Talk:Judaization of Jerusalem/2nd move request

2nd requested move

I know there's already an active move request to rename this Judaization of East Jerusalem, but given that this is a somewhat contentious, how about moving this to Integration of East Jerusalem into Israel? I strongly think that is the more factual and less politicised name for what this article discusses. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

To respond to Nableezy, I take a nuetral stance towards the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and I think Integration of East Jerusalem into Israel is the most nuetral name; it's not that I "don't like" the current title and want to change it to something else. I grant you that the scholarly sources do support the current title, but I think under the "Be precise when necessary" clause of WP:COMMONNAME a more descriptive title is neccesary. I also grant that this article, in its present form, covers the whole of Jerusalem; perhaps Integration of Jerusalem into Israel would be more appropriate. But it's not enough to simply claim that this article can only cover one particular viewpoint, and not the topic as a whole. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The dont like it was not at all directed at you, past users had objected in a way that took i dont like it to a new level. Sorry if you felt it was directed at you as that was certainly not my intent. The topic, though, is not the integrating Jerusalem into Israel, ie making it an Israeli city, which would mean simply annexation, but changing its ethnic makeup into a Jewish city, whereas it had been Jewish, Armenian, Arab Christian, Arab Muslim. The whole topic should absolutely be covered, and any sources that dispute the premise or explain it from an Israeli perspective should absolutely be included. But 'integration' is the wrong word here. Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, as I said before I do not take either stance in the conflict and am not Israeli (although I am Jewish and my user name is essentially a Hebrew translation of my English name), and I couldn't try to represent the Israeli opinion here. If "integration" is the wrong word here, then maybe something like Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem or, biting the bullet, Eviction of Palestinians from Jerusalem would be more appropriate. But my significant reservations with the current title stand.YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the first may possibly work, the second only is part of it (and would likely be met with much resistance). My problem with such a name though is that the current title is the name most commonly used to describe what this article covers. This current article would be a part of Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem. But the phrase itself is used by scholars, both Arab and Israeli, discussing the topic. For what the article covers, this is the name used the sources. But I could see one of those two suggestions working. Nableezy (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've ammended my proposal then to the former suggestion: Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem. I accept that most sources do however use variations on the current title, and I can understand your oposition to changing the article name; I do think though a more descriptive title would be more effective. As to the remit of the article, I think Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem and Judaization of Jerusalem are for the most part synonomous, certainly not worthy of two seperate articles, given that Israel's only significant demographic policies towards Jerusalem are in fact the construction of Jewish homes, alomgside the illegal destruction of Palestinian homes. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You want to strike and change the top line with the move suggestion or archive this and start a new section? Nableezy (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Struck out top line. I think archiving and restarting is probably a good idea though. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This should be fine, its only been me and you so far so not much chance of confusion. I struck out my !vote as well, will mull this over a bit. I do see your point on the descriptive title, but not sure that is enough to overcome what the scholars who discuss this call it. Nableezy (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nominator. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the scholarly texts that this article relies on use the term 'Judaization of Jerusalem'. That some do not like that name is no reason to ignore the most common English name for what this article describes. Also, this article does not have anything to do with the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, or integrating it into Israel. Nableezy (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Striking from old name suggestion for now, thinking on current proposal Nableezy (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)