Talk:Judaization of Jerusalem/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was page moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem → Judaization of Jerusalem — Since proposing the current title, which replaced the title I now would like to restore, I've had a lot of difficulty trying to integrate the new title into the current article. I also have doubts about about the neutrality of this title - in effect having "Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem" as a title implies that the recent changes in Jerusalem have emerged out of a coherent Israeli policy to change the demographic makeup of Jerusalem. This article discusses that as a possibility, but also talks about a more natural change due to the majority of Israelis being Jewish. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:19, 24 July 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 - same reason as opposed the prior move up above. nableezy - 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Thank you YeshuaDavid for reversing your position. I was surprised to return from a two-month absence to see the title had been changed and on the basis of a very weak rationale. This article uses sources that discuss the Judaization of Jerusalem as a concept/phenomenon/policy, depending on one's position in the debate. There is no neutrality issue with the phrase itself and Judaization is not an pejorative or offensive word, as some have tried to assert without providing evidence to that end. A parallel policy was named by the Israeli government itself Judaization of the Galilee. Anyway, I do hope others who voted previously to move away to an awkwardly phrased euphemism for the subject under discussion will reconsider their positions too. Thanks again YeshuaDavid. Tiamut^talk 20:34, 27 July 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arbitrary highlighting of sources

Hi all. For now, I've removed this:

In 1840, an orthodox Jewish community constituted the largest single religious group in the city.

I cannot access the text and would like to see it. I also think picking 1840 is arbitrary. This source which provides a population table for Jerusalem from 1806 - 1945 on page 28 indicates that in 1838 the population was 11,500 people (4,500 Muslims, 3,500 Christians, and 3,000 Jews); in 1846 the population was 17,173 (6,100 Muslims, 3,558 Christians, and 7,515 Jews) and that in 1851 it was 25,354 (12,286 Muslims, 7,488 Christians, and 5,580 Jews). Given the city had become an important administrative capital for the Ottoman empire in the 19th century, its not suprising that there were new arrivals all the time from all three religious groups. I don't think we need to focus on 1840 in isolation. Tiamut^talk 10:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious freedom

I have attempted ot add some balance to this article by adding a section of the types of religious freedom available to Jews, Muslims, Christians and others. [User"Tiamet]] removed it claiming that this has no relevence to an article on Judaization. I believe that in a page asserting that Jerusalem is being J Judaized" it is essential to discuss the realities of the degree of religious liberty available under this allegedly "Judaizing" regime.AMuseo (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless sources relate those issues to the topic of Judaization of Jerusalem those edits are OR (WP:SYNTH) and as such have been removed. nableezy - 14:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am replacing the section and asking for other editors to comment. I believe that it is inappropriate to allege Judaization, and exclude from the article material about freedom of worship for Muslims and Christians.AMuseo (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That isnt how things work. You need to provide reliable secondary sources making the comparisons that you are making. Insisting that it is "inappropriate" is not acceptable. I have removed the edits again, and if you reinsert them I will be asking that you be blocked. nableezy - 15:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And canvassing at WT:JUDAISM and WT:ISRAEL is not how you ask others to comment. nableezy - 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was. You are far more expert than I . How do I request that others comment?AMuseo (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll open a section at the OR noticeboard. nableezy - 15:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR/N#Judaization of Jerusalem. nableezy - 15:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.AMuseo (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• The section under discussion was blanked by User:Nableezy. I believe that it should be restored to the page while this discussion is ongoing.AMuseo (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I can see by scrolling up that at one point this page went under the title Israeli demographic policies toward Jerusalem. That is a very different topic form a page entitled Judaization of Jerusalem. A page on Judaization seems to imply the imposition of Judaism on the city. This is why, under such a title, I am arguing for a section on the actual status of religious liberties under Israeli rule.AMuseo (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaization does not mean what you think it implies. This is more than a question on religion. Please read the article and the sources. This is a specific topic that is covered by numerous scholarly sources. The material you are seeking to insert is not covered by reliable sources in the context of the topic of this article. You are seeking to create your own original rebuttal to the sources. That is original research. nableezy - 16:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaism, Jewishness, Judaization clearly have dual meaning, ethno/national and religious. If you insist on removing all matters of worship, faith and religious liberty from the article, I suggest that you propose a move to an accurate title, such as Israeli demographic policies toward Jerusalem.AMuseo (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That has been discussed and this title is accurate. Either read the sources or stop wasting my time. The term Judaization of Jerusalem, sometimes Judaisation of Jerusalem, has a specific meaning defined by numerous reliable sources. This is the name used by reliable sources to describe the topic of this article. nableezy - 16:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What a terrible article. Only on Wikipedia would it be published. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding AMuseo's original question, including such information would be synthesis. There are lots of cases where I wish we could cite unrelated information in order to put topics into a broader perspective, but that's not inline with Wikipedia's policies. Your best bet would be to find reliable sources which discuss Jerusalem's freedom of religion in the context of (or in response to) the Judaization of Jerusalem. Regarding Wikifan12345's comment, could you be more specific about what's wrong with this article? I just found this discussion, so am not too familiar with it. ← George ^talk 23:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• I had started a section of the wide religious liberty available under Israeli rule, which I was in the process of expanding.:

extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==Holy Places and religious freedom== ===Temple Mount=== Under Israeli governance the entire Temple Mount has been under the control of the Muslim waqf. Muslims are hold prayer services at many points on the Temple Mount and have full control of all buildings on the Mount. In 1996, the waqf built the enormous, modern underground Marwani mosque able to hold 7,000 worshipers. Jews are forbidden to pray on the Temple Mount and are arrested if they are suspected engaging in silent devotions. No prayer spaces are provided on the Temple Mount for Jewish or Christian worshipers. Individual Jewish tourists have even been arrested by the Muslim police on the Temple Mount on suspicion of silently praying. ===Western Wall=== Jews have prayed at the Western Wall since being denied access to the Temple Mount in ancient times. By contrast with the restrictions on non-Muslim prayers on the Temple Mount, silent devotions by individuals of all faiths are welcome at the Wall; millions of tourists approach the wall to pray or leave a prayer note, and visiting politicians such as Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have visited the Wall to pray and leave prayer notes. While all people are welcome to visit the wall and to pray there, by custom, all of the public prayer services hedls at the Wall are Jewish. ===Churches=== Churches of virtually every Christian denomination flourish in Jerusalem, as do, monasteries, convents, a large number of seminaries, and church schools of many denominations for younger students. ====Church of the Holy Sepulchre==== The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, jointly managed by several Christian churches, is open to receive both Jerusalem's many Christians, pilgrims, tourists and visitors of all faiths. ===Mosques=== A large number of mosques flourish in Jerusalem, and there are many Muslim schools. ==References==

Lots more can be added.AMuseo (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that the topic of this article is the Judaization of Jerusalem and not Religious worship in Jerusalem. So its irrelevant here. Tiamut^talk 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful source?

Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh has asked why the Arabs of Jerusalem are not consulted on these debates. Does this have a place in the article (perhaps as a neutral view?)? Here is his article. Im not sure where, if anywhere, to put it.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition to background section

User:Miamosa has just restored this. First added by an IP editor ([1]), it was restored by User:AmiAyalon1969 (indeffed for sockpuppetry, among other things) and User:Brewcrewer. I have multiple problems with the text. None of it is connected by the sources cited to the topic of this article. Some of it is unsourced. Some of it relies on biblical sources or scholars which is inappropriate for an article on a political issue. I am going to remove it. Could users wishing to restore it outline their reasons for its inclusion here and work to address the issues raised? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the history of the edits, ip's, socks and other editors, but I read it and it seems like proper (sourced) background to me. Like anything it could probably be improved with better sources and better expansion into the Christian era, and to have it flow better into the Muslim era. But the material makes it a bit more understandable as to why Jews might want to "Judaize" Jerusalem in the first place. This didn't happen in a void, after all. At one time it was totally Jewish. Plus it doesn't seem to rely on Biblical sources. (Was there a chapter and verse I missed?) It relies on a work by Diane Slavick, which is categorized as history, and one by Israel Finkelstein, a recognized archeologist and academic. Politically, the article seems very one-sided, mainly an attack on Israel and Jews ("Judaize"), so anything to balance this viewpoint with the Hebrew viewpoint would be an improvement, in my view. Miamosa (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There need to be sources connecting topics, not just a personal view. If sources can be brought connecting that material to the topic of this article then by all means include it. But the sources provided do not do so. nableezy - 21:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"UN officials have charged"

The lead currently says that "UN officials have charged that Israel's actions are tantamount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing." The body of the article cites two UN special rapporteurs—Richard Falk and his predecessor, John Dugard—as having made the charge. One cannot cite two instance of such statements and create the sort of blanket statement the lead currently contains. If two U.S. Congressmen say "taxes are too high", that shouldn't be written, unqualified, that "U.S. Congressmen say that taxes are too high", because it ascribes the stance of two Congressmen to the hundreds of members of Congress. The same is true here. I tried to resolve this by changing the text to reflect that this was the stated opinion of two UN officials, with the edit summary "Two officials at the UN do not constitute the UN. If more UN officials than Falk & Dugard make the claim, then this can be rethought", but Adamrce reverted, stating that "Officials mean officials, they don't give personal opinions". I didn't mention anything about whether or not the stance was a personal opinion, just that it's unfair to ascribe the stance to thousands of officials at the UN, based solely on the statements of two of them. If there are sources that state that this charge is more widespread, please provide them. In the meantime, I'm going to go with a much similar edit of just inserting the word "Two" at the beginning of the sentence, as only two examples are cited in the body. ← George ^talk 08:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If two congressmen sign a statement to some effect, newspapers do in fact say that "Congressmen say X" since it doesn't mean that all congressmen say so, just that more than one does. I think that "UN officials" is better than "At least two UN officials" which isn't encyclopedic language. Thoughts? --Dailycare (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As a further comment, here is a source according to which the president of the General Assembly has also charged that Israeli actions on the West Bank (which includes East Jerusalem) amount to apartheid. --Dailycare (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, if two congressmen say something, no newspaper worth the paper it's printed on would say "Congressmen say X" as a blanket statement, they would say "Congressmen X and Y say Z". Your source is a good one, and I'd encourage you to include Brockmann's statement in the body of the article. I've changed the lead to say "Several UN officials" instead of "Two UN officials". ← George ^talk 06:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was solved before my visit, lol. Seems good to me, as we don't need to count statements; as I have more too :p ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with the "several" wording. However I don't agree on the point concerning "congressmen", here for example is an example of the usage that I refer to above. Of course, the NYT may not win prizes for high-class journalism but at least it's worth the paper it's printed on. --Dailycare (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Article titles are a special case, as they're intentionally short and act as dramatic hooks to draw the reader's attention. The lead of that article clearly starts out talking about a single Congressman, "A member of the House Judiciary Committee", and never lumps all Congressmen together. Though if all are happy with the term "several" then the point is moot. I'm fine with whichever qualifier best describes the number of UN officials hold this view—a couple, several, a few, a handful, many, etc. ← George ^talk 18:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Judaization

The term judaization is defined as the process of cultural assimilation to Judaism and the imbuing with Jewish principles, and its unorthodox pejorative employment throughout the article to refer to a forced attempt to stamp Judaism on an area is hardly encyclopedic; it is charged with an underlying implication that infringes NPOV and is redolent of antisemitic undertones. I shall endeavor to replace this term with alternative expressions. Ankh.Morpork 14:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the archives, where this was discussed at extreme length, and do not 'endeavour to replace the term' attested widely in RS no one questions, 'with alternative expressions'.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This whole article is totally biased. According to the lede, the issue of whether there is a process such as "Judaization of Jerusalem" at all is debated, but then most of the article consists of efforts to prove that such a thing exists, with lots of tendentious quotes from highly partisan sources. As it is, this doesn't work. There needs to be far more balance. Benwing (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources discussing the topic from other points of view that are currently not included in the article? Can you recommend any? Isn't it possible that this is an actual policy and there is more criticism of it than support?

Can you explain which quotes are tendentious? Wich sources in your virw are unreliable or given undue weight?

You need to be more specific and constructive in your critique so that we can work on finding a solution. Tiamut^talk 19:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, would you mind explaining here why you have twice deleted important background info from that section? Tiamut^talk 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick google search for the title and author of one source brought up a living link [2]. Did you even try to find it? Tiamut^talk 20:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (second edit conflict!) Tiamut -- you managed to write more quickly than I did.

Also, as to the section I deleted, here are the reasons:

1. The link is broken; it's behind a password. (Sorry, no I didn't, but that isn't the main issue.)
2. It's from a totally partisan source.
3. It makes claims about an "international community", which is not a neutral term (see the WP page, which makes it clear that this term itself cannot be neutral)
4. It makes claims like "Israeli and Palestinian organizations" as if this represents a consensus, when quoting only two organizations (B'Tselem and ICAHD) that represent just about the most extreme far-left positions you can find in Israel, along with one other organization (the old UN Committee on Human Rights), which is (a) not Palestinian, (b) no longer in existence, (c) utterly discredited (that's why it was replaced, although the new one is rapidly discrediting itself, too). If I attempted to represent "Muslim consensus" by quoting people like Irshad Manji, would you accept this?
5. Most basically, there's already tons of criticism down below. What you claim as "background info" looks to me like unnecessarily partisan criticism that doesn't belong in a "background" section. It's completely obvious from the article that there's lots of criticism. Given the conflicts over everything I/P related, the less partisanism we have in WP, the better.

The whole section "Defining Judaization" consists of quotes from partisan anti-Israel sources and casually makes a lot of questionable or simply false assertions. For example, the section casually refers to "Israeli settlements" in East Jerusalem to refer to what are alternatively simply known as Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem -- i.e. there is a great deal of debate over whether Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are in any way similar to what are often termed "settlements" elsewhere. If you look closely, you will find that it is largely anti-Israel sources making this claim; pro-Israel sources naturally don't, and sources that try scrupulously to be neutral (e.g. the NY Times) are extremely careful never to use "settlements" unattributed when describing these neighborhoods. Also, there is a quote from Valerie Zink that talks of "disenfranchisement" of Palestinians, which is a lie. Israel offered citizenship to Arab inhabitants of East Jerusalem, and any inhabitant who accepted this would be able to vote. If an Arab inhabitant refused citizenship, I don't see how anyone can neutrally claim that Israel "disenfranchised" them -- does any country in the world allow non-citizens to vote? Can you name one other place in the world where such an argument about "disenfranchisement" is made?

In reality, "Arabization of Jerusalem" has clearly been practiced at many times by many authorities, e.g. by the Ottoman Empire, by the British, by the Jordanians, etc. -- often times in a much more extreme and violent way than anything Israel has done (e.g. outright forbidding Jewish emigration, blowing up Jewish synagogues, forbidding Jews from visiting their holy sites, etc.). And quite a lot of people, Palestinians and otherwise, are now explicitly advocating for "de-Judaizing" Jerusalem by forcibly removing the Jewish population of parts of Jerusalem that may end up under Palestinian control. But somehow we don't have an article on any of this. In reality, I think the only real way to make this article neutral is to change it to make it a general discussion of various attempts by various governments to change the ethnic dynamics of Jerusalem. Otherwise, in its focus purely on Israeli actions, it just looks like yet another example of Israel-bashing -- esp. when it prominently features people like Richard Falk and Israel Shahak, who are (to the say the least) extremely controversial, and both known for various incidents of anti-Semitism.

(There are other issues but this is enough for now.) Benwing (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW if you write a long response to this I probably won't be able to respond till tomorrow. This doesn't mean I'm ignoring you but simply that I don't have enormous amounts of time to devote to WP.

Benwing (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the ban on Jews put in place by the Ottomans is mentioned in the Background section, and mentioning it there does make sense, IMO, as background info to the current Judaization efforts. As to removing the settlers from Gilo etc. I think that's just common sense. They knew from the get-go the settlements are illegal, so they can't now invoke some kind of residency to justify remaining. It's a basic principle of law that a party can't draw a valid claim from an illegal act. Of course, the Palestinians may allow they to remain, but that's already going beside the point here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Benwing, I appreciate your long response. However, it fails to answer the most important of requests, which was for sources that you feel articulate the positions you have outlined that can be used to achieve NPOV. All sources on this topic are going to partisan and that does not affect their reliability. If you feel that the nformation included from highly partisan sources should be attributed, I have no problem with that. Alternatively, othr sources saying the same thing can be provided so that attribution is rendered unnecessary.

From the sources I have reviewed, it seems the majority position is that efforts to Judaize Jerusalem, particularly with regard to occupied East Jerusalem, are viewed with disfavour due to the legal international principls governing the conduct of occupying powers. If there is a significant dispute over this, finding sources that say so should be easy. Please provide them so that we can begin to consider how to introduce balance here. Starting by Removing what is already there is not a solution in my opinion, and does little to achieve NPOV which is about representing all significant viewpoints. Tiamut^talk

Sorry for the delay. Tiamut, I do appreciate your attempts at finding consensus. Nishidani's behavior is more frustrating -- he simply reverted my changes, ignoring the commentary and reasons I gave. I do think it's possible to find consensus on I/P issues -- if people genuinely try to find it rather than engaging in what appears to me to be a "battleground" mentality. In this case, an alternative to just reverting would have been to put the info back but take out or tone down the most partisan parts, since that's what I was most objecting to. (To preempt the expected response of "the onus is on you to do such things" -- that's precisely the mentality I'm objecting to. It takes a lot of time to contribute well-thought-out changes and write non-inflammatory talk responses, and I'd expect cooperation from people of different perspectives, rather than a zero-sum mentality. Yes, you might be able to "win" a "war of attrition" and get "your POV" to stick if you "slog it out" enough -- but will WP benefit? Or simply the one willing to fight the longest and hardest?)

My main reason for contributing to I/P issues at all is to reduce the bias that I often see, especially attempts to use UN criticisms (which are highly biased, as I'm sure you are aware) as "moral gospel", and uses of highly partisan sources. I'm not interested in edit-warring, or arguing over small bits of wording (and I simply don't have the time to do so!). Yes, most (not all) sources are partisan to varying degrees, but I don't agree that being highly partisan has no effect on reliability -- in fact, it's one of the primary considerations used in determining the reliability of a source in WP:RS discussion and such. People like Israel Shahak, Richard Falk, Israel Shamir, Alexander Cockburn, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and various others are virulently anti-Israel and have at various points strayed into anti-Semitic territory. Quoting them does Wikipedia no favors, especially since there are so many people writing about every last little aspect of Israeli behavior. Both you and Nishidani have been active in I/P issues for so long that I'm sure you must know tons and tons of sources -- far more than I do, I imagine -- and it shouldn't be too hard to find sources that are less controversial.

A commentary on sources from the other side: For some of the background info I added, I listed two sources -- Dore Gold and Benny Morris. Both of them come directly from another WP article. I don't know who Dore Gold is, but I could guess from the title of his book that he's rather partisan; on the other hand, I know that Benny Morris is much less so. Hence I would have preferred another source to Gold if I knew one. Unfortunately I don't have any of my I/P books with me now -- they're all packed up in storage for the summer. Benwing (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit diminishes what the sources say and the selection of words such as "captured" in place of "occupied" contradict the overwhelming majority of sources on the topic. Among the names you object to as being "virulently anti-Israel" who have "strayed into anti-Semitic territory" are a (Jewish) UN Special Rapporteur and a (Jewish) Holocaust survivor former president of a civil rights organization. You cant bring people like Dore Gold and reject anybody whose views you dislike. And the removal of sources like Ma'oz and the watering down of the condemnation for the attempts to change the status and makeup of Jerusalem cannot be done while at the same time accusing others of "totally biased" editing. nableezy - 06:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, you need to first agree on the text and then do the edit. Arguments along the lines of "the UN is biased" don't move the discussion forward very much. --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

edit-warring

When exactly did it become acceptable for people to edit-war long standing material out of an article without so much as an appearance on the talk page? I'm genuinely curious, did things change while I was away? nableezy - 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It would help just a little if the last two reverters actually began trying to adduce policy grounds for their removal of material, instead of just some vague comment that has no meaning operatively.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They didnt the last time they tried pulling this, so why expect it now? nableezy - 16:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When did it become acceptable to poison the lead of an article with the insignificant views of two individuals without even providing an alternate view as basic NPOV demands? Ankh.Morpork 22:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Provide alternative views, Sherlock. Who is stopping you? What sources provide an alternative view on this? Add them. nableezy - 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors: please note our WP:BRD guideline. The content was introduced only recently[3] and has been contested ever since by numerous editors all of which have raised their concerns in their edit summaries. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please note that the material has been in the lead and tag-teamed out without any attempt at discussion, including by multiple users who have never said one word about it on the talk page. Please do note that. The line may not have always been in the lead, it has however been in the article and, as I am sure you realize, a lead is meant to summarize the article. Why exactly should that not be in the lead? nableezy - 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And oh by the way, 13 months is not "only recently". nableezy - 00:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, WP:BURDEN requires that verifiable sources be provided that back the material in the article. You see those two things at the end of the sentence? That's the burden being met. nableezy - 00:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Did not realize it was 2011, but that makes it worse. The history of the page reveals it was never accepted, so per WP:BRD its proponent must make the argument for inclusion on the talk page, and that has yet to take place despite the repeated requested of numerous editors.WP:BRD is a very basic guideline that no wikilawyering can get around. As for the underlying matter, I don't even understand why anyone would want it included unless they want to weaken the "Judaization" argument. If a proponent of 9-11 conspiracy theories supported my claims I would try to ignore it and hide it to the extent possible.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, what? This was added in June 2011. It was discussed then. A user, who has not one single time edited this talk page, removed nearly 6 months later. That was the first time it had been modified since June. After it was restored at that time, the material was untouched until that same user (you know, the one that has never edited this talk page) attempted to modify the statement. That was reverted with a reference to the talk page section linked earlier. That same user, still never having edited this talk page, attempted to remove the material this June. That, again, didn't work. Then yet another user who, let's be honest here, hounded another editor to this page after a dispute elsewhere, tried to remove the material last month. And he did so without saying one word about the issue on this talk page. That didn't work out either. The user, again without saying anything about the issue on the talk page, attempted to again remove the material. And he was joined, in true tag-teaming fashion, by the first user (that user that still has not said one word on this talk page) in trying to do so. Which brings us to today. So, for nearly 6 months the material was in the article completely unchallenged. And until today it had not had a single person from among those repeatedly "challenging" the material making anything resembling a case for removal on the talk page. So no, the history of the page emphatically does not show that it was never accepted, and BRD is not a substitute for providing an actual reason for an edit. And it certainly is not a reason to remove long-standing text without making a single comment on the talk page supporting that removal. This material was discussed when first added, so acting like it never was and that BRD stretches back 13 months borders on the absurd. nableezy - 02:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true and not true. The discussion you link to was not whether it should be included but whether it should name the UN official by name. Also not true is that it was untouched for six months. Look at the history again. As for your drama related comments about unnamed editors, I honestly don't know or care.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted diffs, you just said "not true". I dont know how you expect me to respond to that. But no matter, can somebody explain why what several UN officials have said about the topic of this article should not be included in the lead? Because that would be awesome. nableezy - 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is quite simply tagteaming. Lazy assertions, Brewcrewer, are not an argument. I helped write the page. I noted AnkhMorpork removing solidly sourced, and stable information without an adequate explanation, indeed his explanation was erroneous, since 'several UN officials' was not the case. So I checked the removed sources, identified and specified the two people, international jurists who consult with, but are independent of, the UN, introduced their names to substitute for the vague imprecise language Ankhmorpork complained of, and restored the stable material. Since then, I and others have faced a tagteam of blind reverters, yourself, Plot Spoiler, and Noon. No argument on the page (your remarks are not an argument, but a vague wave at the hand about a policy you can't explain.

This is patently an abuse of collegial editing.Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

brewcrewer, the earlier discussion resulted in consensus of the wording, i.e. the consensus was to include the agreed wording. --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A case for why this material has been edit-warred out of this article still has not been made. Why exactly should this not be in the lead? Claims of "POV" without providing any source that provides an alternative POV are worth, well, the price of admission to Wikipedia. nableezy - 22:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dugard link doesn't load (found the article here, but that's not a good source. If anyone has Highbeam it's there too).

Falk doesn't use the term "Judaization", so putting his opinion in this article is SYNTH.

Putting what consists of 3 sentences in the article into a 4 sentence lead seems UNDUE. Considering both of these people are very controversial and were working for very controversial organs of the UN (one of which was disbanded for being too crappy, and the other has been accused by pretty much every Western country of being just as crappy, if not worse) just strengthens the point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• The lead makes clear that Judaization of Jerusalem 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". It is original research to interpret comments on incidents of forced evictions and settlement expansion in East Jerusalem as criticism of an underlying policy "to transform the physical and demographic landscape" to establish a "united and fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem" unless the source expressly says so.
• It is undue to include the views of two peripheral human rights consultants in the lead of an article.
• John Dugard is notoriously unreliable and tendentious in the extreme. I am sure content such as this will be useful in clarifying his role as rapporteur. Articles such as this demonstrate the fringe role of these "human rights activists" that were ignored by the UN. Nor is it stated in the source that Dugard was specifically referring to the Judaization of Jerusalem. Ankh.Morpork 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

These serious challenges, had they been made before the AE case, could have avoided everyone the tedium there. In 11 minutes the Olympics start, so I won't be able to address them immediately. For the moment.

Hysteron proteron. AnkhMorpork.

• (1)John Dugard and Richard Falk can by no stretch of the imagination be summarily dismissed as 'two peripheral human rights consultants', which ignores and underplays their professional status as experts in international law.
• (2)Your second point that Dugard 'notoriously unreliable and tendentious in the extreme,' translates, if you know his life, into saying everything he wrote on Apartheid in Africa, his homeland was notoriously unreliable and tendentious in the extreme.' That is the language he got from the then Apartheid government. Your evidence consists in a link to an official Israeli charge that he is 'unreliable and tendentious'. That is the balancing evidence we should add, and which you mentioned. The source itself is arguably unreliable and tendentious'. It is certainly not objective, but, as promotor of the policies Dugard and Falk complain of, an interested party.
• (3) The New York Sun is a defunct tabloid, that survives online to push a neoconservative viewpoint. Fine for that, but predictable in whatever it says about human rights.
• (4)'The West Bank has also experienced serious human rights violations resulting from frequent military incursions; the construction of the Wall; house demolitions and checkpoints. Over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks obstruct freedom of movement within the OPT. The Wall being built in East Jerusalem is an instrument of social engineering designed to achieve the Judaization of Jerusalem by reducing the number of Palestinians in the city.' , John Dugard, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretending Dugard and Falk are not highly controversial is ridiculous and dishonest. Not to mention that the UN organs they work/ed for are also highly controversial, so much so that one of them was decommissioned. Dugard continued his job from the old discredited UN organ to the new discredited UN organ.

Unless someone can explain why including Falk's statement, which doesn't mention "Judaization", is not SYNTH, I'll be removing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Falk doesn't use the term "Judaization", so putting his opinion in this article is SYNTH.

Sorry, I meant to address this, but I'm a sports addict. With the ad break now, and a boring parade, I can reply. See.

Richard Falk, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,

Sect.32. For Palestinians living under occupation in the occupied Palestinian territory, the consequences of this policy of displacement are severe. According to the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, the actions by Israel of dispossession in Occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank (as well as towards the Palestinian citizens of Israel itself) amount to a "strategy of Judaization".A/HRC/20/32 25 May 2012

All these can be duly entered when the revert war situation there is unblocked.

The two men are not highly controversial, and Falk himself said the UN would fire him if he wasn't an independent. He also asked that his brief cover also Palestinian violations. He's only, as far as I can see, controversial for Susan Rice and the Israeli government. That is not enough to dismiss him as unreliable. As for saying I'm 'dishonest', or 'pretending', you're entitled to regard me as an unmitigated shaa, to quote Terry Thomas, but, though not offended, I don't think it illuminates the problem. Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a statement by Falk, that's Falk relating a statement made by someone else.

As for only Israel and Rice seeing him as controversial (I find it unlikely anyone would honestly believe that), is the Guardian [4] good enough? I won't even go into the kind of crap this guy posts on his blog. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Haste. You're correct that Falk uses the word in that report citing the words of a UN colleague, (Raquel Rolnik) working with him on the specific issue of housing. I got the wrong link from my notes. He himself uses it here.

14. There are many other issues that illustrate the violation of the legal framework by the occupation policy of Israel. Examples include the annexation — and what even Israeli sources refer to as the “Judaization” — of East Jerusalem;11(11.=See, for example, Nir Hasson, “The Orthodox Jews fighting the Judaization of East Jerusalem”, Haaretz (Tel Aviv), 24 June 2010.)Richard Falk Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, A/66/358,13 September 2011

The Guardian article is immaterial to your denigration, since it only confirms what I said: Israel won't allow him to put foot on its territory, or the territories it occupies. I don't know of any other nation that expresses its distaste for him in this way. His academic standing trumps that. Almost all Nobel Peace Prize Winners have at their backs thousands of indictments by partisan press and government bodies for their 'controversial' behaviour. For the purposes of wikipedia, an expert on international law and professor at Princeton for 40 years, who works specifically on Palestinian issues for an international body (the UN), is superb RS. If you doubt this, challenge it at RSN.Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ps. as a collector of crap (it's often thrown my way) drop a note on my page of the examples on Falk's blog, or include it in an email. I think it's a rather subjective description, but, who knows, one or two bits might make it and could frill out the margins of a book I often annotate, Dominique Laporte's, L'histoire de la merde.Nishidani (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Guardian confirms what I said by calling him, and I quote, "the controversial Jewish American academic and UN envoy, Richard Falk". Can you not read or does your brain just skip any information that doesn't sit well with your POV? I bolded the important part for your convenience.

And again you're quoting Falk relating what someone else said.

As for your crap collection, some of which I have already been exposed to, a quick search will give you all the information you need about Falk, although I have a feeling you will be able to justify some of his statements (not to mention antisemitic cartoons he posts on his blog), like the recent one about "the organized Jewish community" being responsible for the confiscation of Palestinian lands. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not somebody is "controversial" is completely immaterial to the question of whether that person is a "reliable source". Benny Morris is controversial. Rashid Khalidi is controversial. Neve Gordon is controversial. Falk is an eminently reliable source on the topic. That cannot be seriously challenged, and if one wants to challenge that then by all means, please do so. Why should this material be in the lead? Several reasons, the main one being it summarizes one of the notable reactions to the policies that this article describes. At AE, AnkhMorpork asked [w]hy the view of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view? I'll answer that here because it is irrelevant there. It isn't. I told you up above, add more views. Nobody is stopping you. You want to add "while X, Y and Z say that the allegations are completely spurious" do that. That would be fantastic. You could help build the article. But reactions to the policies belong in the lead. nableezy - 08:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG. As per Nableezy. The word 'controversial' is code language in the I/P area, and is, more often than not, the default adjective thrown into any critic of Israel, esp. people like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Richard Falk, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass etc. who just happen, like most freethinkers, to refuse to be fall into lockstep with the world of memes that would have anything vaguely critical of their government assessed as communistic, or antisemitic. I don't read blogs or the tabloid press where this smearing thrives, usually in response to an article, not after close examination of all views. I did read Falk's, and was impressed. I don't think he says anything that could compare in any way with the bile, violence, prejudice or odium in the public declarations of Shmuel Eliyahu, Moshe Levinger, Dov Lior, or Yitzhak Shapira, to name off-hand a couple of several hundred I could list, whose articles do not call them ‘controversial’.

Unfortunately for those we rush to label 'controversial' here, they belong to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, with its prophetic vein. I'm sure if we had the archives of the tabloid press of Jerusalem ca.750-500, there'd be a huge amount of bitchy gossip and smearing of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea etc., because they 'talked truth to power', and chastised their own people, and the cuneiform edition of wiki would call them, on that basis, 'controversial'.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent argument. The Guardian is part of "the tabloid press", you don't read blogs so it's as if they were never written, and Levinger appears in the lead of multiple articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that because someone is controversial they aren't RS. What I said is that the opinions of two controversial people, working for a controversial body, whose opinions are hardly mentioned in the body of the article do not belong in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian reports that Falk is considered 'controversial'. As Nableezy said, that means little in terms of relevance to RS. It is not the viewpoint of the Guardian. All governments, global corporate bodies like Exxon, and most institutions (the IMF) are 'controversial'. Any institutional actor in a world of conflicting interests will be, ipso facto, controversial to one of the state actors. I can never understand why the UN is regarded as an anomaly in this regard, esp. since Israel owes its foundations to a decision taken there, a decision which is subject to a US veto if reapplied to the other party's aspirations.

Your argument might have some purchase if we were dealing with the usual activist crew, or some militant minor NGO member. They are recognized authorities on international law, with impeccable credentials in their respective disciplines. Since the whole article is about a presumptive process which would be in violation of obligations undertaken by Israel as a belligerent occupant, and since that is something determined not by politics, or shouting, but by technical analyses of the legal lay of the land, it's absolutely normal that two experts in international law be mentioned there. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the Guardian states as fact that he is controversial. There is nothing saying or implying that this is someone else's opinion. Again, can you not read or does your brain just translate everything you read into your preferred POV? Perhaps you're just making stuff up in the hopes nobody will read the article that I not only linked to, but actually quoted above.

Falk is indeed an activist. He was chosen by the UNHRC because of his publicly stated views on Israel (and "the organized Jewish community") which he says were formed when he was a student, which considering he was born in 1930, was probably in the 1950s. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok? So what? And we can expand on those views in the body if you think that they are "barely mentioned", but all this noise about "controversial people" and a "controversial body" is utterly irrelevant. nableezy - 16:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani would be claiming it's much needed context if could be used to advance his POV.

Feel free to expand whatever you like but right now putting this stuff in the lead would be obvious UNDUE and probably a violation of LEAD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it a violation of UNDUE? How is a single sentence in the lead undue weight for what two UN Special Rapporteurs have said about the policies described in the article? nableezy - 17:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A single sentence out of 4 sentences gives quite a bit of prominence to viewpoints of a couple of people that don't seem to have such prominence in the body of the article or in reliable sources.

Let's be frank here for a second. You want this in the lead because it appears to give the weight of the UN to the views, without mention it was submitted to a highly criticized UN body, by highly criticized people who had highly criticized mandates. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

All you are doing is harping on one aspect of Falk's career and making him look exceptional, while ignoring the same kind of intense examination of anyone else in the lead. I've held off from saying the obvious, but since you insist on this cherrypicking repetition I'll make the point. Your debating strategy here is to elide all mention of Falk's intellectual and professional credentials, or erase or sweep them under the carpet of some generic phobic 'activism'. Apply this approach to others in the lead. Dan Diker is in the lead, Dore Gold is in the lead, Justus Weiner is in the lead. All three are actively engaged in promoting one particular Israeli line in international forums; they are all connected to the Israeli government. Dan Diker quoted and underwrote the view that " Palestinians don't care about losing people, and the Israelis can't fight that," i.e. the controversial 'poor-Israel-has-trouble-fighting-a-people-who-love-death (esp.being shot by the Occupation forces) meme; Weiner's attempt to destroy Edward Said's credibility is, to put it politely, 'controversial'. Dore Gold, who explcitly recommended 'judaization of Jerusalem', is branded by that longing serving Saudi intimate of the Amnerican Washington elite, and a self-described American Hamiltonian conservative, Bandar bin Sultan as 'simply hatred's scribe'. Dore Gold's view that the UN fuels global chaos, which several editors keep repeating over wikipedia articles, is itself ' is bound to be controversial', according to Henry Kissinger, where does all this plying the worry beads about the international jurist, Richard Falk, as unacceptable because 'controversial' lead? Nowhere.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Gold is used to support the notion of Judaization. I wouldn't be surprised if you were the one who put him in there. You want to remove him? Go ahead.

Is there a barnstar for strawmen? You'd have a pages full of them if there was.

You then go on to assert (as if your word has any weight) that the others are controversial.

I notice you didn't address your misrepresentation of the Guardian article, but that's about par for the course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You haven'ìt addressed 95% of what has been argued here. You have just repeated, as far as I can see, what you want to see addressed, the 5%. It's what you ask that appears to engage your attention in reading what others write in reply, which is fair enough, for you. It isn't for an interlocutor who thinks his own key points are systematically ignored. I gather you didn't even read the above? Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just an apparently necessary correction to a misapprehension about the use of the adjective 'controversial'. When applied to people, it does not mean the person is controversial, it means the person's views are 'controversial' (according to someone). In that sense, Gold's views for Kissinger are 'controversial'.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, lets be frank, as you haven't brought clarity to why I think the material should be in the lead. I want the material in the lead because Israeli policies in Jerusalem have brought condemnation by UN officials who are also experts in the field of international law. Criticism of the UNHRC belongs in the page on the UNHRC. Criticism of Falk belongs in the article on Falk. Criticism of Israel's judaization efforts in Jerusalem belongs in the article, and yes the lead, of the article on the judaization of Jerusalem. If your problem is that the lead overall is too short then expand the lead. UNDUE weight does not mean what you are apparently claiming, UNDUE means that each view, in comparison to opposing views, is given its appropriate weight. Not some math about percentage of the article, but about weight given to each viewpoint related to opposing viewpoints. And again, nobody is stopping you from adding material that you feel is not given enough weight. nableezy - 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, it was indeed Nishidani who put Gold in the lead to support his POV and now is pretending to make an argument about him being controversial.

As someone who tries very hard to project the air of an intellectual, you should work on a quality most people expect to see in one - integrity. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stop pretending that being controversial is at all relevant to anything besides whether or not that person should be described as "controversial" in the article covering him or her? nableezy - 18:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG. I think you are allowing personal antipathies, for Falk, and even a pretentious pseudo-intellectual like myself, to show, and the arguments have been exhausted. I think the due conclusion is that both the lead and the subsections require expansion. Some of that new material has been registered above. As soon as the Ae case is over, I'll add those UN documents and a few other things. Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the all important "context" you insist belongs in other articles? Too lazy too look but I believe just a couple of days ago you said something to the effect of "context is everything". What's the context here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence that was insisted upon stated these individuals opined that J of J is "tantamount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing." Can you quote from the reports where these human rights activists stated this in direct reference to J of J?Ankh.Morpork 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Context determines the specific meaning of words, as we used to be told in school.
• I think it pointless to reply to anyone hereon in who tries to cog the dice by calling two professional international jurists, performing their official duties, 'human rights activists'. Next someone will be saying Richard Goldstein was a 'human rights activist' in the period in which he wrote and defended his UN report, but immediately stopped being so when he revised his view.Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Another straw man valiantly slain; etch another notch in that fictitious sword you are are so fond of flailing around. This source refers to them as "human rights activists", a terminology not dissimilar from your own "human rights consultants" coinage. When one beseeches for a discussion and initiates a thread to lament its absence, it is most strange to bandy around "pointless to reply" comments when one's interlocutors arrive. Alea iacta est and a reply is expected. Ankh.Morpork 08:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

alea iacta est(o) does not mean 'the gauntlet has been thrown down', as, contextually, you appear to think it means, though it was coined to declare that civil war was imminent, and that the person uttering these remarks fully intended to precipitate events.

It was cited in response to your "cogging the dice" accusation because of its pleasing literal connection as well as an allusion to an ineluctable responsibility of participating in a discussion started at your behest and your inexorable future involvement. Ankh.Morpork 10:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG's remark preceding your re-entry here raised the non-issue of my pretentiousness:

who tries very hard to project the air of an intellectual

I don't know, and in anycase it is beyond my interest and remit as a wikipedian, if the opportunity to take this up encourages you in being abusive, but your remarks now are assuming the same aggressive personalisation. I was advised by an excellent observer some time back to not allow myself to be wound-up by tactics that seemed to be organised as a prelude to AE reports, and it was sensible counsel. It is Sunday, and, like the Lord, I'm going to take a well-earned rest. But, I will not reply to any provocations nor distortions of argument. I only work here because I enjoy being a constructive contributor to the formation of articles, not the Emil Zatopek of a obstructive steeplechasing.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you something I figured out for myself without requiring input from an "excellent observer." Falsely accuse people of things and they will inevitably respond in a particular manner. It's one of those basic people skills that most people intuitively discover, and you should consider this when accusing people of "cog[ing] the dice" and instigating the contumely before withdrawing with an injured, faux-naïf air. Ankh.Morpork 10:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Alonso got off to a bad start at Budapest so I can afford a break while he battles to crawl back into a competitive race.

'accuse falsely,' 'instigate contumely', 'injured faux-naif air', etc. I.e. you persist, despite my suggestions you desist, in personal remarks that violate WP:AGF. I'll limit myself to two formal observations, since you are again personalizing things, and appear intent to try and 'wind me up' (no allusion to Tristram Shandy's clock). I won't report you, but your language confirms I do well to ignore you, since it consists of systematic baiting and distortion.

• ‘cog(ing) the dice’. If you are having trouble with understanding the rule governing the spelling of the present participle of monosyllabic verbs ending in a consonant, the rule is to double the final consonant before the “gerundive” form. I.e. cog=cogging; sod=sodding; nod=nodding; blog=blogging.

• I adopted 'cog the dice' because I prefer to avoid using the expression ‘poison the well’. That idiom resonates with anti-Semitic accusations, as everyone on Wikipedia seems to have forgotten. Walter Laqueur, The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, 2008 p.60

• Well-poisoning was introduced into this argument by User:Plot Spoiler here, here. You picked it up and confirmed the accusation here, speaking again of ‘the insignificant views of two individuals’.

I wrote 'cog the dice' to inform you that you were using loaded diction (loaded dice in modern jargon) that prejudiced a discussion before it has gotten underway. One avoids this by adopting the vox propria to refer to people in their professional capacities, which is the case here. This is not an argument about ‘human rights activists’ but jurisconsults, employing their expertise in international law. If you think that citing the New York Sun furnishes an adequate warrant for refusing to acknowledge their status, then you haven’t understood how we evaluate RS.

You are again attempting to twist my words to make out I falsely accuse you and instigate contumely. Justice Anthony Scalia's dissenting opinion in United States v. Virginia said of his colleagues' majority opinion that they, the Court, had loaded the dice, i.e., cogged the dice. Not for that did they turn back and accuse him of instigating contumely. You admit to contumely, in short, and blame me for inciting you, simply because you didn't read my point properly. I don't think this mode of provocative distortion and distraction by terminological juggling apt for the work we undertake here. As I said, I may engage you after my day of rest, if you begin to respect the proper terminology, and desist from twisting my words to start a fight.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If Goldstone called himself a "peace activist", "engaged scholar", "citizen pilgrim", and signed BDS petitions while he was holding a UN position, I'd call him an activist too. Falk is an activist. He says so himself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies to those who have put in so much time and energy above, but it's an incredibly long mass of text at this point. In parts, I only skimmed it instead of reading carefully. I'm reasonably certain there was some latin thrown in, but I think I understand the content portion of the discussion. Common sense dictates that edit warring was not the way to go about this. Common sense also dictates that something so potentially inflammatory and POV (particularly when the view of "some") has absolutely no business in the lead section. That it was there for any length of time shows that a terrible statement was allowed to remain and does not create any special status such that the information remains. Imagine if we were under Meta:Positive tone. Try to edit that way, and these issues won't pop up (mostly because a line like that would never be found in the lead). --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

demographic data addition

NMMNG, I dont believe my edit summary said the material was unsourced, I said it was OR. And as I recall you seem to have lectured others on BRD. The JIIS link does not once mention Judaization. The JCPA piece by Justus Weiner doesnt approach being a reliable source. Reliable sources are needed that use that data in relation to the topic of this article. Kindly self-revert until the OR issue and the lack of consensus for the material is settled. nableezy - 05:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The JCPA stuff should probably be attributed, but otherwise I don't see a problem with it. Unless there's another source that shows their numbers are incorrect? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I do see a problem, and I have this odd tingle that tells me that you see it as well. Justus Weiner writing in the JCPA is not a reliable source. The other source does not even contain the word Judaize or any alternate spelling or form of that word. And, I'm reminding you of the BRD. BRD is the word. Do you plan on self-reverting? nableezy - 17:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

JCPA is as reliable as, say, ICAHD or Taayush or any one of those groups that regularly gets put in articles, with attribution of course. As long as that kind of stuff gets used, I can't in good conscious deny JCPA.

Now that you've explained exactly what your objection is, I will seriously consider self reverting. BRD BRD BRD BRD is the word. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Its nice that you are considering it, however my last comment was a restatement of my first, which was an elaboration on the edit summary. So it isnt now that I have explained my objection, it is that I have now re-explained my objection. nableezy - 19:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That song was stuck in my head all day. I hope you're happy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As is customary with opinion pieces, this data can be used with attribution as is already done with similar sources in this article. And, to use one of your regular arguments. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for removal. Ankh.Morpork 13:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe I said IDONTLIKEIT, I said such material requires reliable sources. And no, not every opinion piece belongs in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 13:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Israelization"

I'm not quite sure, if this relates to the subject of the article, which is Judaization. Are East Jerusalem Palestinians converting to Judaism? Comments from other editors? --Dailycare (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

DailycareIsraelization of East Jerusalem residents has everything to do with the attempt of Israel to integrate and make the East Jerusalem residents part of the Jewish state. Thus, it's relevant. Please don't remove the section again without consulting the editors first. SimplesC (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. However, I'm still not quite clear on how this fits into "Judaization", which we define in the lead as Israel's attempts to "transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem". The demographic landscape is changed if the racial makeup of Jerusalem's inhabitants is caused to change. Is the racial makeup changing as a reasult of this? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dailycare, I think the Israelis who are trying to make East Jerusalem residents more Israeli --by offering them their health care, access to Israeli schools, Hebrew classes-- falls in line with Israel trying to make the E.J. residents more integrated with the Jewish State. As described "Yiftachel identifies Judaization as a state strategy and project in Israel, not confined to Jerusalem" SimplesC (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. According to the article, ""Judaization" in territorial terms is characterized by Oren Yiftachel as a form of "ethnicization", which he argues is "the main force in shaping ethnocratic regimes". Yiftachel identifies Judaization as a state strategy and project in Israel, not confined to Jerusalem alone". I have to repeat my question, how are the events descrined in the "Israelization" text proposal changing the demographic or ethnic makeup of East Jerusalem? Are the Arabs converting to Judaism, or are Jews there converting to Islam or Christianity because of those described events, which would, I agree, change the demographic situation? --Dailycare (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There arent any sources connecting that material to the topic of this article, and so I am removing it. nableezy - 20:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This section falls exactly into the mandate of the intro section "The Judaization of Jerusalem (Arabic: تهويد القدس‎, tahweed il-quds; Hebrew: יהוד ירושלים, yehud yerushalaim) 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]"SimplesC (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nableezy and Dailycare. It fails to meet the crucial "fundamentally Jewish" part of the definition. You don't have consensus for this material, please remove it. Zero^talk 14:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Three different users have now objected to you inserting material that is not relevant to this article. Unless you can provide sources that explicitly connect that material to Judaization I will remove it once more. Please do not try to force in material absent a consensus for it. nableezy - 14:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I've tried to stay out of this, but you are,SimplesC, engaged in thrusting in material against a small but unanimous consensus, with no external point for your WP:OR conflation of Israelization with Judaization. Create an article on the former, by all means. But in the meantime, respect the talk page here.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

nice guys - dailycare, nishidani, zero and nableezy are all on one side of the POV, and simplec on the other. sure, gang up on him..... now, to the issue at hand: he presented a source, and explanation, fully in line with the theme of the article. what's the problem? Soosim (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is apparently neither he nor you now can read straightforward English. Reread the comments above. And count Zero out of the imaginary gang, if one can count zeros out. Aces in the Pacific probably did in the later stages of the war, come to think of it.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please dont continue saying silly things. It is not fully in line with the theme of the article. No source has been brought to link that material to the topic of this article. And your imagination notwithstanding, the material has nothing to do with the attempts to transform Jerusalem into a fundamentally Jewish city. nableezy - 20:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How could you transform a fundamentally Jewish city into a fundamentally Jewish city?! Please, check your POV and look at the simple facts. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in to disturb rather than edit pages

this edit by User:Ypnypn putting an NPOV tag on the page on the 15th, 4 days ago, and now this and this edit by User:Tritomex are examples of simply noting a movement of dispute (above) and jumping in to play games. I say this because neither the previous editor, nor these two, have addressed the talk page with concrete lists of queries or questions, or raised issues they would like to be discussed. The archives have extensive discussions, and they appear to be ignored. So, please don't give the impression you have neither read the page or the archives, by simply and rather lazily exploiting revert rights or tags, which prove nothing, and in fact give no assistance to those editors who actually constructed the page, for good or bad.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has nothing to do with the fact that in disputes, Wikipedia should not take sides. Its clearly a dispute and not a fact as it is presented. It is not upon editors to declare or dispute the existence of alleged process. All sections must have NPOV names.Titles like "Criticism of Judaization efforts" already in advance are non neutral definitions as they are implying that Judaization do exist. --Tritomex (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, User:Nishidani avoid psychological or intentional evaluation of other editors.--Tritomex (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why tell me to avoid two evaluations that are not in my preceding edit. There is no mention of your psychology or intentions, unless 'playing games' (i.e., fooling about unseriously) is your point. There is a clear statement of a pattern of edits that ignores the talk page, and I deem this uncollaborative and lazy. So please don't admonish me to avoid what I haven't shown signs of doing here. That is indeed 'psychological' in that it reads into me an 'intention' I haven't displayed. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

<- I've removed the template since it's addition didn't comply with the template's usage notes (see Template:NPOV). I guess Ypnypn is not familiar with the usage notes. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

II still did not get any hawsers regarding the question I have raised. Titles like "Criticism of Judaization efforts" already in advance are non neutral definitions as they are implying that Judaization do exist. Wikipedia should not take sides. This allegations and contra allegations are alleged claims, supported by one side and disputed by other. The same is obvious for political scholars.--Tritomex (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about that section heading change but I can give you a bit of advice about editing in ARBPIA. If you care about policy compliance and would like that to be evident from your edits, it would be better to avoid edits like this sequence at Islamization of Jerusalem that use poor quality/highly partisan/unreliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The eventual problematic parts of that article will be/or are changed.--Tritomex (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

By whom? All I see is virtually nothing on the architectural innovations that took place from 638 to the Crusades, the rubbish clearing of Jewish holy sites in order to enable them to worship, Suleyman the Magnificent's work on the 'Herodian' walls. The page seems to exist to put shit on Islam.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Suleyman restauration project will be added to that article, however here we are speaking about concrete problem with this article.--Tritomex (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

'However' is not appropriate. The 'concrete problems' of that article consist in the fact that it was created to create a pseudo-parallel with this article for ostensible NPOV balance, but whereas this article deals with contemporary Jerusalem where Judaization means expropriating property to create a 'Jewish' city (Christian confessions own 17% of its historic quarter) and expelling Palestinians, the 'Islamization of Jerusalem' refers to the Arab conquest and its aftermath, marked by the sanctioned return of Jews to the city, and monumental reconstruction of much of its historic architectural monuments. But the article is an excuse to talk about one period 1949-1967, where Jewish heritage was destroyed, and no one has done their homework to fill the glaringly empty sections that deal with Islamic-Arab and Ottoman building and regulations over Jerusalem 638-1918. When you write 'Suleiman restoration project will be added', the passive verb is either prophetic or the impersonal voice of a personal intention. I asked 'By whom'? Do you know who 'will add the appropriate sections' that are required by the subject's title?Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is really a piece of work

Come on, when you think of Jerusalem, which group of people does it bring to mind. Which group of people is it really identified with? You can Judaize Jerusalem about as much as you can catholicize the pope. I mean, the very term (and the article here) is worded in such a way that denies any Jewish historical presence or connection to the city (the article begins talking about the city being inhabited by Christians and how it was conquered by the Muslims during the 7th century). Surely, if you were really going to be fair about it, you would call it the 're-Judaization' of Jerusalem, but then, I guess, it sounds a little too much like the Jews might have some kind of valid claim to the land? *gasp*

However, if the editors who have written this piece of work deny that there had ever been in the history of the world a 'Judaized Jerusalem', then those editors ought to stop editing Wikipedia, since they are totally disconnected from reality.

Moreover, if you look at the beginning section after the lede, not only does it purposely leave out the history of Jewish occupancy in the city pre-dating the Christians and the Muslims, we learn, amazingly, that it was 'inhabited' by peoples pre-dating the jews. However, if we follow the "History of Jerusalem" link and then further look at the "History of ancient Israel and Judah" link, we find that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#The_archaeological_record indicates that there is some kind of agreement among historians that the peoples living in Jerusalem pre-dating the jews were in point of fact proto-Jewish Canaanites. Yet, of course, you don't cite that either. Indeed even taking the 'minimalist view' described in the aforementioned link, we see that there was at the very least a thousand year Jewish presence in the area. This supports my contention that this article contains, in its very title, a severe NPOV problem. Why don't we all take off our ideological blinkers for a moment and look at the facts. You can't judaize jerusalem, since its connection to the Jewish people is carried through history by a surfeit of religious _and secular_ writings. If you really think that the 'judaization' project is something worth talking about, then please call it a re-judaization, since that's what it is. I rest my case.

174.44.174.192 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

How is the cited sob story relevant? When a building is not built with a proper permit, then the state enforces the law. The fact that I feel sympathy for the family (who may have been defrauded by builders) does not mean that there is a 'Judaization' of Jerusalem, which is a historically Jewish city since something like 1200 BC. How could you Judaize the very center of Jewish life? It's outrageous to call it what you've called it. If you're alleging that there is some kind of ethnic cleansing going on, then call it an ethnic cleansing. However, it should also be included that the city had been ethnically cleansed in the 1948 war by the Jordanians, who systematically destroyed synagogues and tried to destroy all traces of Jewish heritage within the city. Again, just because you feel sorry for the family in your link doesn't give you the right to write a purposely misleading article. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to blog, go somewhere else. Wikipedia explicitly obliges editors to use the talk page to resolve specific editorial issues, not to divagate. Your remarks are only baiting for an historical tutorial, since you evidently know nothing. Everything you say is buried and refuted in the page's archives and is stale, and trite. Bye Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Nishidani. The first sentence of this article states what Judaization means here, namely transformation of the physical and demographic landscape. In fact, this is stated Israeli policy. --Dailycare (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the editorial issues are clear, namely that the page is inherently nonsense. Also, Nishidani, nice use of feminist debating tactics. There is no historical tutorial necessary. Either you accept the validity of acquisition of land by conquest, or you don't. If you don't, then I fail to see why 1967 (or 1948, knowing how YOU people think) is the first year in which this prohibition is enforced. Nothing I've said has been refuted in the talk page's archives. Instead you just got other editors banned or topic-blocked who disagreed with you. Just because you've been able to hang on the longest does not mean you've won the argument. Also, Dailycare, it's a re-judaization of the city, or a restoration of Jewish life and Jewish sites, given how they were destroyed and desecrated (and the old city ethnically cleansed by Jordan) from the period 1948-1967. The specific problem with this article is that it has a POV that downplays any Jewish history at Jerusalem (simply read the first section of the article). 174.44.174.192 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi IP, you seem to be a bit confused concerning e.g. the concept of POV in this project, as well as the concept of WP:CIVIL. To get going, you might consider editing articles that you don't hold very strong opinions about. --Dailycare (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I understand POV completely fine. You're pushing a POV and then supporting your buddies who have the same POV. I'm only emotional about the fact that Nishidani was rather rude to me by asserting I had no idea what I was talking about. You are a POV pusher, as I've seen in other parts of this talk page. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm only emotional about the fact that Nishidani was rather rude to me by asserting I had no idea what I was talking about.

Jerusalem, which is a historically Jewish city since something like 1200 BC.

Concentrate on the meaning of 'Jebusite', 'Canaanite', 'Israelite', and 'Jewish'.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

IP, this talkpage is for discussion on the article content. And no, you don't seem to have a grasp about the concept of POV. NPOV means simply that content must be in-line with what sources say. What editors think about the sources, or other editors, is irrelevant. You need to read WP:CIVIL as well. --Dailycare (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Totally false. NPOV also includes framing as well as choice of sources. The article is currently framed in a way that makes it seem as though a Jewish presence (and whether it began in 1000 BC, 900 BC, or even 800 BC does not make a lick of difference) in Jerusalem is a novel phenomenon. For instance, no mention is given to Jordan's ethnic cleansing of the city or of its destruction of traces of Jewish life. As far as this article is concerned, ancient history begins ~600AD and the relevant history of 'judaization of jerusalem' starts in 1967, completely disregarding the history of the jews in that city. From Wikipedia:NPOV, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". My objections about this article are specifically that it does not do this. It is one-sided and makes no attempt to present this claim in any sort of balanced way. Please stop it with your lies, Dailycare. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Where did the editor lie ? That is a very serious accusation. You need to provide evidence or strike the statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor lied in his definition of POV and NPOV. He lied because it suited his purpose. He thought he would get one over on me, and I resent that. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That isn't a lie. That is a brief description of a key aspect of NPOV as the editor sees it. You appear to be struggling to understand some of the rules that govern content and behavior here. Are you going to be able to stop attacking other editors and just focus on the content issues ? You can read what you write before you save it and remove any statements that refer to other editors. If you are not able to stop attacking people there's zero chance of you achieving anything. Editors don't need to be exposed to it. All it does is cause conflict and increase the likelihood that your IP is blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a lie, since it purposely deflects attention from the 'neutral' part of NPOV. Look, if you're going to rule-lawyer somebody, you had better cite the rule properly. Failure to do so is just as bad if not worse than citing a source and then attributing to it your own opinions. It is thoroughly dishonest. What happened with this page is a number of editors combined for the purpose of writing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been written, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrongdoing in consequence of its having been written wholly in reaction to the 'insufferable' acts of those who pointed the wrongdoing out in the first place. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, this article is basically a piece of agitprop by the Palestinian leadership and supporters of the Palestinians. You can agree or disagree with the opinion in the article, but the facts are clear: There is an ample historical record demonstrating a Jewish connection to the city at least as far back as 2500 years ago, together with ample evidence of continuous Jewish inhabitation of the city (with several short exceptions due to events in the imperial Roman period) since that period of time. This article, as it currently stands, contains a lie by omission regarding this fact. Moreover, it implicitly insinuates that Jewish claims of a connection to the site are ahistorical and a recent invention for political reasons. This is an outrageous violation of NPOV, and it is part of a Palestinian public relations strategy, plain and simple.174.44.174.192 (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The scope of the article is "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". The article is about the modern State of Israel and its actions in this regard according to reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

IP, you've been warned not to attack other editors. Concerning the NPOV point, the article WP:NPOV starts thus :"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This means content must be in-line with what sources say, just as I said above. As to your personal accusations against me, I really couldn't care less. --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A lie of omission is still a lie. You are purposely misconstruing the policy to mean that the POV must only accurately represent some sources you find reliable, rather than reflecting all POVs of all reliable source in the debate. It is incumbent on you to see that all reliable POVs are sufficiently represented, which is a great deal more than what you said. That you have decided to persist in your mendacity illustrates your lack of commitment to reasoned and evenhanded debate and your commitment to pushing palestinian agitprop on wikipedia.2600:1001:B02B:D8B3:7CC4:F6A9:C40D:698 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to continue this. This is not a forum cor either tutoring people who have not read the rules, or who wish to stir up a hornets' nest by provocations and personal accusations ('mendacity' etc).Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it's more polite of me to assume that he's arguing in bad faith than if I instead assumed that he was just an idiot. =) 174.44.174.192 (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to stop commenting on other editors, yes or no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting your reversion. If we needed consensus to put up an npov tag, it would be a useless tag. See, the tag informs people that there is an ongoing dispute. Obviously people who disagree with the idea that you can judaize jerusalem disagree with you on whether the issues brought up constitute a POV violation, and it isn't up to you to decide by fiat that the dispute is over. 2600:1001:B017:5C9D:DBC2:B62E:482:6476 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question.

The template was removed because the editor who added it didn't follow the template's usage notes (see Template:NPOV). That is what happens when people don't follow the rules.

Do you understand the following sentence and why it is true ?

• It doesn't matter whether a Wikipedia editor disagrees or agrees with the idea that you can judaize Jerusalem and the editor's opinion does not belong on this discussion page.

If you don't understand that sentence or why it is true, you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia or how its content should be generated and would benefit from reading WP:FIVE. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoyland is correct. There is no 'ongoing dispute'. There is one IP editor (174.44.174.192) making a claim no other regular editor is making. There are no concrete examples provided of what is wrong with the article NPOV-wise, and in fact it is not editors who write sources, but sources that repeatedly characterize what is occurring as the 'judaization of Jerusalem'. Any editor can waste our time protesting that the summary of sources is a violation of NPOV only if they can document that the sources are partial, or misrepresent. No one has done that, and no editor here would have problems fixing the page were it shown where poor sourcing has been used, or source content wrongly paraphrased. Until that is done, the POV tag flags a distaste for what numerous Israeli sources state, and what happens to be, according to Israeli sources, a deliberate government programmme, and that is technically inapposite.Nishidani (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, if you want to take it up with arbitration, go for it, but why do you think that I agree with your claim of impartiality, when you clearly have a POV and agenda. You, Sean,and Dailycare are all on the other side of the disagreement. I will not be fooled by an echo chamber. I disagree with your opinion regarding how to interpret NPOV and articles in dispute. My objection is reasonable based on my reading of the defn of NPOV. Please stop using UN tactics against me, hiding behind a 'consensus'. If there ever was a consensus on this article, it was after you connived to remove those who disagree with you.174.44.174.192 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:174.44.174.192 ignores the rule Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.
The subject of the article itself: Judaization of Jerusalem cannot be disputed. It is the essence of it. So the POV-template cannot be applied on the whole article. If the editor does not recognize this he should be blocked. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

174.44.174.192 The only 'echo chamber' here is of blow-ins crapping in their own nest, or chamber pot, and thinking the sonic boom is a contribution to talk page analysis of issues. You and the other editor have given no instance of concrete problematical text, nor of understanding the rules, -just generic proclamations of a conspiracy conniving with 'UN tactics' to smear one side -and therefore, until that is done there is no NPOV matter under discussion. Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hah, calling it a conspiracy theory. It's not a conspiracy since it doesn't require any sort of hidden planning. It's clear that palestinian 'activists' are patrolling this page (it's got a high-priority for wikiproject palestine). Moreover, I have identified a _specific_ issue regarding the NPOV tag, namely whether or not the term 'Judaization' is appropriate, given that the city already has a Jewish history, and moreover, that the actions you're describing amount to an attempt to politically prejudice any future solution on I-P such that Jerusalem would remain in Israel (with its inhabitants). This amounts to an "Israelization", but not a "Judaization", since there is no effort to convert Muslim people or sites to Jewish ones. I'm re-adding the NPOV tag. If you want to remove it, take it up with arbitration. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)