Talk:Judaization of Jerusalem/Archive 1

replacing

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Point of view issues

I have just tagged the article as not maintaining a neutral point of view. The sources at present are all Arab Muslim sources, except for two Evangelical Christian sources (which appear to be from the same source). The article would be greatly improved by including Israeli and Jewish positions on Jerusalem. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It should either be deleted or merged into one or more other articles. It is a POV fork of a number of other articles. Most likely all the material already exists in other articles, and the main "theme" is (or can be) covered in Positions on Jerusalem. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should be kept, but renamed to Judaization of Jerusalem, since this phrasing gets about 360 google book hits, compared to 18 hits for the current title. Tiamut^talk 14:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tiamut's suggestion. Actually your sugesstion gave me more room to search and add material to the article. Thanks for the valuable suggestion. Yamanam (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Note that "Judaization" can also be spelled "Judaisation" (British style). That would add another 72 google book hits attesting to the notability of this subject. I'll try to add some more info too. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem finds about 279,000 (164 on the news page). And 708 books. Not sure if it's the exact same topic but it could be useful for sources. Wodge (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Useful sources

Am adding this section to amass scholarly sources useful to the article's development. Please feel free to add your own:

• The Middle East peace process: vision versus reality: Notes that the Judaization of Jerusalem continued throughout the "peace process" (book published in 2002). Lists the construction of "Jewish-only" settlements and the confiscation of and restrictions on Palestinian land use as fundamental to this process. Tiamut^talk 15:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yearbook of the United Nations 1998: Notes protests from Arab governments to the Judaization of Jerusalem in a UN security council debate]

• Jerusalem: Discussion of the Judaization of Jerusalem by Henry Cattan. Tiamut^talk 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• King Faisal and the Modernization of Saudi Arabia: Notes that the issues surrounding the Judaization of Jerusalem are a cause of concern to the wider Muslim world. Tiamut^talk 15:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Though it does not discuss them in detail, this book mentions that the process of Judaizing Jerusalem includes means such as the revocation of residency rights, absentee property laws, and discriminatory taxation policies. Tiamut^talk 16:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• American Jewish history: Notes that "America censured Israel in 1968 for its policy of Judaizing Jerusalem: moving Jews into the former Jewish section of the Old City, building new housing projects around the Holy City, and permitting - even encouraging - Christian Arabs to migrate from Israel." Tiamut^talk 16:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Arab delegate statement

I have removed this, after attributing and quoting it:

An Arab delegate at the United Nations in 1970 said, "Israeli forces attempted to liquidate the property of around 70,000 Arabs in Jerusalem, and to Judaise the city completely by unifying the two sectors of Jerusalem. The main objective of this measure is to impose the Israeli laws on Arabs or as Israelis explain it is 'to organise the transference of some citizens to Israeli local rule."

I don't think this should be reintroduced as it was previously and it would be preferable if we have a secondary source. In any case, it certainly should not be under the sub-heading "Liquidation of Arabs Property", listed as a "Method". I think the sub-headings need some serious work here. Any takers? Tiamut^talk 00:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the following

Settlements

By 2007 the West Bank Jewish settler population had reached 282,000. In East Jerusalem it rose to 200,000, massively Judaising the city and precluding it as a Palestinian capital. Today the West Bank is a jigsaw of settlements.

Har Homa

Har Homa is destined to give the Jews a strategic fortress as part of the process of "Judaising" Jerusalem before the final status talks. It lays siege to the Christian Palestinian communities of Beit Sahour and Bethlehem. It eliminates their land reserves, isolates them from Jerusalem and cuts them off from the rest of the West Bank to the north. It threatens the very existence of these ancient Christian communities.

I think we should find better sources for this information before reintroducing it. Evangelicals Now, "The Battle for Jerusalem" is hardly a WP:RS, though the information is not far off the mark. Tiamut^talk 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed two refs: for inclusion later?

• Al Jazeera article in Arabic:
• Tripartite statement of Egypt, Jordan and Palestinians against Judaization of Jerusalem: There is an interesting section here that should be included:

  In a statement read by Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Musa upon the closing of the summit, the three leaders “stressed their total rejection of the scheme to Judaise Jerusalem and demanded the Israeli government scrap the project immediately.” However, in reply to the statement, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's spokesman David Bar-Illan told the AFP news agency that “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and we will not agree to freeze its development while awaiting accords [with the Palestinians].” Mr. Bar-Illan said the Jerusalem plan was of a “municipal nature, without any political implications” and said the allegation Israel was trying to Judaise the city could be construed as anti-Jewish. He also criticised the “threats to use force made each time there is a difference” between Israel and the Palestinians.

  Tiamut^talk 16:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rearanging the artilce and other additions

I have rearanged the overview section, I made it this way to make easier for us to know where to fit new additions. In addition, I have made some additions about Judaising the city from those two articles: Home Demolitions in East Jerusalem, Questions that Should be Frequently Asked and MIDEAST: Israel Moves to Judaise East Jerusalem. Yamanam (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. While you are right that the article needs reorganization, I am not sure, the way you have done it is the most ideal. Would you mind self-reverting and discussing an outline here? I think we need to have a section on "Background" which discusses briefly the switch from Ottoman to British to Jordanian to Israeli control, and the population today. We also need a section on "Terminology" which defines "Judaization", "Judaization of Jerusalem" and its variants, "Judaizing", "Judaise", etc. It should also define "Greater Jerusalem", "Jerusalem", "East Jerusalem", "West Jerusalem" etc. Then a section on the "Means and effects". The can be broken down into those identified by the scholars cited: for example, "Settlements", "House demolitions", "Residency rights", etc. (we can work to flesh this out more together). "Demographic debate" can also be a sub-section of this. Then "Support for Judaization efforts", "Criticism of Judaization efforts" and maybe a new sub-section on "Criticism of the use of the word 'Judaization'" (or something like that) to further explore opinions of those like A.M. Rosenthal (now linked only in external links), Dan Diker and Justus Weiner on that particular issue. Although, on second though, that's maybe best discussed in the section on "Terminology".

Anyway, I hope you'll consider self-reverting so that we can get something together here first. Cheers, Tiamut^talk 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I see you have already moved on to adding other things. In that case, scratch what I just said. I will try to reorganize along the lines I have proposed above (if that's okay with you), taking into consideration what you are adding. So nevermind self-reverting. Do you mind if I start doing some of what I have outlined above? Tiamut^talk 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, please go ahead, I am sorry I didn't note your post here, if I did I would have reverted my edits before adding new ones. Any suggestion that I can do while you re-aragne the article. Thanks! Yamanam (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I agree on the new arangement you've suggested here. Yamanam (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut You have done a great job and I am grateful you are applying your skills to the article. Yamanam (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Yamanam. I am grateful to you for starting it. I would never have thought of it, but once I saw it being put up for deletion, I realized what an important topic it is, and hhow it is not adequately covered in other articles related to the subject of Jerusalem. Thank you for opening my eyes. Tiamut^talk 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

May be of interest

Jonathan Cook writes, in the national, about settlers using forged title deeds to claim land in East Jerusalem (here).

I don't know how far off this is from the topic, buy maybe somebody might like to include it somewhere?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 26.03.2009 12:43

I beleive this is important, it might be included under a section that might discusses the dispute over certain properties in East Jerusalem, here is an article at Haaretz that discusses the ownership of disputed land and houses in E. Jerusalem. I think both, along with some other sources might make a good section. Thanks Yamanam (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to caution that for the time being, we restrict sources to those using the words "Judaization", "Judaise", etc., If a scholarly source has identified a particular action or event in that context, we may be able to use media reports for extra detail. But we should not include mention of items in this article that have never been characterized as Judaisation explicitly by secondary sources. Are you following me? Tiamut^talk 13:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The only way for this article to expand currently is by focusing on the key words: Judaise, Judaising, etc. Other than that it would be in violation with OR. I think this strikes off my last suggestion. Yamanam (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article that connects what's happening in Silwan to the Judaization of Jerusalem (Meir Margalit, former city councillor now with ICAHD, describes it that way). Tiamut^talk 16:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Khalil Tafakji from the GIS department of the Arab Studies Society of Jerusalem characterizes the objective of the Jerusalem 2000 plan as the Judaization of Jerusalem, "to change the demographic composition of the city to favor the Jewish-Israeli population. The plan is quite clear that the planning objectives of municipal policy and practice are to maintain a Palestinian population that is no more than 30 percent of the city's total population. Towards this goal, there are two kinds of policies and practices, those that aim to increase the city's Jewish population, and those that aim to decrease the city's Palestinian population." Tactics to increase the Jewish population include: settlement construction and expansion, the development of settler infrastructure (such as Jerusalem Light Rail), and "support at all levels - from the Jerusalem municipality, to the Israeli government, to Zionist para-state organizations like the Jewish National Fund - for settler groups like Elad and Ateret Kohanim which actively work to take over Palestinian homes and real estate within the city to establish settler communities in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods. This is clearest in the old city, but takes place across the eastern part of the city. For instance, the municipality allocated a $13 million budget for an eight-year project to establish a 'national park' in the al-Bustan Valley of Silwan, a Palestinian area, with a large proportion of the funds for the project going to the Elad settler organization." Tactics to decrease the Palestinian population include: house demolitions (such as those in Silwan). There is other useful information in this article. While it is published at Znet, which is usually not considered an WP:RS, it is an interview with a geographer and resident of Jerusalem who works with an organization mapping developments in Jerusalem - i.e. he's an expert. So I think the source passes our RS standards. Tiamut^talk 10:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've checked all of your sources for your thesis.

• No.6 Robert Blobaum, De-Judaisation Antisemitism and its opponents in modern Poland, p.237 and elsewhere in the book, it refers to Polish attempts to boycotts Jews etc. Irrelevant.
• No.7 No.7 Ilona N. Rashkow, ‘Hebrew Bible Translation and the Feaqr of Judaization’ in Sixteenth Century Journal, XXI, No.2, 1990. The word is used to describe Protestant resistance to Hebraic literalism in Tanakh translations. Irrelevant
• No.8 Robert S. Wistrich, Demonizing the Other: Antisemitism, Racism and Xenophobia (Studies in Antisemitism), Routledge 1999 p.138 is a gloss on Karl Marx, '“Judaization” meant to him that the trends attributed to Jews.' On page 80 he uses it positively, of Christians converting to Judaism in antiquity. Irrelevant
• Note 9. Joseph Klein, Excusing Palestinian terrorists, Frontpage Magazine March 05, 2008. Trashy source, not reliable for anything really. Just the usual smear attack on the UN's John Dugard. Smear tabloid junk
• Note 10.Independent Media Review Analysis (IMRA) Michael Widlanski, Palestinians Rev-Up Anti-Semitism and 'Resistance’ in Anti-Judaization’ Drive. Smear Tabloid junk

Note see 10 the author charges that the Palestinians, in resisting a loss of this foothold in Jerusalem are thereby engaged in an 'Anti-Judaisation' drive!!!!!!! I.e. he finds something culpably anti-semitic in East Jerusalemite Palestinians resisting Judaisation!!!! Thanks pal. That just about sews up the case! Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Forgot to add

• Note 11. Richard S. Levy,Antisemitism. This just refers us to Henri Gougenot des Mousseaux's racist polemic of 1869, le Juif, le judaïsme, et la judaïsation des peoples chrétiens.

Comment' All but two sources, the ones that are from polemical tabloids, refer to historic usage or use the term to interpret historical facts, from the 16th century (one instance); Poland in the 1930s (I instance); Karl Marx's analysis of 'The Jewish Question' in the mid-eighteenth century; and one French anti-Semitic polemic from 1869, which uses the word 'judaisation' much as it uses the word 'Jew' and 'Judaism', neither of the latter two terms bearing opprobrium because Henri Gougenot happened to use them. No instance comes from English usage. As I wrote on the deletion page, 'judaise'has a very long complex history, and can have negative or positive meanings, and is a borrowing into Western languages calqued from Hebrew. The abstract noun 'Judaization' is rare, and has no negative meaning according to the O.E.D. Sources suggest indeed that it has attained some vogue in recent usage precisely because of the transformation of Jerusalem under recent governments. It was used, apparently, by Ehud Olmert in 1995. Lastly, the sources re WW2 deal with Poland and Germany. I would like to see someone provide me with the precise language in, at least German, since it has at least two distinct words for 'Judaization'. It would be appreciated lastly if someone could provide the words used in Hebrew language newspapers that correspond to 'Judaize'/'Judaization' (of Jerusalem).Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the anti-Semitic connotations of "Judaization"

I just reverted an edit by User:Malcolm Schosha here. While these sources discuss the term "Judaization", they do not discuss the "Judaization of Jerusalem". As such, they are better suited to the article on Judaization. They certainly do not belong in this article as the first sentence of the introduction. If there are sources which describe the use of the term "Judaization" as "anti-Semitic" in the context of a discussion of the government policy or strategy to Judaize Jerusalem, I have no objection to creating a section in this article to discuss that position and then adding a sentence to the introduction that summarizes that body of literature. The way this was added here, to the introduction, is both WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Tiamut^talk 11:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The historical implications of the term "Judaization" need to be presented in the lead, because that term frames [1] the entire content of the article. It is not acceptable to use the term "Judaization of Jerusalem" without beginning with the implications of the key word in that term, and the historical (and current) implications that are carried with it. [2][3] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So let me see if I got this straight... Since some people think the term Judaization is Antisemitic, the article on the Judaization of Jerusalem has to start with that opinion?

No. This is not only, as Tiamut has pointed out, the wrong article, it is also a massive WP:UNDUE and Poisoning the well. You've got beef with the use of Judaization, then take it there, don't battle it out here.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.03.2009 12:27

1. No, not "some people", but WP:reliable sources say the term "Judaization" has a history of antisemitic use.
2. Yes, the article does need to start with an explanation of the key term used. Placing a discussion in proper context is a fundamental of good editing.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, which one of the sources you cited says that "Judaization" when used to refer to the government strategy/policy/process as implemented in Jerusalem, is anti-Semitic? As far as I can see, not one.

The sources you have presented discuss "Judaization" and its use in other historical contexts. As such, they are more appropriate to the article on Judaization itself.

As I said above, if you have sources that suggest that using Judaization to describe the Israeli government's policies in Jerusalem is anti-Semitic, we can create a sub-section in this article which discusses that position. Then, we could incorporate a line in the introduction reflecting that position. Your addition, as I said previously, violates WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. It also pays no mind at all to WP:LEAD, since it places the opinions of a few scholars on a separate but related subject which is not discussed in this article as the first sentence. A prime example of "framing the debate". Tiamut^talk 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, can you point me to the policy or guideline on which you base your second claim?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 27.03.2009 13:28

The key word, "Judaization" needs explanation. Explanations are needed in articles when there is a key word with complex implications. For example, when I created this article, I intended to make it an article on the concept of the Stoic sage, but it quickly became clear that it needed to be placed in a larger context of the concept of the sage in Greek philosophy. The presentation of Stoic Sage needed to be put into the larger context of the sage in Greek philosophy to understand it properly because the word "sage" is very complex in its implications.

I would have rathered that this article had a title that is less highly charged, and less highly weighted to one side. Something like "Israeli Government Policy and Changing Jerusalem Demographics" would need no explanation, such as I added to the lead. The title would be framing the article a more fair and neutral context. As the article is, with the title it has, an explanation is needed.

I am not saying my change to the lead needs to stay exactly like I wrote it (WP editing does not work that way), but something like it needs to be there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your summary of what varying mostly irrelevant sources say amounts to WP:OR. Those sources do not make the term, in the header phrasing, 'controversial'. A Jewish person can say 'Jew' and be neutral, as can a goy. The same word in the mouth of an anti-Semite carries a hostile tone. Words are defined by usage, and do not have intrinsic properties. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why the population is the way it is

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763136.html says "Some 313,000 Jews have left Jerusalem over the last 25 years, 105,000 more than those who moved to the capital during the same period." The Arabs have more children, and the Jews are apparently leaving faster than they are entering. I believe that is relevant, since the article mentions that the percentage of Arabs to Jews in Jerusalem has gone up. It is because of those two factors. Dream Focus 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to new name

The present name of this article is not NPOV, and the name should be changed, per WP guidelines for descriptive names. I suggest that the article be named, instead, "Israeli Government Policy and Changing Jerusalem Demographics". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First explain to us why in contemporary Hebrew, the verb corresponding to English 'to judaize' and the noun corresponding to 'Judaization' are not NPOV (I know they have distinct meanings).Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And explain why the English word is not NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew? This is the English language Wikipedia.

As for why it is non-POV, I have explained that in a series of edits in this thread, above. As per Wikipedia policy on descriptive names it is clear that a move is necessary. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

True by when you come across an article like M. Artziely's, ‘The Judaization offensive’. Haaretz, November 30, 1984, the Hebrew text is translated in sources precisely as I give it, and no one finds the word offensive. Israeli scholars don't, Haaretz doesn't. Ehud Olmert uses it. No one except you. And since you have convinced no one, I suggest you work harder to prove your case, since a change of title, move 3, depends on the success of move 2 (query the word), after move 1 (call for deletion of the article. I have already edited in evidence that Senator Ribicoff found it perfectly okay to speak of de-Judaization in Russia (using the English word translating the German Entjudung beloved of Nazis, I might add), as Meron Benvenisti and hundreds of other scholars or writers speak of Judaization in Jerusalem. The policy is not appropriate. The phrasing has been around for 40 years, and no one seems to have objected much, until this thread.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani wrote: "no one finds the word offensive".

How do you figure that? I gave five WP:reliable sources above that indicate it is quite offensive. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And I answered you. The sources were either irrelevant, or from activist tabloids that do not conform to WP:RS. See the Deletion page.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a section on actual development, and changes enacted.

I.e.1967-1968 'Demolition of the Magharib or Moroccan Quarter to clear a plaza in front of the Western Wall. In April 1968, Ministry of Finance published an expropriation order that extended the traditional Jewish Quarter to more than twice its size. Approximately 700 buildings were expropriated, of which only 105 had been owned by Jews before 1948. More than one-quarter of the Palestinian buildings were endowed as waqf, both public and private. The expropriated area was subsumed under the name Jewish Quarter even though it included the former Maghrabi quarter and many other smaller and famous quarters, such as the Harat Abu Sa’ud, redolent with Palestinian and Arab history.’ Michael Dumper, The Politics of Sacred Space: The Old City of Jerusalem in the Middle East Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002 p.43 Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Harat Abu Sa’ud doesn't link. Work there for our friend Al-Ameer son,if administrative duties leave him the time, with input from Huldra and Tiamut, esp. given its deep Palestinian and Arab historical associations. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Defining Judaization

Might I suggest to both Malcom Schosha and Nishidani that we keep definitions of Judaization which are not directly related to Judaization in Jerusalem out of this article altogether? Nish, while your sources are very interesting and far more relevant to the context of this article in that they discuss the use of the term in Israel, I think its better to keep alternate definitions and their associated connotations separate from this article. This article should define and focus only on Judaization in Jerusalem. Anything dealing with Judaization in general can be covered in detail in Judaization itself, which is sorely lacking in references and information and which I was hoping to epxand myself as well in the coming days. What do you think? Tiamut^talk 21:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. M blob of material could easily be shifted there by anyone. But I think Malcolm should read it here first, since he persists in the idea that 'Judaization' is an antisemitic word. It isn't, and it has several uses, in English and in Hebrew. Once he lets this weird obsession rest, by all means relocate it. I shouldn't by my own rules even be editing wiki, and keep hanging round like a bad smell. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration over Malcolm's refusal to conceded the mutli-faceted (and wholly inoffensive) uses of Judaization. And I found the information very interesting and arguably relevant. But I think it's best if we leave the immense literature of the different meanings of Judaization throughout history in various disciplines to a discussion on that page. So I will move some of what you added here. I think Malcolm has seen it by now (he has deleted it after all, so he should have read it). And I hope that all other disputes over the meaning of Judaization in contexts other than this one (i.e. referring to the government strategy/policy as it regards Jerusalem) will be talked out over there, not here. Cool? Thanks for your understanding and for taking a break from your self-imposed retirement to pitch in. ;) Tiamut^talk 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hebrew and Arabic words corresponding to the Englilsh should be added, I think. It is a standard phrase in both languages.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that in Arabic it's referred to as tahweed il-quds. In Hebrew, the Judaization of the Galilee is yehud ha-galil. My Hebrew is practically non-existent, but I assume its yehud ha-yerushalaim. I get my news in Arabic, so its best to check with someone who knows. If no one else adds it, I will tomorrow. My new computer doesn't have Arabic font on the keyboard so it needs a little time. Tiamut^talk 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Defining Judaization: Means and effects in Jerusalem

I have tagged this section of the article for NPOV because, although there are multiple sources, there is only one side of the argument presented; thereby violating the basic principle of WP:NPOV. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please specify which perspectives, represented in reliable sources are missing from this section. A list of sources you would like to see included would help us to move forward to address your concerns. Barring identification of the sources/persepctives missing, the tag should be removed. Please note, it is not enough for you to say X perspective should be represented, without providing at least one reliable source that expresses that opinion. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I never managed to become very fluent in wiki-speak, but I assume that you are just asking for clarification of my previous statement on the section called "Defining Judaization: Means and effects in Jerusalem". According to WP:NPOV the full range of opinions from reliable sources should be included, as explained here:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Unless you contend that sources such as Justus Weiner and Dan Diker are WP:fringe sources, their views need to be included in this section. As it is the section, and article in general, includes the full range of views from A to B. If no one else makes the necessary additions I will do that myself, but my time available for WP editing is limited because of real life obligations (particularly right now), so it may be a while before I can get to it.

By the way, if it is your position that sources such as Justus Weiner and Dan Diker are fringe sources, we can argue that point by moving this discussion to the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Justus Weiner and Dan Diker represent a minority viewpoint on this subject, and arguably a fringe viewpoint. Regardless, I don't see how this question is relevant to your objection about NPOV. Both Dan Diker and Justus Weiner are given practically an entire section (i.e. Demographic debate") in which their views are presented. I have made that section a sub-section of the "Defining Judaization: Means and effects in Jerusalem" section, whereas previously it was a standalone section. Your objection to the lack of representation of their views in this section seems strange since they have a whole sub-section already and now it is a sub-section in the section you said they were not represented in. So I hope that alleviates your concerns. Or did I misunderstand? Tiamut^talk 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Replacing Arabic place names with Hebrew names

This section is about the actual name not what language its in. Wodge (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All the -- so called -- source does is report what the Jordain prince said, and what a newspaper (cited indirectly) said. Nevo does not say it is true, and there is no further citation given for the newspaper. The section is nonsense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't delete stuff just because you think its rubbish. Wodge (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because the source does not support the content. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to WP: reliable sources, particularly concerning news organizations, which says:

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

You will see that there are two problems:

1. An opinion piece is used for a statement of fact, which WP does not allow.
2. For opinion pieces it is required that the author, whose opinion it is, must be named. But this material does not attribute the opinion to its author.

Because the content attributes fact to a an opinion piece from a news source, and because it does not cite the author of the opinion piece, the entire content of this section amounts to crap. It has to go. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

After 1948, the Arabic nomenclature of Western Jerusalem was Hebraized. The former three Arab neighbourhoods of Talbiya, Qatamon and Baq’ah were respectively renamed in Hebrew Komemiyyut]], Gonen and Ge’ulim.<ref>Anton Shammas, ‘Mixed as in Pidgin: The Vanishing Arabic of a “Bilingual” City,’ in Daniel Monterescu, Dan Rabinowitz (eds.) ''Mixed towns, trapped communities: : historical narratives, spatial dynamics, gender relations and cultural encounters in Palestinian-Israeli towns'', Ashgate Publishing, 2007 ch.14, pp303-312 p.303</ref>. The official renamings never quite caught on, however. Katamon is only used in municipal publications.

So the renaming technique (as more broadly throughout Israel (see Meron Benvenisti 2002 for a complete study) was also applied after 1948 to the Jerusalem Arab areas captured by Israel. There doesn't seem to be a wiki article on the Baq'ah = Ge'ulim suburb, where the train station is. Worth adding perhaps as an antecedent. Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusation/view

Michael's objection, given the huge amount of evidence in scholarly reports, UN publications, Israeli newspapers and books that explicitly speak of the 'Judaization of Jerusalem', is odd. No one is troubled by the fact that since the 1950s, as everywhere attested in standard Israeli textbooks and histories, the government determined on a policy of the 'Judaization of the Galilee'. I won't cite the books, anyone can google this. The evidence is massive, known and not contested. It was policy. As Ben-Gurion quipped in travelling through the area at the time.'Hey, I'm not supposed to be travelling in Syria', seeing that its Arab character was still strong. And planning maps outlined how to introduce settlements there to break up any Palestinian continuity of habitation. This was called ' the 'Judaization of the Galilee' strategy. Michael comes hotly at the heels of this article, and takes exception to a phrase which is used widely to refer to the same agenda in Jerusalem. He has no evidence for his contentions, but suddenly, when a policy that has been applied consistently since 1948 to the Negev, the Galilee and Israel itself (Haifa's street names and districts all changed), is applied to Jerusalem, it becomes 'anti-semitic' stormtropper insinuation. He insists it is an 'accusation'. That has a polemical edge to it. There is intrinsic element of 'accusation' in registering a series of facts that in technical literature, academic books and newspapers is called by a certain phrase. So I have replaced his 'accusation' with 'view(point)', though I really don't think this necessary. It is not clear whether he contests the reality of the revocation of residency rights, absentee property laws, and discriminatory taxation policies, denial of building permits, expropriation of land with Palestinian title, degradation of services, and a thousand other practices used to control the demographics, and living space of the city, or whether he says that all of this cannot be termed 'Judaization', that it's something else, despite the fact that Ehudf Olmert, when Mayor in 1995, called it the 'Judaization of Jerusalem'. So far we have an attack on the title, and one word, after a deletion campaign. I renew my request to him to read the documentation, that which denies this, and help us edit the page with that perspective. Bickering like this is pointless. Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can live with the compromise. As for the rest of your remarks, it is irrelevant what either of us think about the all these accusations, because the article must be built on sources that are WP:reliable and WP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. Its built on reliable sources you can verify.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The refs I checked seem ok, although the conclusions drawn from them was, in one case, doubtful. We can return to that soon. The biggest problem with the sourcing is its selectively selecting those who support the claims Israel is practicing demographic engineering of the Jerusalem population. We will get back to that also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from using reliable sources to contest the viewpoints of the numerous scholars who describe the process as 'Judaization'. Find them read them, edit them in. No one owns this page. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

content forking?

I've never of this term/theory outside of the general P/Ier propaganda campaigns. Could this constitute OR? I can't help but point out the rather bigotry the title denotes. Might as well have an article called "Islamization of Jerusalem" or "Christianzation of Jerusalem." Plenty of fringy references to support those theories....Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We could merge relevant, non-cherry picked sources into a different article and dump this one. Renaming is a must as this is far from a generally accepted historical fact by experts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We have already been through an AfD and the article survived. If you want to propose a rename, you are free to do so, but you have to gain consensus for the change. "Judaization of Jerusalem" is a well-known phrase referring to the Israeli government strategy/policy of maximizing the Jewish presence and minimizing the non-Jewish presence in Jerusalem. It's notability and use is established by the scholarly sources cited in the article and there are many more references that have yet to be added. Tiamut^talk 14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Surviving" an AfD (no consensus) does not mean to article should not be merged. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it means that there was no consensus to merge. pedrito - talk - 22.04.2009 15:16

No consensus is a common result in POV articles that revolve around Israel/Palestine concerns. It's almost always conditioned through roadblocking and never-ending rhetoric that makes it extremely difficult for an admin to make an objective opinion without pissing off 20 collectively-minded users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

After full reading the article I can confidently say this POS is nothing less than a joke. Here, take a look at the lead:

"[title], refers to the view that Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem to correspond with a vision of a united and fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.[1]."

Wtf? Such a hostile, POV, and far from historically corroborated and/or unpopular illusion should not exist on wikipedia. It's referenced propaganda at best, and that's being generous. And it's hard not to notice the history and identify the most contributing editors carry a less-than-objective view of Israel and Jews. I wouldn't even endorse a merge. Truly pathetic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please tone it down. You are not going to gain consensus for any changes by insulting the people who have working on this article. Either make a proposal to address your concerns, edit the article to improve ot, or, if you strongly feel it should not exist at all, simply back away for now and consider reopening an AfD at a later date. Tiamut^talk 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikifan's analysis is pretty restrained. As I have previously pointed out, the name of the article is not neutral, but rather sounds like a headline from Der Stürmer. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty understanding simple instructions Malcolm? It seems so, because you have twice been blocked now for accusing 90% of the editors who contribute to I-P articles with a "pro-Palestinian POV" as anti-Semites, and still, you continue making allusions to anti-Semitism. Read Judaization. If it's a pejorative term, its not mentioned in that article. If you have reliable sources indicating this to be case, please take it to that page and add them. If you don't, I'd ask you stop expressing your unsourced opinion that using the term "Judaization" is somehow anti-Semitic. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut wrote "Do you have difficulty understanding simple instructions Malcolm?"

The answer is that I do not follow instructions, I do what I think is the right thing to do, ie ethical. Just following instructions was the excuse of Nazis. I can live comfortably with getting sent int wiki-exile, if that should follow from what I consider doing the right thing. I do not edit WP at the price of acting as some administrator's flunky.

As for the antisemitic connotations of the article name, I have already discussed that above[4], so my saying it sounds like a headline from Der Stürmer is nothing new. In other words I think the name of the article violates WP:Naming conventions. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, I've this note on Sandstein's talk page. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what else to do about your attitude. These continual accusations of anti-Semitism with no effort towards providing reliable sources that can be used in the article is toxic and tiresome. If you want to a martyr to your cause, I can't stop you. I'm done here. Tiamut^talk 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not a surprise. However, in this case I have been talking about content. But maybe Sandstein will give you what you want. That would not surprise me either. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, we have fourteen (these could easily be multiplied) academic sources, many written by ranking Israeli scholars, on the 'Judaization of Jerusalem'. I even went to the trouble to give you the history, based on a translation of a term in the Book of Esther, for the word 'judaization'. You evidently have not read Der Stürmer, one of whose functions was to write catchy anti-semitic headlines that then circulated as slogans in the antisemitic campaigns of those times ('Die Juden sind unser Unglueck' etc.). This article's header reflects usage, perfectly normal among Israeli scholars, it does not promote usage, and your confusion of 'Judaization as a pejorative with anti-Semitism reflects a lack of knowledge of Hebrew and English usage on a par with your lack of knowledge of the history of anti-Semitism. Rather therefore than harp, help improve the page.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article violates WP:Naming conventions. The name is not neutral. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You've repeated that for months now. The point of a talk page is to resolve problems, not harp on personal beliefs. I could, at the drop of a hat, write an entire section, with full scholarly annotations, here on the Judaisation of Eretz Yisrael as an halakhic commandment, according to a large number of West Bank rabbis (Yisrael Ariel, to name but one). I don't. You don't appear to know what restraint is. Repeating the mantra about der Stuermer, or your personal moral, rather than ethical, reserves about the English calque'Judaisation' on an impeccable Hebrew term, is not just bad taste, it is, worse, a declaration of ignorance.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, please review WP:NPA. What you think of my supposed "ignorance" is irrelevant to this discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

An RS issue

I am removing the clip from Weiner, he is obviously not an RS. -- Yamanam (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Weiner cites Schmelz?! Chesdovi (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Obvioulsy"!? Weiner features in the LEAD!!!!! Chesdovi (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean this guy is a propagandist, even if he was in the lead. Just reading some of his interviews and articles show how he is not that neutral and not an RS. --Yamanam (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who can be "neutral" in such an article!!!! Ban Ki Moon?! Chesdovi (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is not easy to measure neutrality, nevertheless, I think this guy is a propagandist and is not reliable at all, for instance, he claims that most of the violance against Palestinian Christians in West Bank are made by Muslims not the occupation forces, what type of person would say that, I am not aware of any statistics that would support this claim, if you find any please let me know. Of course there are some more issues. --Yamanam (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Privately, some Christians in Bethlehem say another factor sometimes motivates their decision to leave - concern about the rise of radical Islam - but they are unwilling to put such views on the record." Mixed emotions for Pope in Bethlehem

Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, the BBC article says, another factor, which means there are other factors, secondly it says sometimes which means not always, third the rise of radical Islam so it is a new thing there have been other things before that caused them suffering. On the other hand, Weiner says:

"The human rights violations against the Christian Arabs in the disputed territories are committed by Muslims" Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs and Their Manipulation against Israel

He claism that all violations are from Muslims, which contradicts with the BBC article, then he claims that there are already violations, while the BBC article says "rise of radical Islam" and third he says "disputed territories" a term that should discredit him and makes him more and more non RS. --Yamanam (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (1)

Jerusalem has been a Jewish city since the 1850s. Surely the "Judaization" taking place refers to the post-1948 eastern section of the city. Chesdovi (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The exact phrase 'Judaization of Jerusalem' is used in many reference works, (see here or here). 'Judaization of East Jerusalem' is not (compare with this or this) Nableezy (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note, while I do not explicitly oppose this requested move, I have created a second move request which can be seen below, in which I am suggesting Integration of East Jerusalem into Israel as a stronger name for this article. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

recent warring

Malcolm Schosha, would you care to show how this is better, or is it just innately so? The source makes specific mention of an orthodox Jewish community, many of whom came from eastern Europe. How is it 'better' to make the change you have been making? Chesdovi, I think I addressed most of your issues by changing 'since' to 'by', as far as the immigrants the source mentions that in the next line. Nableezy (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be discussing the period just before the First Aliyah. There were certainly Sephardi Jews in Jerusalem at that time also, although many classified as Sephardi were from families who had never been very far from the general area of Eretz Israel. The article on Aliyah gives some sources, but I have not had time to check them out. I will look for some additional sources to make the sourcing more sound. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see what the fuss is here. Nableezy is concerned about "changing the meaning of the source" - but this section discuses the background, and does not need to be specific on this matter. Not mentioning that the Jewish community was orthodox it is not changing the meaning, just leaving out superfulous detail. This point is of no consequence anyhow, since the source does not correspond with Nableezy's version: "By 1840, an orthodox Jewish community, immigrants mainly from eastern Europe, has constituted the largest single religious group in the city."

The source states:

"An orthodox Jewish community had constituted the largest single religious group in Jerusalem since 1840. (The others were Christians and Muslims.) It was persecution in the Russian Empire in the late 19th century and Nazi persecution and Soviet discrimintion in the twentieth that created a mass migration of Jews from Central & Eastern Europe. Until then Zionism had attracted only a small minority of European Jews."

It is clear that the "mass migration of Jews from Central & Eastern Europe" occured in the "late 19th century". And that until this mass emigartion from the 1880s onwards, "Zionism had attracted only a small minority of European Jews"; meaning that the Jewish community of 1840 consisted mainly of indigenous Sephardi Jews with "only a small minority of European Jews". Therefore we cannot add Nableezy's version which implies that in 1840 the Jews were "immigrants mainly from eastern Europe". Chesdovi (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be remembered that the Ashkenazim/European Jews had only been allowed back into Jerusalem in 1815 after their expulsion by the Turks/Arabs 100 years earlier. Chesdovi (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right on the immigrants part of the sentence, the orthodox I think should remain. Nableezy (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have actually re-read it and have misunderstood the text. What it means is that a small minority of European Jews had been attracted to Palestine until then, but that minority could have outweighed the indigenous Jews by 1840. But the source does not confirm this, and I still believe that European Jews were in the minority in 1840. But even if this was not the case, is it necessary at this early stage to note that they were immigrants? It is most probable that many of the Christians and Muslims were also newcomers from outside Jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several factors supporting the efforts to judaize Jerusalem, one of those factors is the Jews immigration to it, so if we were discussing the Judaization of Jerusalem, and someone came with a fact that says: back in the 19 century the majority of Jerusalem residents were Jews, then we need to add that those Jews were in fact immigrants, because if they were indigenous then this will refute, more or less, this factor as a contributing factor of the overall efforts to judaize the holy city. --Yamanam (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd move request

This is about the aborted requested move to Integration of East Jerusalem into Israel - please see the relevent archive or click "show" on the collapsible table below. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

aborted request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

3rd 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 result of the proposal was broad consensus, despite some dissent, that the proposed title is more neutral than the current title; there also appears to be little dispute that the current title is the one more likely to be used in print. Awkwardness of the proposed title is secondary to these other considerations. This means that the applicable directives are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), and the two appear to recommend different titles. Since WP:NPOV is a policy, whereas WP:UCN is a guideline, I have elected to move the page to the proposed title. A redirect will also be placed at Israeli demographic policies toward Jerusalem. I would suggest that the conflicting terminology continue to be discussed in the article itself. Dekimasuよ! 11:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Judaization of Jerusalem → Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem — Changed requested move after discussion to Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem, which I also believe is more factual than the current title. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Hopefully I've archived this correctly, the first time I've archived on this site. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks to Nableezy for improving that. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:02, 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.

• comment - I'm starting to reconsider my previously solid perspective on this issue. There might be room for this the current "Judaization of X" title if the historical demographics changes are noted in the background. Other articles should be made about the Islamization of Palestinian localities such as the Gaza Strip, or Nazareth.[5] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per previous discussion. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support unless someone can suggest something better. It is certainly a neutral title, which the current title is not. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think this proposal has merit, but the name used by the scholarly sources in reference to the contents of the article is the current title. Also, there are a number of sources and a decent portion of the article that deal with the phrase itself. There being sources about the phrase and its use, as well as sources that use the phrase when describing the various issues that the article deals with that this article should exist with this title. Nableezy (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose That is one hell of a awkward titrle we'de be moving to... and for the above reasons.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. To the contrary, the current title takes the cake for awkwardness. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hasn't this been gone over before? The overwhelming preponderance of relevant reliable sources refer to these policies as Judaization. To the point where Israel's defenders write long articles about how "The 'Judaizing' canard" (which they allege to be a UNESCO-PLO-Islamic Jihad conspiracy, but I'll let that pass.) <eleland/talkedits> 22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it that this means you support finally reverting the embarrassing move from Arab Israelis to "Arab citizens of Israel"? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment If you read above, particuarly in the 2nd move request which is now archived, you will find I am not one of "Israel's defenders" (and oppose some of their recent actions, including the destruction of Palestinian homes), and this move isn't motivated by any sense of there being a "Jihad conspiracy" or any similar idea. YeshuaDavid (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For YD, I was referring to sources like Werner of the JCPA, not to Wikipedians, no implication intended there. For YNH, I'm not sure what the relevance of the other article is. In the case of "Arab citizens of Israel / Israeli Arabs," there is a well-documented and well-known controversy – you're an Israeli, surely you know what I'm talking about – over the terminology. Look for example at the Or Commission report, which begins with a note saying something like, "We use the terms 'Arab citizens of Israel,' 'the Arab minority' or 'the Arab sector,' but we know these terms are controversial and some would prefer to be called 'Palestinians in Israel' or 'Arab-Israelis' or whatnot, but we see this terminology as relatively neutral and don't mean anything by it." I really don't see how these two issues are comparable. <eleland/talkedits> 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Why is this policy not termed Israelisation? Islamiscation refers to actual conversion of population and land to Islam, while here Israel is trying to integrate EJ, not "Judise" it and its population? Chesdovi (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support—the current title could easy be interpreted as racist by most readers (i.e. those unfamiliar with the subject), and this creates many problems. The article is about alleged Israeli policies in Jerusalem, not a Jewish conspiracy to overthrow the city as the current title suggests. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The current title suggests no such thing, it suggests that there is a term for alleged policies of the Israeli government to give the city of Jerusalem a more Jewish demographic makeup. That term is Judaization. That term is what is used by scholarly sources when discussing these policies. That term was part of an official policy of Israel in the Galilee. Nableezy (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment While I think the proposed move is more neutral, I too disagree with Ynhockey that the current (confusing) title is as bad as he suggests. YeshuaDavid (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This seems extremely reasonable. It is NPOV. It also does not resort to using words that do not exist in the English language. "Judaization???" Give me a break. --GHcool (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judaization (Date:1582) <eleland/talkedits> 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well whaddyaknow. Even so, the article does not use the word "Judaization" correctly by the Merriam Webster definition of the word. --GHcool (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • "To make Jewish." Seems pretty clearcut, and anyway, Wikipedia editors hardly invented this terminology. Take it up with Yiftachel et al if you think they don't understand the word. <eleland/talkedits> 01:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I hate to be a stickler, but the link you provided does not say "to make Jewish." It says, "to adopt the customs, beliefs, or character of a Jew." The definition seem to only apply to people, not other nouns. An Irishman may adopt the character of a Jew. A city cannot adopt the character of a Jew. Adopting the character of a Jew is not the same as "making something Jewish." Judaization, according to the Merriam Webster definition, involves a person adopting the character/beliefs/customs of Jews onto him- or herself, not upon someone else or something else. --GHcool (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
          • You are looking at the definition for the intransitive verb. When it takes an object, here Jerusalem, the transitive verb definition is "to make Jewish" Nableezy (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
          • also OED Nableezy (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Fair enough. Still, isn't "Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem" a less POV title than "Judaization of Jerusalem?" --GHcool (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I dont understand what is non-neutral about this title. An article could exist on the term itself I suppose (there is a decent chunk of this article that deals with the term) and have the rest under that title. You see earlier I said that I think that there is merit in the proposal, but I do not understand why people object on the grounds that the title is non-neutral. This is the name used to describe a certain POV, see Articles whose subject is a POV. But I would be fine with keeping the parts about the term under this title and moving the rest to an article under the proposed title. Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The term “Judaization of Jerusalem“ is not NPOV and was IMO conceived in sin. My spell checker places a red line under “Judaization” telling me that such a word doesn’t exist. True, it does exist poetically where poetic license is given. Therefore it would be a fine title for a “Poetipedia” (a pedia for poets who make up words on the fly to portray their emotions) article. Also, I constantly hear that the Israeli government wants to de-Judaize Israel. Wasn’t that the purpose of a secular revolution which Barak wanted to institute? “Israelization”, “Zionization” or the above suggestions makes much more sense. “Judaization” I guess, makes much more sense to those who view Zionism as Judaism, and it is Judaism they are afraid of, not Zionism. Fiddler7 (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain how it in not NPOV? This term is used by Israeli Jewish commentators, both in English and Hebrew. I am going to ignore the rest of your comment (everthing after "not NPOV") because the part of it not being a word is plainly false, and the rest I prefer not to comment on. Nableezy (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And can people stop claiming that Judaization isn't a word? It's in the dictionary, OK? Take it up with the dictionary if you don't think it's a word. <eleland/talkedits> 01:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Academics do coin words, there is nothing linguistically incorrect about 'Judaizing', although it isn't a clear title. YeshuaDavid (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. My spell checker puts a red line under Wikipedia, but that hardly means that it is not a word. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong OpposeI can't see how the suggested title can fit the current article, the suggested article suggest that the israeli efforts to "judaize" the city are only the one related to the demographic change, while it is blatant that there are some other types of efforts that have nothing to do with people that's been in place to judaize the city. Also, why do we need to change a relatively well known term to a one that we will create, I am not sure, but this would might be somehow an OR, I mean to replace a well known term with another one that is created by Wikipedia editors, we are not in a place to do so - Kindly note that there are some propagandist, such like Justus Weiner, who uses this term "Is Jerusalem being Judaized" to refute the idea of judaizing Jerusalem, he didn't say "israel has no demographic policies towards Jerusalem"!. Bottom line, it is not only the suggested article doesn't work for this article, I think also the current title totally fits here. --Yamanam (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't disagree with you that a wide number of scholars use the term "Judaize", nor do I allege that Israel's government's actions are the only ones 'Judaizing' Jerusalem. I do disagree with you however in your argument trhat "the current title totally fits here"; as I've made clear before, the current title is confusing as it stands, and extremely awkward - the "Be precise when necessary" clause of WP:COMMONNAME means in my opinion that the article should change name. YeshuaDavid (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Fiddler7's notes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean the notes that have been thoroughly disproved, or the ones that border on inanity? Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"[T]horoughly" seems to be a subjective issue here and I don't believe it is beneficial to expand our current disputes to even more issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, are you still waiting for me to explain how it is not NPOV, or it has already been thoroughly disproved? Fiddler7 (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The part on it not being a word has been disproved. And yes I am waiting on an explanation of it being non-NPOV that doesnt revolve on it being conceived in sin. Nableezy (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The title proposed, you would agree is NPOV to everyone. The title as is, is not NPOV to everyone which I'm sure you would also agree. Why they think that it is POV is a side issue, which I alluded to by (born in sin, translated to “coined with bad intentions” which WP is not bound to promulgate). So shouldn't neutrality play a role in its title? Fiddler7 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to articulate what is non-NPOV about it? That is the whole issue, not a 'side issue'. If you just make a blanket statement that it is non-NPOV and say the reasons are not important why should anyone take that argument seriously? Nableezy (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what the other editors are trying to say, and this is from a Jewish perspective, is that by titling this page "Judaization of Jerusalem" there can be seen a kind of assumpion that Jerusalem wasn't Jewish before and thus had to be 'Judaicized' post-1948 (I'm aware, Nableezy, of your argument that Jerusalem was multicultural prior to Judaization, and Judaization being the process in which Jews became the dominant group and irrelated to the city's distant history). I'm arguing for the move not on a POV basis but on the related issue of clarity, and you must be able to see how this article could at least be misconstrued by some editors as an implicit denial that Jerusalem was historically Jewish. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point on the clarity of the name, but not one on the neutrality of the name. This also relates to Ynhockey's comment that the name could be perceived as racist. I am sorry if he feels that way, but it is not racist. There have been some groups, such as the ADL, that have widened the meaning of antisemitism to the point where there is a feeling that using the word Jew or something derived from it is itself antisemitic. Yes, some misguided souls feel that way, but it is simply not true. This is the name used by everybody when discussing the topic, in Arabic, in Hebrew, and in English. NPOV has become an acronym for MyPOV, no matter whether or not that POV is at all grounded in facts and sources. All I have seen from those arguing about the supposed lack of neutrality of the name is a steady dose of disguised I dont like it. I have already accepted that your argument is valid, though I think it does not overcome what the sources call this. But I can have a rational conversation about each arguments merit, but the NPOV argument is utter nonsense based on basic lack of understanding of the topic or the literature. Nableezy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not racist, and I am fully aware that Jerusalem has undergone a process which many, including myself, would be happy to call Judaizaion. My point is though that the article does at first seem to violate NPOV, despite the fact it does not. This is linked to the clarity issue, where you have "Judaization of Jerusalem" unqualified as a title of this article - that's why I'm trying to move this to a clearer title which steers clear of this phrasology. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to violate NPOV or the name does? Because those are two different issues. The article could always use improvements, I dont think WP has one 'perfect' article, but the argument that the name itself is NPOV violative is what I take issue with. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant name, not article. It's more the phrasing, just "Judaization of Jerusalem", which makes it appear to be non NPOV (and loads of editors have alleged it does violate it). I don't think it does violate NPOV, but I think the title could be improved. YeshuaDavid (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support The proposed title has a nice NPOV ring to it. Lots of articles begin with awkward titles. This one did. lets change it to the proposed name and move on.Historicist (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is obviously appropriate. Ian Pitchford (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - I'm starting to reconsider my previously solid perspective on this issue. There might be room for this the current "Judaization of X" title if the historical demographics changes are noted in the background. Other articles should be made about the Islamization of Palestinian localities such as the Gaza Strip, or Nazareth.[6] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support use a neutral title - Epson291 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2009 (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.

Strong objection to move to "neutral" name

No evidence has presented by anyone that the term "Judaization of Jerusalem" is non-neutral. There is no requirement per WP:NPOV that we avoid using terms simply because they may be offensive to some, particularly true when there is no evidence to indicate that the term is not neutral.

The subject of this article is that "Judaization of Jerusalem" which is a clearly define topic with copious literature on the subject. Judaization is obviously a wholly inoffensive word to the Israeli government, since it is used in the name of another government policy: the Judaization of the Galilee. We are now in the rather ridiculous situation of having an article named incorrectly simply because some people who don't like the term (but have provided no evidence as to why) have been persistent in their attempts to have this very real subject and phrase elided. The article could not be deleted, so it was renamed and re-scoped. This is an abuse of Wiki process. The original name of the article should be restored. Tiamut^talk 11:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Eurabia

That see also is not relevant to this article. This article is about policies of a government, not the view of some that Muslims are taking over Europe by having lots of babies. Nableezy (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me both terms are about the perceived change in demographics and perceived insidious background aspirations. I'd be interested in explanations on why these two correlations do not merit a see also mention.[7]
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One is about policies of a government, the other is the view of some that Muslims are having too many babies. That has nothing to do with this article and is not even superficially related. Nableezy (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Whether the demographic change is by proven governmental design or not, is not the corrolatory issue here. The issue is the change in demographics and how it causes concerns in a large group of the population. Seems to me that our recent correspondence is not at its peak performance so I'm suggesting dispute resolution method to resolve this issue - would this work for you? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

do what you want, but this is what WP:SEEALSO says: a reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical "perfect article" are suitable to add to the "See also". Can you say that Eurabia would be covered in the hypothetical perfect article on Judaization of Jerusalem? If not it should not be there. Nableezy (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It also says that it's "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". Common sense I think, dictates that anything related or similar, should have a link in the "See also" if it doesn't yet have a link in the article itself. Judaization and Arabization are two sides of the same coin, or in the least they are related Wikipedia articles. Fiddler7 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why the addition of a simple "See also" link should create this whole brouhaha. If the link keeps on getting removed, this edit war might be eligible for entry at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Having Eurabia in See Also would easily qualify for an entry at Wikipedia:Lamest See Also. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But how is it related to this? Any change in demographics is related? This article is about a concerted effort alleged to be taking place by a government to change the demographics of a city. How is 'Eurabia' related to that? Nableezy (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Very simple, because it has similar ramifications and many who are interested in one are also interested in the other, which is the ultimate purpose for links. I saw it now for the first time and it was quite interesting with its underpinnings and similarities; both articles interest me for the same reason and when reading one article it would be nice to know of similar articles, whichever way they are similar. That is my humble opinion. Fiddler7 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. See alsos should be related to the article, Eurabia is not in anyway related besides being about changing demographics. This article is about a coordinated effort to change the demographics, you dont see anything in here about birth rates and other natural circumstances. Nableezy (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If it helps clarify the issues - the Eurabia article relates to this article just as much as this article relates to Eurabia. i.e. it is a perception of people fighting to be the dominant demography in the territory. I'm sure many people, for example, who come upon the Eurabia article would be interested in knowing that a reciprocal concern is made by Arabs in regards to Jerusalem. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy - we don't need tit-for-tat Islamicisation articles to balance this Judaization article. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And I would say that this article shouldnt be in the see also of Eurabia either, they are completely separate topics. Nableezy (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a tit-for-tat issue. Just a matter of two connected topics about perceived threats by normative changes in demographics. Do we at least have an agreement that both articles discuss changes demographics? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article does not discuss 'normative changes' but rather a concerted effort by a government. Nableezy (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. "refers to the view that Israel has sought to". As I said, this is a perceived issue and this is mirrored by the European-Arab world as well. There are many points where these topics correlate and it seems as though you should review these topics a bit since you seem completely unaware of the narratives that comprise both. For example, Colonel Ghadafi has stated his perspective that Islam will over-run Europe and that he hopes Europe opens its doors to Turkey to help speed up this process. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, this article discusses the view that there is a concerted effort by a government to change demographics, not 'normative changes'. The rest of what you wrote I dont really want to respond to, NPA and all. Nableezy (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, so the fact that both articles are about a coordinated effort to change the demographics, should be a good enough reason to have links from one to another. Personally I think that much, much less is needed to have links and that links should be generous. Content in articles and the same for names of articles, goes the saying: "when in doubt - stay out"; but as far as links I would say "when it has anything in common - then stay in". Fiddler7 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Eurabia is not about a 'coordinated effort to change demographics' Nableezy (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Both are about changing demographics; good enough for me. Fiddler7 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rise in Muslim population is not a coordinated effort by any Muslim states or groups. Most Muslims came for work and in many cases, the immigrants have only resident rights, not citizenship Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add that this article suggests that Israeli citizens are 'Judaizing' Jerusalem, and is somewhat sceptical to the extent that the Israeli government has a policy of 'Judaization'. That said, the links between the articles are weak. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak is in the eye of the beholder. Many here think that it’s strong, and many think that its weak. Shouldn't the readers decide if that article is for them? Why should we do it for them? This is only a link, a "see also" suggestion; are we to censor what they should or should not read? IMO if it has any similarities at all, a link should be supplied; that's what makes for a wholesome Wikipedia. Fiddler7 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

censoring would be deleting the article, not deleting links where they are irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an article is one form of censor, deleting a link is another. Any suppression of information is considered censoring. "Relevant" is also subjective. Fiddler7 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that if the proposed move is done, we could build a more thorough (and inclusive) series of neutral links such as Demographics of Israel and Demographics of the Palestinian territories. I agree that "weak" is a subjective term; however, there is hardly any concencus here that it is a "strong" connection. Update decided to add more links myself. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)