something in the lead or the summary mentioning that it is under Israeli occupation. This is pretty vital. -asad (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you propose some language for us to consider. NickCT (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should say something like "Today, the Old City, along with the rest of East Jerusalem is currently under Israeli Occupation." I think that should be added to the end of the first paragraph. -asad (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Where would you put that? Here's a potential counter proposal - " a constituted the entire city of Jerusalem. It is today part of the Israeli-occupied territories. The Old City is home " ?

Also, being uninformed about this, can I ask whether the whole of the old city falls in East (or occupied) Jerusalem. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer my version (I think it should go at the end of the first paragraph). But I don't mind yours either, the only thing being I would add "It is today, along with the rest of East Jerusalem part of the Israeli-occupied territories. The reason being because if a reader clicks on the Israeli-Occupied territories link, they will see that East Jerusalem is distinctly listed as being a part of the occupied West Bank. And yes, the entirety of the the old city (the perimeter of the walls) is east of the 1949 armistice line. -asad (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead already includes information about the 1967 war. You can add your link there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The current status of it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. When the reader goes on to continue the article, they will see that what we are talking about happened in 1967. -asad (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So we are considering the following 2 potential rewordings;

a) "The Old City is home to several sites of key religious importance: the Temple Mount and its Western Wall for Jews, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for Christians, and the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque for Muslims. Today, the Old City, along with the rest of East Jerusalem is currently under Israeli Occupation. "

b) " a constituted the entire city of Jerusalem. It is today part of the Israeli-occupied territories. The Old City is home "

Does let's give people a short period to comment/give preferences/object. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No we're not. We know the lead already has some language about the 1948 and 1967 wars so we should be able to work with that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok NMMNG. So you want to consider the follow options too?

c) "During the Six Day War in 1967, which saw hand to hand fighting on the Temple Mount, the Old City transferred to Israeli control. Today, the Old City, along with the rest of East Jerusalem is currently under Israeli Occupation."

d) "During the Six Day War in 1967, which saw hand to hand fighting on the Temple Mount, the Old City transferred to Israeli control. It is today part of the Israeli-occupied territories."

And what does "No we're not" mean? NickCT (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a silly suggestion by NMMNG. Because then we would be talking about its current situation, and then we would jump back to 1980. -asad (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're opposed to C & D asad? I don't understand why? Why would we "jump back to 1980"? NickCT (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because if we went with C or D the following paragraph would talk about how in 1980, the site was proposed by Jordan. -asad (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Still not sure I understand. NickCT (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"During the Six Day War in 1967, which saw hand to hand fighting on the Temple Mount, the Old City transferred to Israeli control. Today, the Old City, along with the rest of East Jerusalem is currently under Israeli Occupation. <new paragraph> In 1980, Jordan proposed the Old City to be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List." Do you see how the sequence has changed? It is just jumbling up the lead. -asad (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

D looks fine to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep your comments in chronological order. Don't put them above an existing comment using the same indentation.

Anyway, if the "today" part bothers you, I'd be good with "...Israeli control, alongside the rest of the Israeli-occupied territories". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think it chronologically fits, because if you do that you are eliminating mentioning that it is still currently occupied, which is the main point that I think needs to be echoed. -asad (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

re "Do you see how the sequence has changed? It is just jumbling up the lead." - Ah. I see your point. But I don't agree. The sequence changes, but the subject doesn't. By that I mean that the "During the Six Day War in 1967...." sentence describes a struggle to control Jerusalem, followed by the proposed sentence which discusses who presently controls Jerusalem (i.e. same subject). The "In 1980, Jordan proposed the Old City" doesn't discuss control of Jerusalem. It's a separate subject. NickCT (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, So I propose this "...Israeli occupation, alongside the rest of the East Jerusalem and the West Bank." - asad (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alongside the rest of the Israeli-occupied territories makes more sense since there was more than EJ and WB occupied during that war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So more proposals.

e) "During the Six Day War in 1967, which saw hand to hand fighting on the Temple Mount, the Old City transferred to Israeli control. Today, the Old City, is under Israeli Occupation, alongside the rest of the East Jerusalem and the West Bank."

f) "During the Six Day War in 1967, which saw hand to hand fighting on the Temple Mount, the Old City transferred to Israeli control. Today, the Old City, is under Israeli Occupation, alongside the rest of the Israeli-occupied territories."

I prefer e. It's more explicit.

As a side note, I think we're getting close to consensus. Oh boy oh boy. NickCT (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should either be "alongside the rest of East Jerusalem" or "alongside the rest of the Israeli-occupied territories". EJ + WB doesn't make sense. Might as well make it EJ+WB+Golan+Gaza+Sinai. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"After the Six Day War in 1967, which saw hand to hand fighting on the Temple Mount, Israel occupied the Old City and East Jerusalem." How about just that? That way, when the reader clicks on occupied, they can read about the West Bank, Gaza, Golan, etc... -asad (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Though, I think "and" should be changed to "alongside" because Israel didn't occupy the Old City explicitly. -asad (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It should also be "during the Six Day War" not "after". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. So I guess that's it? -asad (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 DoneThough, I'm a little curious about "alongside". It doesn't strike me as very clear english. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Old City alongside East Jerusalem" implys that EJ is a separate entity from the old city which is factually incorrect, its a part if it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I agree SD. Asad should change this. If he doesn't show up soon, you could probably be bold and change it yourself. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought we agreed on alongside the rest of East Jerusalem? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is fine. -asad (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The text about the old city being part of EJ should be placed higher up in the lead, within the first or second sentence of the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So how do you propose it be inserted? -asad (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How many times do you think the lead should say "East Jerusalem"? I hope I won't be sorry I had a good faith discussion that resulted in an agreement with you guys, just to have you push more politicization into the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At risk of hell freezing over, I have to say that I agree w/ NMMNG. I don't think we need to further stress the point the city is technically "occupied". NickCT (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Map showing position and relation to the rest of Jerusalem(s)

There should be a map showing where and how big the Old City is compared to the rest of the City. (How's that for non-controversial?) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

16 July revert

The text at the UNESCO page says, "In line with relevant UN resolutions, East Jerusalem remains part of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the status of Jerusalem must be resolved in permanent status negotiations." It appears to distinguish between East Jerusalem and Jerusalem. Our article is called "Old City (Jerusalem)," not "Old City (East Jerusalem)," and UNESCO did not say, "it views East Jerusalem (including the Old City) to be occupied Palestinian Territory," which is what the reverted edit said.—Biosketch (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you not aware that the Old City is in East Jerusalem? Perhaps you should fact check a bit more before you remove well sourced information. -asad (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll look around some more and revert if that's the case. It wasn't immediately clear from the language UNESCO used; indeed, it sounds as though they're being deliberately diplomatic in choosing their words.—Biosketch (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that counts as WP:OR on your part Asad. It shouldn't be said unless they explicitly state the Old City as well, rather than just saying East Jerusalem. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're both right, I believe. Wikipedia's narrative voice does say that the Old City is in East Jerusalem in leading articles related to the issue; however, we should preserve the language used by UNESCO when citing them and not editorialize with parenthetic comments. I'll partial-revert per this discussion.—Biosketch (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Three of the four sentences in the press release are talking about the Old City of Jerusalem, the last sentence speaks about EJ being in occupied Palestinian Territory. Logic dictates that UNESCO's interest in the matter (which would be purely for the purpose of the Old City), than they are telling us that the Old City of Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian Territory. It seems the issue for you, Biosketch, is determining whether or not the Old City is East Jerusalem or not. When you find out that it is, consider this - the Old City of Jerusalem is in East Jerusalem > UNESCO regards East Jerusalem as being occupied Palestinian Territory > the UNESCO info box should reflect their belief. -08:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The truth is that UNESCO doesn't commit itself to what state the Old City is in. Asad112 (talk · contribs) wrote "Palestinian Territories" with a capital "T," which is a mistake I make myself sometimes. That implies that the Palestinian territories are on some level equivalent to other states. But our article is Palestinian territories with a lowercase "t," and that's also the language used by UNESCO in their notice to the media. So while UNESCO does say that East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories, and it's Wikipedia's position that the Old City is in East Jerusalem, we still can't mention under "State" where UNESCO considers the Old City to be. For now, I'll restore what was lower down on the page.—Biosketch (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

These positions of Wikipedia and what-not are irrelevant as per WP:SYNTH. (they are also not the positions of Wikipedia, but what is said in another article) We can't cobble stuff together from different places, it needs to be said by the source itself. Should we maybe take this to content dispute so that it can be handled in line with Wikipedia policy? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Capital street

the street from Jaffa Gate' to the Western Wall was called after 1967 by the name THE CAPITAL STREET. after Teddy Kollek was the mayor of jerusalem the name of the street was changt to David street. פארוק (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pharooq. In a 3000 year old town, many streets had changed their names.Eddau (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unesco's quote

Who cares what UNESCO said about EAST JERUSALEM - what is the relevance of the statement to the lead? How is it justified by WP:LEAD? This is a quote from 2011 in an article about the Old City! UNESCO is a cultural organization, not the supreme order of Earth to decide what to do with the Old City. Seems completely marginal to include in the lead. You'd expect the lead to explain something about the history, geography, and - yes, culturally - its designation as world heritage site... but the quote doesn't even say ANYTHING about the Old City itself... just East Jerusalem. That's also Original Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly concur with above stated opinion. I don't understand why we're using a template for a "world heritage site," designated by the controversial body of UNESCO, no less. That seems to be a narrowly defined parameter, considering that the Old City, with its 3,000 year-old history is so much more. Moreover, being that it is being defined by UNESCO's paradigm, all other views are tossed to the side. The United States and Canada have cut funding for UNESCO precisely because of the biased views harbored by that organization. I recommend doing away with the current information box template and substituting it with one associated with geography or antiquity. The Old City should absolutely not be defined by what a one-sided, prejudiced and controversial organization thinks it is.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

World Heritage listing is a major event that is sought by many countries including Israel for their sites and is held in high esteem by almost everyone. Your opinion of UNESCO is not relevant here. Zero^talk 00:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. Notable Western democracies such as the United States, Canada and Israel have all voiced concerns with UNESCO's opinions and policies and that is why a significant portion of their funding has been cut off. The template should change to reflect a more neutral tone. It's ridiculous to refer to it as an "Arab region" simply because a palpably biased body has designated it as such.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The USA and Canada also strive to have their sites listed as World Heritage sites. I believe the box is important and should stay. On the other hand, I frankly don't care if the box says "Region: Arab States" or not, so long as it doesn't say "Region: Israel" either. I even tried to remove it, but the attached footnote is fixed in the template and there is apparently no way to remove the footnote without editing the template. Maybe you can get the template folks to make the footnote automatically disappear when the region isn't specified. If I try to edit it, I'll stuff it up for sure. Zero^talk 04:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

UNESCO's statements regarding the Old city are notable, and can be in the lead. But the quote in question refers to East Jerusalem, not the Old CIty. That' not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Top of the Tower (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't know where the Old City is? Zero^talk 04:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It also on planet earth as the quote didn't specifically said anything about Old city inclusion of this quote is WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't know where the Old city is either? This is silly, we are allowed to turn our brains on when we edit. Zero^talk 10:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter apparently as the quote does mention old city--Shrike (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sean has provided us with a source that notes the Old City and we owe him gratitude for that. However, having such a quote in the Lead reflects only one side and is massively UNDUE. Accordingly, that sentence should therefore be moved. However, this is merely a minor point. My major objection is with the information box that defines the Old City by the narrow paradigm set by UNESCO, thus completely nullifying other notable views. Remember that UNESCO is the same body that comically classified Rachel’s Tomb as a mosque. Like the UNHRC, UNESCO’s extreme views are merely representative of one side of the dispute and as I noted earlier, the United States and Canada have cut or altered their funding for that body because of that. The Information box needs to be changed. Referring to the Old City as an "Arab region" simply because UNESCO defines it as such is beyond asinine and is simply not a reflection of reality.

On an unrelated matter, I asked the editor who took and uploaded this photo to provide an English translation for his caption[3] and he has done so. I'm changing the caption to reflect what he actually said.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the majority above. The boilerplate language about East Jerusalem is awkward in an article about the Old City and does little to enhance the narrative. It was probably shoved into the lede to pov-push, not to actually improve the quality of the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada)

Nonsense. The Old City sits on a very specific area of land that just so happens to be one of the main focal points of the longest-standing conflicts in modern history. The world's largest and most-well represented scientific and cultural organization issued this statement. Where in WP:UNDUE would removal apply? If anything, pandering to objections based on Israel's stance of rejection of UNESCO would be a violation of WP:UNDUE: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." -asad (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Assad. There seems to be some personal animosity towards UNESCO and its decisions from editors in this thread, which simply isn't relevant to the article. Dlv999 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Dlv999, in general it's considered unhelpful to speculate as to editors' motives in the context of a discussion relating to article content. If you have evidence that an editor's contributions are consistently in violation of WP:NPOV, there are established procedures available for addressing these concerns, e.g. WP:RfC/U and WP:AE. Otherwise, please endeavor to confine your comments at article Discussion pages to content and not editors. Thank you.

Regarding the UNESCO infobox, if a significant number of editors are concerned it may be in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, it's an understandable and valid criticism that needs to be resolved, in particular given UNESCO's recent history in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The designation of "Arab states" as the region to which the Old City belongs is absolutely a POV of UNESCO that isn't shared by other sources that discuss where the Old City is located. There are two ways to move forward from here. One is, as User:Zero0000 suggested, to contact the Template:Infobox World Heritage Site people and find a way to make the "Region" parameter optional. The other is to forgo the UNESCO infobox altogether and substitute it with something else. My preference is for the former, as the "Region" component appears to be the only element of the infobox that's contested a-la NPOV. Should there be compelling arguments against the UNESCO infobox altogether, on the other hand, I may shift my position to the second proposal.—Biosketch (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Edited to add: I've left a note at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site in relation to the "Region" field of the infobox, per our discussion.—Biosketch (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't jump on board with that. It is an UNESCO infobox, not a general one. And UNESCO does define it as being in the region of Arab States. I believe that UNESCO's "POV" of its region fits the UNESCO info box quite well. -asad (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's giving undue weight to a regional designation that as far as we know only UNESCO endorses. Since when is "Arab states" a region? What reliable sources do you know of that adopt UNESCO's terminology? "Middle East" would be fine, or "Asia" or "Levant," but we wouldn't be able to substitute UNESCO's own classification with one that's NPOV even if we all agreed to. That's why the most practical solution is to leave the "Region" field out.—Biosketch (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

At the very least an argument against use of the present infobox can be made on the basis of recentism. The Old City is the original Jerusalem from early antiquity. With its multimillenial history that vastly predates and outweighs the I-P conflict, it is so much more than a museum piece in the UNESCO collection. Surely another type of infobox can be found that will eliminate the undue weight and pov aspects of the present box. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hertz sums up the argument quite well. A different info box, one that doesn't pigeon hole the Old City into what UNESCO thinks it ought to be, can and should be used.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I will go ahead and agree on the basis that UNESCO doesn't even see the need to list the region on the sites main entry. Perhaps adding that it is in the "Jerusalem District" as indicated by the entry in the link I just provided. -asad (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I support JJGs moving of the UNESCO view out of the LEAD. Retention of that view in the Lead is massively UNDUE per WP:LEADOpportunidaddy (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerning this edit where I moved UNESCO’s views on ownership from the Lead to a different section, User:Asad112 seems to feel that I operated without consensus and left a message to that effect on my Talk page[4] By my count, eight editors approve of the edit. These include myself, Brewcrewer, Biosketch, Opportundaddy, Hertz1888, Shrike, Top of the Tower and an IP. Excluding the IP, it’s seven. Those opposed are asad, Zero and Dlv999. That makes it either eight to three in favor or seven to three if one excludes the IP. Therefore, there is a consensus to make the edit. If any editor disagrees with my edit, they are certainly free to revert, to further discuss the issue at Talk, open an Rfc or resolve through DR.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS is quite amusing. I brought up a valid point before, to which no one has responded to. Maybe we can start from there. -asad (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised at the direction this discussion is taking. The comment above, beginning with "I will go ahead and agree...", sure looked like a green light to me. Now it turns out not to pertain to consensus for making the changes talked about? Also please identify the point no one has responded to; I can't spot it. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Vatican City article, which is also a UNESCO World Heritage site, and I notice that not only is the UNESCO template not the first thing a reader sees, the UNESCO status is not even mentioned in the lead. In fact, it's way down in the culture section. Same for Bath, Albi and Luxembourg for example, although Albi does mention it in one sentence the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Top of the Tower is a (now indefinitely blocked) sock account so his comments are irrelevant to consensus. NMMNG, I'm interested what process led you to select your sample of 4 out of the 936 UNESCO world heritage sites? I'll admit I haven't surveyed the 936 myself, but just from a quick look at the sites on the List of World Heritage Sites in the Arab States suggests your sample of 4 may well not be a representative sample of the 900 odd heritage sites. Dlv999 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

First I looked at the Vatican article, then I went to the Europe list and searched for "city" and picked a few at random. I was looking for something comparable to the Old City, that is, a large still inhabited settlement (as opposed to ruins or a few buildings). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose moving the UNESCO opinion out of the Lead per WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. I will not act unilaterally and will wait for a majority approval.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there's already a consensus for said removal as I commented above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning it's a UNESCO World Heritage site in the lead, but a whole paragraph of he said she said seems like making a big deal over something that's just not that important. I'd prefer if there was one of those city templates above the UNESCO one as well, considering this place has a 3000+ year history and the UNESCO list is something pretty recent and again, not exactly the area's main feature. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We should make the same structure like any other article about world heritage sites--Shrike (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

People can't just invoke Wikipedia policy without explaining why. So far I have heard WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE invoked. As per for WP:LEAD, the second paragraph states, "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Clearly information about UNESCO unique classification of a city without a country deserves prominence in the lead as one of the more controversial issues surrounding the city in modern history. -asad (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? That's "one of the more controversial issues surrounding the city in modern history"? Surely you can find an RS describing it as such if that's the case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really want me to provide a RS saying that a core issue of the conflict is the claim to EJ and the Old City? I don't think that should be too hard. -asad (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I want you to provide an RS saying that "UNESCO['s] unique classification of a city without a country deserves prominence in the lead as one of the more controversial issues surrounding the city in modern history". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's my opinion, do you want a source that says Israel and Palestine both view Jerusalem as their capital, but UNESCO named no nation? -asad (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I wasn't talking about the lead part, but about UNESCO's decision being "one of the more controversial issues surrounding the city in modern history". If you have one of those, then we can put this discussion to rest. Otherwise, I still think a whole paragraph about this in the lead is UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a category

This article is included in the Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel. This is wrong because East Jerusalem is not recognized as a part of Israel and UNESCO has not designated it as a World Heritage Site of any country. That's why Template:World Heritage Sites in Israel and East Jerusalem is named in that way. It's also mentioned in this article that it's not recognized as a part of Israel. So this category should either be removed or renamed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed this now and added Category:World Heritage Sites in Asia. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

UNESCO is an anti-Semitic organization. How is its erroneous opinion relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.203.216.197 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What you think about UNESCO is irrelevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Status

A "new" editor keeps on changing "East Jerusalem is regarded by the international community as part of the occupied Palestinian territory." to "some in the international community" despite the UN source which states:

"Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and the surrounding West Bank hinterland contravenes international law. It is not recognized by the international community which considers East Jerusalem an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt),(see UN Security Council resolutions 252, 267, 471, 476 and 478)."

I will revert this missrepresentation, and report any further attempts to WP:ANV. Sepsis II (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this. The status of the Palestinian territories and how it looks like is clear. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Population of the old city

Some one insists on using the term (Muslim quarter, christian quarter....etc) instead of using Muslim,christian...etc when referring to population of the old city.

the source i stated clearly uses the terms Muslims,Christians...etc like page 43 and 45 of the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid almasri (talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Zaid almasri (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I believe the city is split into four areas, each with ethnic names, but the actual people living in each quarter are by no means necessarily of the ethnicity that the quarter is named. See Armenian Quarter for example, the lead states that there are 2200 people living there, but only 1000 are actually Armenian. Sepsis II (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You insist on dividing the population of the city by quarter and not by religion or ethnicity just because you don't like the results and we don't see any objection from you for other articles like the one about Jerusalem as a whole (old and new city) where the division is based on race because it suits you. So where the division by ethnicity or religion makes your people a minority you simply reject it and use the division by quarter, but where the division by ethnicity suits you and shows you as a majority you accept it with a smile.

my friend changing sentences will not change facts on the ground and the Jews in old Jerusalem are a very small minority compared to non Jews and that's the bottom line which is clearly mentioned in the reference that we both refereed to (check page 45,43)

after few hours if you don't provide a citation that shows that Jews are a majority in the old city i am going to change the article and mention that non jews are more than 90% of the population of the old city and my evidence is already in the footnote. Zaid almasri (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The source cited in the footnote clearly states in the table on page 22 that the population figures are per Quarter, rather than broken down according to ethnicity/religion. Including this information in this way fits with the whole article which speaks about the four quarters. If you want to also include properly sourced information on the ethnic/religious makeup of the whole population, there is no need to delete this information to do so. The figures on religion on the table on page 43 have a Muslim population of some 27,000 out of 37,000 which is about 72%, not 90%. Melcous (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

i have no problem if you want to mention the population of each quarter but you don't have the right to reject the division by ethnicity or religion just because it don't suit your political agenda. if you really want to mention the population by quarter ok fine mention it but dont remove the mention of the distribution of population by ethnicity or religion. and by the way i didnt say that 90% of the population are muslim , what i said is 90% arab and less than 10% jews and if you dont knw the difference then you shouldn't contribute to any article about the middle east. fact is fact 5.108.68.246 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

give one reason why i shouldn't mention the ethnic and religious distribution of the old city ?? i am waiting??? we both know the answer. Zaid almasri (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no political agenda. My only "agenda" is making sure the statistics given in the article accurately reflect the information in the cited source. The problem you have is that the source cited in note 4 does not give the number of "Arab" inhabitants of the Old City, nor does it mention the figure of 90%. It does give a break down of religious groups on p43, so if you want to include that information, accurately cited, go ahead. It also gives population figures for "Palestinian" and "Israeli" on p45 so again, if you want to include that information that would be fine too. But if you simply want to state that the population is "90% Arab" then you will need to find an alternate source that actually gives that information.Melcous (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not following this article history , i did mention the religious breakdown but other user deleted it for the same reason you did alter the article. any way i will edit the article as we both agree now and i will mention the religious breakdown and the figures for Palestinian vs Israeli.

And by the way the 90% figure i came out with using an invention called the calculator.and the word Palestinian and Arab are referring to the same people. Zaid almasri (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! A calculator, what's that? Seriously though, there is no need to be sarcastic and condescending. There was also no need to assume bad faith or a political agenda. I have followed the history and as far as I can see, the other users (including myself) have been trying to help you by using the correct terminology from the cited source and by cleaning up your grammar. Melcous (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to personal attacks, and thank you for cleaning my grammar while i was cleaning the article from the mess you and other created. anyway, since i am from the old city of Jerusalem i advice you to visit this ancient city and walk through its 4 quarters and understand the reality of the city . i know that Jews cherish the city but the facts on the ground are not in favor of them and they need to admit and accept that or there will never be peace between Palestinians and Jews and that's my personal agenda -state the realities on the ground to advance a realistic peaceful settlement of the conflict-.Zaid almasri (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved for now. While a convention for this sort of situation would probably be good, as far as I am aware, there is not one currently, which leaves the strengths of arguments presented. From which, I can not see a consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Old City (Jerusalem) → Old City of Jerusalem – as per WP:NATURAL. Other old cities that I have seen in Wikipedia are presented in this way. GregKaye 14:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak oppose: Actually, the Old City disambiguation page shows that there are currently three ways of doing this: 5 articles (including this one) use Old City + location in brackets, 2 use Old City + comma + location, and 2 use Old City + "of" location as requested. So if consistency is the issue, perhaps that is a wider discussion on all those articles, and this way seems to have preference. Further, I would argue WP:NATURAL suggests keeping the current name: the natural title is simply Old City, but as this is ambiguous, 2. applies, that is, the use of parentheses. Melcous (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with Melcous. In the context of Israel and Palestine the Old City is always called simply, "The Old City". Old Jaffa is called Old Jaffa, and when people are talking about Akko, they'll say Akko's old city or Old Akko to differentiate it from the one in Jerusalem. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Shevat 5775 20:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Leaving aside that that's not its name, the "Old City of Jerusalem" is ambiguous even on a grammatical level. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, Please check through references:
  • "old city" (Israel OR Jerusalem)
  • "old city" (Israel OR Jerusalem) news
  • "old city" (Israel OR Jerusalem) books
  • "old city" (Israel OR Jerusalem) scholar

GregKaye 00:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NATURAL and bam, we're done Red Slash 01:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURAL, which requires ambiguity to be resolved foremost with "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources".

Melcous said that the second approach (Parenthetical disambiguation) listed at the disambiguation article title policy should win out, but that point explicitly says that parenthetical disambiguation should only be used if "natural disambiguation is not possible". Here it is clearly possible, as the "Old City of Jerusalem" name is very commonly used by English-language reliable sources, among them the BBC, the New York Times, and the Times of India. UNESCO in labeling the area a World Heritage Site calls it the Old City of Jerusalem, and other UN documents (like this one) follow suit. "Old City of Jerusalem" seems to be the very common, primary way to refer to this Old City in print sources (far more common than the descriptive 'Jerusalem's Old City').

Perhaps this area of the city is just called the "Old City" by locals or Israelis or where the city in question is already very obvious, but we have to do what is clear and natural from an international perspective. Many (or most?) Britons refer to London's financial district as "the City", but the article is at City of London, as it's called internationally. Hertz mentioned ambiguity in the proposed title here on a grammatical level, but there really isn't any; as a proper noun, it's obvious that refers to this neighborhood (compare, again, to City of London where there is some potential ambiguity for the uninitiated). -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gates without walls? LOL

You moved over the gates, but the walls you left on a separate page? What's the logic, please? Arminden (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Saladin Reference

This article states that Arab Muslim recaptured Jerusalem. This is incorrect. Saladin was a Kurdish Muslim leader, and the Ayyubids were a Kurdish Muslim Dynasty. Most of Saladin's officers were also Kurds. Jerusalem was recaptured by the Kurdish Muslim Ayyubid Dynasty, not by an Arabic dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old City (Jerusalem). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511084353/http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/population.html to http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/population.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2017

The second paragraph of the history section needs a disambiguation for the northern Kingdom of Israel.--186.124.200.216 (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Typo in History

I don't really edit a lot and every page concerning Israelis or Arabs is locked so can someone change the word "allegefly"? Thanks and sorry, I don't do this often, I know heres probs a way to do it props. Cheers.

The way to do it is to mention it here and someone like me will fix it. Done! Zero^talk 11:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Old City (Jerusalem). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928095409/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/opt_prot_ipcc_Old_City_urban_fabric_geopo_implications_2009.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/opt_prot_ipcc_Old_City_urban_fabric_geopo_implications_2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709113708/http://www.armenian-patriarchate.org/page6.html to http://www.armenian-patriarchate.org/page6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical errors in introduction

Change "...and new Jewish neighborhood such Mishkenot Sha'ananim..." to "...and new Jewish neighborhoods such as Mishkenot Sha'ananim..." X737257 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done, X737257.VikingDrummer (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Neighborhood" has appropriately been changed to the plural "neighborhoods", but the sentence still lacks the word "as". "neighborhoods such as..." X737257 (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Done also. Thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)