Talk:Jerusalem (disambiguation)

("See also" secn)

Would it be appropriate to have under "See Also" some additional links, for example, to Jerusalem artichoke?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.149.155 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2006

   No; see Wikipedia:Mosdab#Examples_of individual_entries that_should_not_be_created.
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Name that Tune

I recently found an MP3 of a song called 'Jerusalem' by Vera Lynn. It doesn't fit the description of any of the songs and I wondered if anyone could confirm it is indeed Vera singing it and find out the complete lyrics. The sound is reminiscent of a church hymn via '40s MGM symphony orchestrations.

From listening to the track, the opening verse and chorus are:-

• 'Last night I lay asleeping, there came a dream so fair;
• I stood in old Jerusalem, beside the temple (bare/there)/
• I heard the children singing, and ever as they sang,
• Methought the voice of angels in heaven, in us, rang.
• Methought the voice of angels in heaven, in us, rang.

• Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
• Lift up your gates and sing
• "Hosanah" (spelling uncertain) in the highest,
• "Hosanah" to your king.'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicaladz (talk • contribs) 23:06, 16 March 2006

(West Jerusalem)

Should there not be an article for 'West Jerusalem' in its own right? Surely even irredentist israelis would acknowledge that there existed between, say 1949 and 1967, an urban entity seperate from East Jerusalem? The example of West Berlin suggests that there is a precedent for mainting the historical record for such an entity even after unification (by whatever means). Boldymumbles 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The greater continuity between the western partition of the city and the current unpartitioned city, compared to East Jerusalem (which may require discussion of the change of control in '56, security measures differing now from the rest of the city, the trend of purchases and/or faked purchases of homes, whose legitimacy neighbors or activists dispute, etc.) means that the above argument does not even establish that the case for WJ is as strong as that for EJ.
   The current situation where that Dab and East Jerusalem appear in the "See also" is not obviously correct: see #East, West, etc. below.
   In any case, WP could of course have a separate article (like West Jerusalem (1949 partition) since West Jerusalem is currently a (non-compliant) Dab. The work involved being large, it would probably be wise to formally propose splitting the Jerusalem article, identifying the portions of it that would be moved to the new one (since overlapping coverage has to be minimized), and outlining the additional material needed, before creating the article.
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel

It is not acceptable by any means to highlight the Israeli part of view to describe Jerusalem, it is indeed an occupied city and the photos inserted within the article are speaking about the occupied part of the city.

It is a city occupied by Israel, Palestinians consider it as their capital since thousands of years. United nations, all the world and USA, no single country see Jerusalem as capital of Israel, at least this is a factual mistake that need correction immediately.

We can not accept all lies mentioned within this article, and if this will continue, we will launch Legal and public camping against Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.11.235 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   The above contrib violates WP policy. The non-signing IP (apparently an ADSL customer of Jordan Telecom Group (Orange)), and other interested users, should consult wp:legal threat.
   That aside, see #Jerusalem is a city in Israel below.
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

Only the old city is occupied, while western Jerusalem (where Israeli Knesset, governmnet and high court sits) is undoubtly on Israeli's land. 84.109.73.22 (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East

Does anyone disagree with that? It is obvious from discussion here and at Talk:Jerusalem that some people disagree with the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is irrelevant to this page whether those people are right or wrong. A DAB page is not the place to argue the point, it is a place to disambiguate. If the name can be disambiguated in terms that noone disagees with, why not use those words?--Mhockey (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is of no concern whether anyone agrees that J is the capital of Israel or not. The fact is that Israel has made it is capital. No one agrees that Northern Cyprus should exist - but it does. We can't change the facts. Did King David raise an eyebrow when his enemies contested his making of Jerusalem his capital city? I don't recognise the authority of the Pope, but the Pope he remains. Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, are you disputing that Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East? --Mhockey (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's a Capital City. Chesdovi (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean, yes you are disputing that it is a city in the Middle East? I suspect that you are in a minority there. The facts are that everyone (I think) agrees that it is a city in the Middle East, but that some people disagree with the statement that it is the capital of Israel. We cannot change those facts. It is not relevant whether you or I agree or disagree that it is the capital of Israel. This is about the best way of disambiguating Jerusalem. I want to do it in a way that is entirely neutral (in terms of its history, views of its current status and its current significance). --Mhockey (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

El Aaiún is the capital of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, but they don't even control it. If Israel claims the city is its capital and it control's it too, whatever it legal status is, it remains Israel's capital. Even if it becomes a CS international zone, it would serve as Israel's capital. Even if it is divided, it would remain Israel's capital. Chesdovi (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not the point. This is a disambiguation page, not an article about the city of Jerusalem. There are any number of facts about Jerusalem which could be used to disambiguate it. I have told you why I prefer my words. Can you tell me why you prefer your words, please? --Mhockey (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The preference you state just means you find any defects your version carries less important the defect you perceive in "capital of...". But both of those versions are bad, and not the only options. See #Jerusalem is a city in Israel below.
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem is a city in Israel

In response to everything in the other subsections of this subsection's parent section, the purpose of the accompanying Dab is solely navigational.

1. Whether it's the capital or not is irrelevant on the Dab (and thus on this talk page), bcz the info that it is, or is not, or is claimed to be, or not to be, does not assist a user in reaching the page they seek.
2. PoVs aside, it is a fact that

   1. Jerusalem lies entirely within territory where Israel (rightly or not) exercises de facto sovereignty, and
   2. it is conventional, on maps prepared without intent of taking sides in the Jerusalem controversy, to show it as lying in Israel.

   Saying it is "in Israel" here, on a page where terseness is part of the quality criteria, is a navigational measure, because readers know more clearly what is meant (i.e., what is conventionally called part of Israel) than what is meant by "the Middle East". (By my quick count, our article says it always includes 18 countries, but another 21 can be optionally included!) "In Israel" conveys more information in fewer words.

   IMO there should probably be a Jerusalem sovereignty controversy article, and in the Jerusalem article, a very rough statement of the issues. But those discussions belong on article-talk and Wikipedia-namespace pgs, not here. In any case, split hairs on Dab pages only when it can make a difference in whether we quickly satisfy users looking for something.
   What is to the point here is that

Jerusalem is a city in Israel.

complies with WP:MoSDab and common sense. (If your car gets stolen in the Old City, you call the Israeli police, not the PA, even if you call them "the Zionist occupiers".) And it does not accede to the outrageous claims that an NPoV work must endorse PoV claims, or reword brief common-sense phrases in order to acknowledge the existence of controversies -- these being controversies that we treat in fullness, in the other places that, by common-sense standards, make them relevant. (Or if we don't treat them sufficiently, it is still in articles, not in Dabs, that we need to do so.)
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Positions on Jerusalem is the article you are looking for.

Can you explain why you object to the current version? It has been relatively stable and uncontroversial. As you say, whether it's the capital or not is irrelevant here, and it is an undisputed fact that Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East. It is clear from discussions above and at Talk:Jerusalem that your proposal is controversial and unlikely to be stable.--Mhockey (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

East, West, etc.

   Per Wikipedia:Mosdab#Examples of_individual entries_that_should not_be_created, Dab entries for East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem should be tolerated on the Dab only if we believe our users are likely to have encountered writers who say "Jerusalem" even tho they mean West Jerusalem, or even tho they mean East Jerusalem. (That is plausible: those whose target audience never go to, mention, or think about one may say "Jerusalem" expecting their audience to understand the more familiar one is the only one that makes sense in the author's context.) Since the section linked just above was written bcz of the frequency with which editors assume a Dab is a list of pages connected to Title "merely because Title is part of the name", the presumption that entries with explicit additional words are there for a good reason is not strong, and it is probably worth presenting evidence in this talk-page section that the need for each of these two See-also entries is real.
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Undo

    I undid Smyth (talk · contribs)'s edit of the accompanying Dab, despite their accurate perception that the hymn's entry was misplaced, apparently due to a previous editor's error of treating the hymn as something other than a song. IIRC, i started a partial undo, thinking to preserve S's move while restoring their removal.
    As it turns out, the problems ran deeper, and for no fault of S's, there was so much else to be fixed surrounding the destination of their move that it seemed simpler to fully undo the edit.
    The Dab is one of many that unintentionally may leave the impression that WP's usage of "song" is just jargon for "record album cut"; that misconception would explain some previous editor putting the article on the hymn (whose scope is composition rather than performance) separate from the recordings of performances. S. rightly judged that a hymn is a song (as for instance a jingle or a fight song is) but IMO probably fell into the other side of essentially the same trap: it would appear they dropped the Vangelis entry bcz it was not a distinct song, but only a performance or arrangement of the same song (the hymn). On the contrary, for our purposes both are songs, because the grouping of entries is simply a finding tool for readers who know that a band, an album, and a song are (with rare exceptions) clearly distinguishable things, without any intention to engage the reader in the metaphysics of design vs. implementation or different instances of a single construct.
    Far more important than that kind of distinction, we're dealing with articles, and almost always with current, actual articles rather than prospective, hypothetical ones. The Jerusalem composed in 1916, the Vangelis arrangement and/or recording of it, and the handier title "Jerusalem" for the poem are each a "Jerusalem" that the reader may be seeking, and the Dab must have entries for each, even at the cost of dumping apples and oranges, or rather apples and hippos, into the same bin: we must include all the topics called "Jerusalem"; a simple but metaphysically incoherant organization of them is better than a crystalline model that takes longer to navigate.
    IMO, the crucial neglected organization facet was the fact that the hymn is not represented simply by the 1916 setting and the Vangelis arrangement: a good fraction of the recordings are also takes on the same lyrics and melody. There's a good chance that users looking for a "song" in any of the three senses will recognize the initial line (or, in the case of the (IMO) mash-up by The Fall, which drops the initial lines, some of the pungent martial images) and focus in on those songs while ignoring the mixed bag of independent songs "Jerusalem".
    So thanks to Smyth for your diligent inspection of the Dab, and please keep up the good work.
--Jerzy•t 09:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Chamber ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Chamber ? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)