→Requested move 2 May 2020: Reply. |
Zarcademan123456 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 188:
:::We may rename this, but this is highly notable.[[User:Greyshark09|'''''GreyShark''''']] ([[User talk:Greyshark09|''dibra'']]) 07:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*Problem with Makeandtoss and Hulda's comments is that this article appears to be specifically about religious issues, not about the Jordanian annexation as a political phenomenon. Moreover [[Islamization]] in modern usage is about political [[Islamism]], but historically, certainly from 1948 - 1967, the term was used to describe the government-imposed shift to a regime that granted rights to Muslims not granted ot non-Muslims as a region shifted from political control by Christian or Hindu rulers to Muslim ones. This appears to be a precise use of the term in an historical context.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 12:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose [[User:Zarcademan123456|Zarcademan123456]] ([[User talk:Zarcademan123456|talk]]) 21:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
==Merger proposal==
|
Revision as of 21:05, 2 May 2020
SYNTH?
Most (all?) of the sources cited do not use the term "Islamization". This page appears to use WP:SYNTH to engage in WP:OR to create the appearance of notability. I suggest all sources that do not use the term "Islamization" be removed and we take a look at what we are left with to determine whether this topic meets WP:N. If it doesn't, I will be proposing it for deletion. Tiamuttalk 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Because many of the sources are not available online, I'd ask that the article creator post relevant passages here if they use the term Islamization to refer to the period of Jordanian rule over Jerusalem. Tiamuttalk 12:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have checked a few of them, and as far as I can tell the entire article is a synthesized OR "response" to the Judaization of Jerusalem article. The problem with that is the Judaization of Jerusalem article is based on high quality sources discussing "Judaization of Jerusalem" while this one is AMuseo's own interpretation of events and sources that do not discuss the purported topic of this article. nableezy - 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have added quotations that use the word Islamize in reference to the period of Jordanian occupation, and will continue to do add more. But it is important to note that the concept of Islamization is well-defined and that actions that meet this definition, such as requiring Christian schools to close on Muslim holy days, are correctly discussed in a page on Islamization whether or not the specific term is used.AMuseo (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide a single source that relates international plans for the internalization of Jerusalem under the partition plan to Jordanian Islamization of Jerusalem? nableezy - 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Jordan rejected the internationalization in favor of direct administration and discriminatory laws against the city's historic Jewish and Christian populations. That constitutes Islamization.AMuseo (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please provide a source that connects the topic of internationalization to Jordanian Islamization? Not the reason you feel that qualifies as Islamization, but an actual reliable secondary source that makes the connection you are making. nableezy - 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Holy OR, Batman! So I'm guessing the same issue might arise with Islamization of Gaza, Islamization of the Temple Mount, Islamization of Palestine and everything else in the the ? Brb, Islamitizing. Sol (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please provide a source that connects the topic of internationalization to Jordanian Islamization? Not the reason you feel that qualifies as Islamization, but an actual reliable secondary source that makes the connection you are making. nableezy - 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey guys, there is this new thing on the internets and its The Google. Check it out.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have not disputed the topic of the Islamization of Jerusalem, or indeed of Palestine as a whole, is a notable topic. A well-written article using quality sources in a manner consistent with the policies of this website could exist on such a topic. However, there are issues with the content of the article and the sources used right now. Would you care to address those issues? nableezy - 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Semantic based argument, to say that the article shouldn't exist because the term wasn't in use pre 1967 is nonsensical. Perhaps the article should be renamed, but the content is relavent, and the current topic title is an accurate description of the events that occurred when Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule. Drsmoo (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who said that? nableezy - 03:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey guys, there is this new thing on the internets and its The Google. Check it out.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Material removed form article
This material was removed from the article. I believe that it is part of the process of Islamization that took place under Jordanian occupation and rightly belongs in the article, but I would like the opinion of other editors.
- Jordan "ignored" calls form the Vatican and the international community to internationalize the city.[1] The Jordanian government withstood British and American pressure to implement the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.[1] King Abdullah and the government of Jordan also refused the 1949 effort by the Arab League to internationalize the city.[1] At no point did the international community recognize Jordan's right to control Jerusalem or the Holy Places it contains.[1][2]
- All citizens of Israel, including Muslim and Christian Arabs, were deprived access to Holy places in Jerusalem under Jordanian control from 1949-1967, with only a handful of exceptions made in individual cases.[3]
- ^ a b c d Jordanian Jerusalem; Holy Places and National Spaces, Kimberly Katz, University Press of Florida, 2005, p. 66. Cite error: The named reference "Katz" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ "L. Machaud-Emin, 'Jerusalem 1948-1967 vs. 1967-2007: Comparing the Israeli and Jordanian Record', in GLORIA Center, The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, 2007.
- ^ “The Status of Jerusalem: Some National and International Aspects,” S. Shepard Jones, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 33, No. 1, The Middle East Crisis: Test ofInternational Law (Winter, 1968), pp. 169-182.
AMuseo (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Whenever you say something like "I believe that x is true" calmly re-read Wikipedia's policy on original research. Get a source that connects the material that you "believe" is related to Islamization by Jordan to that topic. nableezy - 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- This material was restored. I have removed it again. There is no source that connects the partition plan and internationalization of Jerusalem with "Islamization" under Jordanian rule. Unless such sources connect those topics it is original research for it to be done here. You cannot say that you think "X is Islamization" and on that basis it should be labeled as such in the article unless a reliable source does so. nableezy - 03:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest bringing it up to a noticeboard if you feel the topic title is inaccurate. I think that the title should be changed from "Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian Occupation" to "Islamization of Jerusalem"
After a quick search I've found a few sources for that
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3596681,00.html
http://www.jerusalemites.org/jerusalem/islam/5.htm
http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=169
http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/mp/periodic/
These are just sources that contain the phrase, I'm sure there are far more to use for the article. Drsmoo (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly are you responding to? Do any of those sources relate plans for internationalization to Islamization? That is what this section is about. nableezy - 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this article for real?
Wow, King Adbullah prayed in Al-Aqsa Mosque!!! He must have been hell bent on Islamizationizing Jerusalem!!!!! What a load of doodoo this article is. I started to look at the references and found the first two don't even contain what is claimed. Hey, what does teaching children in Arabic (in an Arab country, what cheek!!) have to do with Islamization? What does internationalization have to do with Islamization? Well I guess they have the "ization" bit in common so they must be one and the same! Then we quote the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem quoted as a source, naughty naughty, the web page of some advocacy organization that reads like a rant, the Jewish Virtual Library, and our favorite Islamophobe. Who needs WP:RS? Zerotalk 23:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Request for Speedy Deletion
I requested the article to be deleted according to the Speedy Deletion general criteria, as it it
- was created (article history here) by a the sock of a banned user (SPI).
- Not much have been changed since his last contribution. Basically, what has changed is that a section was removed (see diff here). The last version edited by the sock (and only by the sock) is this one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Clean up
I've been trying to go through an clean up this article. The content of the article rarely matches its title, but I'm trying to do what I can to bring the two in line with one another. The article has major issues of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COATRACK, and many of the sources aren't easily accessible, or just don't match what they're cited for. Additionally, full sentences were just copied verbatim from the sources. The article was nominated for deletion, but thanks to off-wiki canvassing (in my opinion) that's unlikely to go through. We should at least try to bring any salvageable material up to wiki-standards. If anyone has time, please help out. ← George talk 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
SYNTH tag
I've replaced multiple tags on the page with just a SYNTH tag, as that seems to be the biggest issue at the moment. I'll make it simple: citing a source that says Jordan discriminated against Christians or Jews does not mean the same thing as Islamizing. They are two different things, but much of this article implies a connection when the sources themselves make no such connection. That is WP:SYNTH. We need to make it clear who exactly has made the charge, and the evidence they cite. ← George talk 13:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is also a severe problem with sourcing. At the moment much of it is basically a compendium of attacks on Jordan by Israel's standard bunch of advocates. Btw, I identified the real author of the article cited as "Hanus" - it is professional propagandist Dore Gold. Zerotalk 14:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- A big issue is that many of the sources aren't online, so I can't verify them. And some of the ones offline aren't readily available (I just added one for an unsourced quote which is only in one library worldwide, in Germany). How do you know that Hanus is Gold? We should update this article, and possibly delete the one I just created on Hanus. ← George talk 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hanus is the editor, the book is a compendium (as the name says) of articles by luminaries like Dore Gold, Daniel Pipes and Mitchell Bard (the cover is visible at Amazon). The snippet that Google will show of page 67 exactly matches this article of Gold. Hanus is not Gold, it is just the citation that was wrong. Zerotalk 14:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- A big issue is that many of the sources aren't online, so I can't verify them. And some of the ones offline aren't readily available (I just added one for an unsourced quote which is only in one library worldwide, in Germany). How do you know that Hanus is Gold? We should update this article, and possibly delete the one I just created on Hanus. ← George talk 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
George, please feel free to entirely remove any topic that my text from proper sources shows to be irrelevant to the subject of this page. Zerotalk 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, I'm tempting to just wipe out the second paragraph of the lead, and the Jordanian views on East Jerusalem section in the body. It just no longer has anything to do with Islamization, or even discrimination. All that those sentences say now is that Jordan liked Muslims and Christians. Before doing so, I'm checking to see if there is objection to such a move. If you do object, please also explain what Jordan's affinity for Muslims and Christians has to do with Islamization. ← George talk 07:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I'd also be fine with removal of the section about schools. The only pro-Islamic thing about that is the closing of schools on Fridays, not much to get excited about. Incidentally, the fact that serious academic studies like those of Katz and Israeli give a different picture from that of Ye'or, Gold, etc, just underscores how unreliable the latter are. We should work to replace them completely. Zerotalk 13:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with the bit on schools as well. The problem with removing Ye'or and Kollek is that they're pretty much the only people who have ever called the discrimination during this period "Islamization". It's a very fringy concept of questionable notability, but if you remove them there is literally nothing left in this article. I tend to doubt that most of the people who voted to keep in the deletion discussion actually reviewed the (lack of) sources, but we could try renaming the article "Discrimination in Jerusalem under Jordanian rule" or something similar (I also have an issue with calling Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967 "occupation" while citing a single newspaper from 1954). ← George talk 13:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since deleting this type of coatrack is essentially impossible, maybe it would be better to propose merger with East Jerusalem. Anything of value here (including some things that don't fit the topic of this page) could go into the Jordanian occupation section of that page. Zerotalk 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. The main page for that section, Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan, may be a more appropriate, more targeted article to merge into though. Thoughts? ← George talk 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since deleting this type of coatrack is essentially impossible, maybe it would be better to propose merger with East Jerusalem. Anything of value here (including some things that don't fit the topic of this page) could go into the Jordanian occupation section of that page. Zerotalk 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with the bit on schools as well. The problem with removing Ye'or and Kollek is that they're pretty much the only people who have ever called the discrimination during this period "Islamization". It's a very fringy concept of questionable notability, but if you remove them there is literally nothing left in this article. I tend to doubt that most of the people who voted to keep in the deletion discussion actually reviewed the (lack of) sources, but we could try renaming the article "Discrimination in Jerusalem under Jordanian rule" or something similar (I also have an issue with calling Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967 "occupation" while citing a single newspaper from 1954). ← George talk 13:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Removed that paragraph and section as mentioned as few days ago. ← George talk 21:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I'd also be fine with removal of the section about schools. The only pro-Islamic thing about that is the closing of schools on Fridays, not much to get excited about. Incidentally, the fact that serious academic studies like those of Katz and Israeli give a different picture from that of Ye'or, Gold, etc, just underscores how unreliable the latter are. We should work to replace them completely. Zerotalk 13:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Credibility of sources
[1] Why are Moshe Hirsch, Deborah Housen-Couriel and Ruth Lapidoth called “some authors claim”, while Tessler is not labelled as a “claim “ or as “some authors”? Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation → Islamization and Arabization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC) This includes all actions taken by the Jordainian government to solidify it's hold on the city, a process not always made in the form of Islamization. Chesdovi (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2011 (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 policy on article titles.
Discussion
- Comments by George
I'm not sure that expanding one vague term used for SYNTH by adding another really helps anything. I'd suggest renaming the article to Discrimination in Jerusalem under Jordanian rule instead. ← George talk 21:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sentence in the lead
There's currently a sentence in the lead "Israelis irrespective of religion were unable to visit East Jerusalem, so their holy places were inaccessible to them." I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It doesn't have anything to do with Islamization, and it's not at all unexpected from two countries recently in war. How many Jordanians were able to visit holy places in West Jerusalem? I'm going to go ahead and boldly remove it, but if anyone has a reason it should be kept please explain why here. Thanks. ← George talk 21:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- See para 5 (page 23 in case the link doesn't work). Many authors choose to hide the fact that it applied to every Israeli and instead present it as an action only against Jews. And you are quite right that visits in the other direction were also prevented (though most of the key "holy sites" were on the Jordanian side). It doesn't belong on this page so you were right to delete it. Zerotalk 01:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's about what I thought. I don't think that a law that restricted Jews, Christians, and Muslims from all visiting their respective holy sites counts as Islamization. Open to reconsidering if anyone has a different take on it, but seems pretty obvious to me. Thanks for the feedback Zero. ← George talk 06:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- "The Jordanians required most tourists to produce baptismal certificates — to prove they were not Jewish — before they were allowed to enter East Jerusalem from Israel." [2]
- "So severe were the Jordanian restrictions against Jews gaining access to the old city that visitors wishing to cross over from west Jerusalem (at the Mandelbaum Gate) had to produce a baptismal certificate." [3]
- "Jordan even barred access to non-Israeli Jews, requiring all tourists to present a certificate of baptism before visas were granted." [4] ---Chesdovi (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- This could be mentioned, but it is not an excuse for failing to mention that Israeli Muslims were not admitted, nor were Israeli Christians with one exception. Raphael Israeli and Martin Gilbert, both eminent historians with a pro-Israeli reputation, are very clear about this and both allow that non-Israeli Jews could enter. If Muslims and Christians were excluded too, where is the "Islamization"? Also your sources refer only to entering from Israel and don't mention other ways to enter. The story actually makes zero sense, since Christians do not carry baptismal certificates and most Christians would not even have one. I can imagine a Jordanian border guard making this demand when he suspected that someone was an Israeli Jewish activist trying to enter, but if it was a general requirement nobody at all would have been admitted. Zerotalk 02:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Sources
Chesdovi, Dore Gold (professional propagandist) and books like "For Zion's Sake" (written by an Israeli politician) are unacceptable here. You can't just shove any rubbish you like into the article. Zerotalk 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why have you note described Tessler's assertions as a "claim"? Chesdovi (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
SYNTHy additions
Rather than go back and forth, removing and re-adding this text, I'm hoping we can discuss what I view as the most SYNTHy of the additions to the article. These include:
- Mention of Arabization. Arabization is not the same as Islamization. I have no idea why this is in here, until the page rename discussion concludes that this should be an article on Islamization and Arabization. To say that "Prof. Israeli referred to Islamization as Arabization" is pure SYNTH.
- Using the JOJ as a guide, there is mentioned "de-Arabization", "ethnicization", "colonialism", "apartheid" & "occupation". Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- JOJ shouldn't be a guide for anything, especially given its own problems. Problems with other articles aren't carte blanche to go and add similar problems to other article just to make a point. I'm going to be removing this unless you can provide a better justification for it. ← George talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Using the JOJ as a guide, there is mentioned "de-Arabization", "ethnicization", "colonialism", "apartheid" & "occupation". Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mention of Jordan renovating Muslim holy sites. This makes sense in the body of the article when contrasted with treatment of non-Muslim holy sites, but it's misleading when placed by itself, because it implies that Jordanians treated non-Muslim holy sites differently while not expressly stating so. The issue is that Jordan also renovated some Christian holy sites, making the point moot.
- The spiritual significance of Jerusalem. Same issue. Zero added sources saying that Jordan considered it of spiritual significance to Muslims and Christians, I removed both, and now Chesdovi re-added the pro-Muslim significance. Knowing that other sources mention the Christian significance to Jordan, how is this "Islamizing"?
- Road signs in Arabic. What the heck does this have to do with anything? It implies something without saying it, which is, again, SYNTH. If the source says "Jordan was Islamizing Jerusalem by putting up Arabic roadsigns" then fine, include it, but if the source doesn't say it then it's pure SYNTH.
- Why does the JOJ have a "Replacing Arabic place names with Hebrew names" section? Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Same thing again; take it up at that article. If sources in the JOJ article do not say that "Israel put up signs in Hebrew to Judaize Jerusalem", then go remove it from that article. You shouldn't be adding SYNTH to this article to make up for the shortcomings of that article. ← George talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- If putting up new road signs in Arabic is not Arabizastion, what is? Do we really need a source for this obvious fact?! If it works one way, anf that's sourced, why do we need a source for the other way? Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not Arabization unless reliable sources say it is, and Arabization is not the same as Islamization anyways. I took a quick look at the JOJ article, and the source cited there explicitly says that putting up signs in Hebrew was an attempt to Judaise Jerusalem. I don't agree with them, but a reliable source said explicitly that someone made the claim. We need a similar source saying that putting up signs in Arabic was an attempt to Islamize Jerusalem, or it's synthesis. ← George talk 10:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- aND IF WE HAVE A SOURCE SAYING REMOVING THE aRABIC SIGN IS A FORM OF jUDIZATION.... ? 10:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not Arabization unless reliable sources say it is, and Arabization is not the same as Islamization anyways. I took a quick look at the JOJ article, and the source cited there explicitly says that putting up signs in Hebrew was an attempt to Judaise Jerusalem. I don't agree with them, but a reliable source said explicitly that someone made the claim. We need a similar source saying that putting up signs in Arabic was an attempt to Islamize Jerusalem, or it's synthesis. ← George talk 10:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- If putting up new road signs in Arabic is not Arabizastion, what is? Do we really need a source for this obvious fact?! If it works one way, anf that's sourced, why do we need a source for the other way? Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Same thing again; take it up at that article. If sources in the JOJ article do not say that "Israel put up signs in Hebrew to Judaize Jerusalem", then go remove it from that article. You shouldn't be adding SYNTH to this article to make up for the shortcomings of that article. ← George talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why does the JOJ have a "Replacing Arabic place names with Hebrew names" section? Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very hard to find any source specifcally saying the attachment of an Arabic sign saying Buraq on the Wall is in fact "Islamization" (magic word always missing), but others do imply it:
- "As he approached the Wall he noticed a sign in Arabic and English announcing that Mohammed and a band of angles had met on this spot. Ben-Gurion feared that an Islamic “presence” so close to the Western Wall might bolster the “Arab claim” to Jerusalem".[1]
- "For twenty years the Western Wall stood desolate and forsaken. The Arabs thought that they would succeed in effacing all traces of Jewish association with the Wall. They erased all the age-long inscriptions on the stones, removed the notes of supplication that had been inserted by worshippers in between the crevices in the Wall, and affixed a sign in Arabic and English bearing the legend: el-Burak."[2] ----Chesdovi (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- World Jewish Bible Society? Who? Come on, we can find an infinite amount of invective leveled by partisans of each side against the other, let's stick to sources that at least have the appearance of a little independence or objectivity. Zerotalk
- The difference is fundamentally the motivation Chesdovi. There is a reliable source that says that Israelis put up a sign in Hebrew because they wanted to "Judaize" Jerusalem. The reliable source says Judaization was the motivation. I, personally, disagree with the reliable source on the issue, but the source says it nonetheless. There is not a reliable source that says that the Jordanians put up a sign in Arabic because they wanted to "Islamize" Jerusalem. I can understand your frustration with the difference between those scenarios, but our hands are tied by the reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source that gives Islamization as the motivation for why the Jordanians put up the signs, as the JOJ source does, then we can definitely add it. But short of that, we're violating Wikipedia's policies on original research. ← George talk 00:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very hard to find any source specifcally saying the attachment of an Arabic sign saying Buraq on the Wall is in fact "Islamization" (magic word always missing), but others do imply it:
- If it's helpful, the relevant part of WP:SYNTH is that "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." Reliable sources said that some people have alleged the Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. Reliable sources say that the Jordanians put up signs in Arabic. If no reliable source has combined the two and said that one of the ways Jordanians Islamized Jerusalem was by putting up signs in Arabic, then it is original research. Hope that helps. ← George talk 10:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Arabs in the Jewish Quarter. Ok, so the Jews were expelled/fled/left, and some Arabs moved in, then the Arabs were expelled/fled/left, and it was planned to be turned into a park. I get how the Jews being expelled/fled/left has significance, but what does it matter that the Arabs were later expelled/fled/left?
- Clearly it shows that the transformation into a park was in the process of happening, not just a plan on paper. Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it shows that you're synthesizing something that sources don't say. You're adding information to imply that "the transformation into a park was in the process of happening". If source say that, then just write that and cite the sources that say so. But if sources don't say that, then you've crossed the line into synthesizing information.
- The failures of other start-class articles are not a valid reason for including synthesized information. I'll give you a few days to find some reliable sources that support your assertions above before I go through and weed the SYNTH back out. If you prefer, you can just open RfCs on the issues now, as we already have three opinions in this discussion. Your call. ← George talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- And just to be clear, sources that support these will have to draw a pretty explicit line like "Arabization is one form of Islamization", "Jordan tried to Islamize Jerusalem by putting up signs in Arabic", "Jordan started to make Jerusalem more Muslim by moving Arabs out of the Jewish Quarter and turning it into a park". We're not here to make arguments for Ye'or and Kollek, we're here to write what they've alleged, and what reliable sources say constituted Islamization during this time period. ← George talk 09:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- The road sign thing seems to be trivia to me and I'd delete it from both articles if I could. If we have to have it (alas) there is no reason supported by the sources, or in logic, to equate putting up a sign and taking it down. Also the language of the sign seems irrelevant. A country in which a great majority of residents speak Arabic as a first language can be expected to put up signs in Arabic. Only the content of the sign is potentially of importance (but I think not enough importance). Zerotalk 13:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- And just to be clear, sources that support these will have to draw a pretty explicit line like "Arabization is one form of Islamization", "Jordan tried to Islamize Jerusalem by putting up signs in Arabic", "Jordan started to make Jerusalem more Muslim by moving Arabs out of the Jewish Quarter and turning it into a park". We're not here to make arguments for Ye'or and Kollek, we're here to write what they've alleged, and what reliable sources say constituted Islamization during this time period. ← George talk 09:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly it shows that the transformation into a park was in the process of happening, not just a plan on paper. Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
On another, non-synth-related note, the sentence "Students, whether Muslim or Christian, were to study only their own religion, but study of the Koran became mandatory" makes no sense. We should cite who said what, like "According to X, Muslims and Christians studied their own religion, but according to Y, they all had to study the Koran." ← George talk 23:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- On the last one, we should prefer the academic study (Katz) that devotes several pages to the Christian schools under Jordanian control over the Israeli attack on Jordan that makes an extraordinary claim in passing. Katz discusses the actual Jordanian law in detail. Zerotalk 02:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Checking in to see if there has been any progress on finding sources, per my comments from June 10th above, before I start editing this article. ← George talk 01:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The road sign
In deleting the road sign I was wrong in suggesting that the sign was not actually on the wall itself. In fact it was, and I'm 100% sure because I located the exact spot. Since the floor of the plaza was lowered in 1967 or soon afterwards, the spot where the sign was is now 4.1 meters (13.5 feet) above the pavement. However I'm not going to put it back because, as well as not being in the only source provided, it is hard to argue it as Islamization. The sign provided both the Jewish name "Wailing Wall" and the Arabic name "Al-Buraq" which is an example of being inclusive, not one of being exclusive. The road was known in Arabic as al-Buraq from 1865 or earlier. Zerotalk 06:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Why self-serving claims by politicians shouldn't be allowed as reliable sources
The mayor of Jerusalem Teddy Kollek wrote in 1981: "It will also be remembered that, during the 19 years of the Jordanian occupation, the number of Christians living in Jerusalem dropped from 25,000 to 9,000." and E.M.Gregory added this claim to the article. What Kollek failed to mention is that half of those 25,000 were living in the part of Jerusalem occupied by Israel and that (unlike the Christians in the Jordanian part) Israel dispossessed most of them of their property. Some went to East Jerusalem (perhaps temporarily) and others went all over the world. Zerotalk 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Various articles by Daphne Tsimhoni give a more scholarly account of the demographics. Zerotalk 03:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'll add: it is perfectly obvious that Kollek's article is self-serving and propagandistic. Being an elected mayor doesn't make him more reliable, it makes him not a third-party source and so less reliable by Wikipedia guidelines. Zerotalk 23:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Major issues
Using the term "Islamization" is problematic here. I can see there were discussions about this, but the issue still remains. "Islamization" is a radical term, it hints to a wide range of policies. I took a quick look at the sources, the only one advocating for this term is Kollek. The naming should be reconsidered. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, pr Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, the second part of this articles name should be moved to ..... of East Jerusalem under Jordanian annexation, or ..... of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. Huldra (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, why does this article exist? Content could be easily relocated to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Problem with Makeandtoss and Hulda's comments is that this article appears to be specifically about religious issues, not about the Jordanian annexation as a political phenomenon. Moreover Islamization in modern usage is about political Islamism, but historically, certainly from 1948 - 1967, the term was used to describe the government-imposed shift to a regime that granted rights to Muslims not granted ot non-Muslims as a region shifted from political control by Christian or Hindu rulers to Muslim ones. This appears to be a precise use of the term in an historical context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a rough consensus against a merge. Opponents of a merge noted that the two articles focus on different topics. This was not rebutted by the supporters of a merge whose comments generally were much briefer than the supporters.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merge with Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, I don't feel it deserves a standalone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree to merger.Davidbena (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree too. Zerotalk 01:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree as well Seraphim System (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - certainly a notable article - one of the three periods of Islamization of Jerusalem. We may however rename the article into Islamization of East Jerusalem during Jordanian rule or Islamization of East Jerusalem during Jordanian annexation to fit the main article on that period.GreyShark (dibra) 06:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- MergeSelfstudier (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge Huldra (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Don't Merge Both are big and important topics and deserve separate articles. There are a number of differences in the scope of the two articles. One of them is about the whole of the West Bank while the other focuses on East Jerusalem. (It is disputed if East Jerusalem is even considered part of the West Bank given that it was considered a corpus separatum in the 1947 partition plan.) The occupation and annexation article deals with more political issues, while this article deals with more social issues. I think they are best remaining separate. OtterAM (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose After reading the article and the sources, it appears to me that the article focuses on religious issues: the denial of rights to non-Muslims to make pilgrimages to holy sites, the denial of rights to education children in Christian doctrine that Christians had enjoyed under the previous British Mandate government, and the denial to Jews of the right to reside in or even to enter Jordanian-held Jerusalem even for the purpose of brief pilgrimage to Jewish holy sites, and the erasing of non-Muslim faiths by means of the destruction of Jewish houses of worship by Jordanian authorities. No justification for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The term Islamization is widely used in WP:RS.Also the occupation of East Jurasalem by Jordan was not recognized even by UK so its status its different from the West bank--Shrike (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- But where is the term Islamization used in the context of Jordanian rule? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Several longstanding sources in article discuss "Islamization used in the context of Jordanian rule." Responding to your comment, I just added two more. All from pro-Israel voices, but notable ones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ^ Zaki Shalom (2006). Ben-Gurion's political struggles, 1963-1967: a lion in winter. Routledge. pp. 112–113. ISBN 9780714656526. Retrieved 10 June 2011.
- ^ World Jewish Bible Society; World Jewish Bible Center (Jerusalem) (1977). Dor le-dor. World Jewish Bible Center. p. 196. Retrieved 10 June 2011.
Requested move 2 May 2020
Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation → Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule – There was no military occupation of the territory and post annexation it was civilian not miltary rule, so the article title is evidently based on a mistake.
- Note Eyal Benvenisti (2004). The International Law of Occupation. Princeton University Press. pp. 108–. ISBN 0-691-12130-3. a pro-Israel[citation needed] lawyer who writes "Since 1948 it had been under Jordanian administration and Jordan claimed to have annexed it in 1950".Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Or Anthony H. Cordesman; Jennifer Moravitz (2005). The Israeli-Palestinian War: Escalating to Nowhere. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 243–. ISBN 978-0-275-98758-9. ""the subsequent armistice left the West Bank under Transjordan's administrative control"Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose No one recognized the occupation even the UK that recognized the occupation of rest of the area as Jerusalem is an international city that should be under UN rule. Anyhow the argument there is only civilian rule would hold water but the problem we should apply the same logic on Israeli rule of Jerusalem till WP calls it occupation we can't change the title per WP:NPOV.Now about the sources:
- Eyal Benvenisti he not pro-Israeli scholar but even he write that the annexation is null and void so we can't call it rule per WP:NPOV
- There are multiple sources that use the term Jordanian occupation [5],[6],[7] and many others so per WP:COMMONAME we should keep the current name --Shrike (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Unilateral and unrecognized annexation does not end the status of a territory as occupied. See for example Israeli-occupied_territories#Golan_Heights or Israeli-occupied_territories#East_Jerusalem. There's no shortage of sources referring to the "Jordanian occupation" as such:
- "King Abdullah of Transjordan occupied the West Bank, allegedly for the protection of unarmed Arabs "against massacres". - United Nations Competence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 31, Issue 3July 1982 , pp. 426
- "Jordan (then Transjordan) occupied the West Bank area", Palestine Peace not Apartheid (review), Mediterranean Quarterly, Volume 18, Number 2, Spring 2007 pp. 136-141
- ' the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan occupied the West Bank of the Jordan River". Challenges to Israel-Palestinian Joint Security, SMA White Paper: A Geopolitical and Cognitive Assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian Security Conundrum, p. 57. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)