Category talk:History of Jerusalem

Categories
Tewfik and Jayjg. Please stop removing the relevant categories.

Please stop replacing this category list:


 * Category:Jerusalem
 * Category:History by city
 * Category:History of Israel
 * Category:Palestinian history
 * Category:History of the West Bank
 * Category:British Mandate of Palestine
 * Category:History of the Ottoman Empire
 * Category:History of the Middle East

with this category list:


 * Category:Jerusalem
 * Category:History of Israel
 * Category:History of the West Bank
 * Category:History by city
 * Category:History of the Middle East

Your edit summaries:

Jayjg: "it's just a city"

Tewfik: "still just a city"

This category is called "History of Jerusalem" and its history goes back thousands of years. So all the categories apply.

Jerusalem figures strongly in the history of the British Mandate, the Ottoman Empire, and all of Palestinian History (both the West Bank and Gaza, since Jerusalem is part of the negotiations and summits). --Timeshifter 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, if you remove this page from the Category:Palestinian history, Category:British Mandate of Palestine and Category:History of the Ottoman Empire, then also remove it from Category:History of Israel. Like it or not, it fits in each of those categories. In order to maintain a NPOV, you can either leave it in all three categories or remove it from all of them. --Eidah 07:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said. Apparently you are not satisfied with the first solution - of leaving it in all categories. Then we're removing it hereby from the "History of Israel" category as well. --Eidah 18:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tefwik, please quit this idiotic POV-pushing. Could you please explain to me exactly why Jerusalem is not part of the history of the British Mandate of Palestine, not part of the history of Palestine (general), and not part of the history of the Ottoman Empire?
 * I'm sorry to say it, but your edits here are LAUGHABLE and cannot be taken seriously. Are you really seriously going to claim that Jerusalem didn't play any role in the British Mandate of Palestine? Or in Palestine generally? Or in the Ottoman Empire? This edit-warring is the BIGGEST NONSENSE that I have ever seen on Wikipedia.
 * I don't care whether you like it or not and this doesn't matter at all. You are pushing an extremely pro-Zionist POV which apparently motivates you to include plain lies on Wikipedia. I cannot characterize your past edits here as anything other than including lies on Wikipedia in order to make Wikipedia fit your warped view of the world.
 * Jerusalem is as much part of the history of Palestine, the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate as that it is part of the history of Israel. --Eidah 07:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tewfik, you keep pushing your POV-lies without even bothering to stop by on the talk page. You have now made 6 controversial edits to the article, yet you manage to simply IGNORE the talk page! --Eidah 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, at the very least, Tewfik should come on the talk page and explain himself. But suffice it to say that in this one-on-one race to violate WP:3rr, there is a third vote here, which makes a rather shaky concensus: Eidah's edits should stay (though Eidah should tone down his language on the talk page). --Meshulam 11:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And then we have Isarig join in. Guys, WHAT is wrong with you??? --Eidah 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPA, and avoid making comments about other editors. There is nothing wrong with me, I just disagree with you. Isarig 15:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not even going to respond to this. --Eidah 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained that this has nothing to do with "pushing your POV-lies", as you seem to believe. Convention on Wikipedia is to include only the current regional/governmental association, in this case and, so as not to overcategorise with the tens of historic regimes etc. Whether you believe Jerusalem should or shouldn't have been in Israel or the West Bank is irrelevant, as that is the reality, and removing those categories because I've removed your overcategorisation is a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. I'd also like to make sure that everyone is aware of the policies on unacceptable uses of sockpuppetry  Tewfik Talk 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Tewfik. I give up. I'm collapsing in the face of extremist Zionist wikiterror. You can have it your way. I'll stick to articles on (chareidi) Judaism from now on. Things like these are bad for my blood pressure. Have fun here, everyone else. --Eidah 22:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik is incorrect. It is common on wikipedia and the commons to put categories as subcategories of many categories. In fact; it is encouraged to do it for categories instead of trying to over-categorize individual articles or images. I have often removed many categories from individual articles and images. It is a lot easier to put those many categories on one category page. Versus on each of dozens of images and articles within it.

Here is an example: Category:World War II. Look at the categories listed at the bottom of that page. Category:World War II is a subcategory of all these categories listed below:


 * Category:1930s
 * Category:1940s
 * Category:20th century eras
 * Category:20th century
 * Category:Conflicts in 1939
 * Category:Conflicts in 1940
 * Category:Conflicts in 1941
 * Category:Conflicts in 1942
 * Category:Conflicts in 1943
 * Category:Conflicts in 1944
 * Category:Conflicts in 1945
 * Category:Contemporary French history
 * Category:Contemporary German history
 * Category:Contemporary Italian history
 * Category:French Third Republic
 * Category:History of Australia
 * Category:History of Belgium
 * Category:History of Lithuania
 * Category:History of Montenegro
 * Category:History of Romania
 * Category:History of Serbia
 * Category:History of the United States (1918–1945)
 * Category:Modern Europe
 * Category:Modern history
 * Category:Nuclear warfare
 * Category:Vichy regime
 * Category:Wars
 * Category:Wars involving Armenia
 * Category:Wars involving Austria
 * Category:Wars involving the Balkans
 * Category:Wars involving Belgium
 * Category:Wars involving Brazil

--Timeshifter 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Wars involving British India
 * Category:Wars involving Bulgaria
 * Category:Wars involving Burma
 * Category:Wars involving Canada
 * Category:Wars involving China
 * Category:Wars involving Croatia
 * Category:Wars involving Cuba
 * Category:Wars involving Denmark
 * Category:Wars involving Egypt
 * Category:Wars involving Estonia
 * Category:Wars involving Ethiopia
 * Category:Wars involving Finland
 * Category:Wars involving France
 * Category:Wars involving Germany
 * Category:Wars involving Greece
 * Category:Wars involving Hungary
 * Category:Wars involving Indonesia
 * Category:Wars involving Iran
 * Category:Wars involving Iraq
 * Category:Wars involving Italy
 * Category:Wars involving Japan
 * Category:Wars involving Mexico
 * Category:Wars involving the Netherlands
 * Category:Wars involving New Zealand
 * Category:Wars involving Norway
 * Category:Wars involving the Philippines
 * Category:Wars involving Poland
 * Category:Wars involving South Africa
 * Category:Wars involving Thailand
 * Category:Wars involving the Soviet Union
 * Category:Wars involving the United Kingdom
 * Category:Wars involving the United States
 * Category:Wars involving Vietnam

That is irrelevant, as it a) is about a war, not a place, and b) includes many parties that were all involved at the same time.  Tewfik Talk 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many categories on wikipedia that are subcategories of many other categories. It is common. It doesn't matter if it is a war, a place, etc.. Anyway, the history of Jerusalem involves many wars, and there have been many parties involved in its history and its wars. --Timeshifter 11:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a clear case of POV pushing. A.) There is now a 3-1 consensus against you on this board. On the Incidents board that Timeshifter has linked to, there is a much broader consensus against you. Your referts are violative of Wikipedia policy, therefore, regardless of the content (since we aren't talking about vandalism, but issues of discretion. B.) The distinctions you are making are like splitting hairs, nothing more. C.) With respect to the History of Palestine, that is an ongoing saga (though some of us may wish the Palestinians would just pack up and move to China, it isn't happening, and we would be intelligent to recognize that rather than pretend otherwise. D.) The other two contested categories are hardly ancient history. They're a relevant part of Jerusalem's modern history, and do much to explain why the city looks/acts the way it does. For all of these many reasons, you must not revert anymore. --Meshulam 11:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack me, but that doesn't change the reality that what you suggest is entirely unprecedented on other cities/categories (see Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Athens). It is further very telling that you accuse me of some sort of POV, and then spend an entire paragraph inventing said POV.  Tewfik Talk 05:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a "History of Jerusalem" category. There are other war-related categories that are subcategories of many other categories. Find examples in here: Category:Wars. For example:
 * Category:Crusades
 * Category:World War I
 * Category:World War II


 * There is no other city with such a long history of involvement in wars, religions, and empires. It is no wonder that Category:History of Jerusalem belongs as a subcategory of many categories. --Timeshifter 11:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Please see related discussion at
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 06:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion is now archived here: . It lists many examples of this still-ongoing POV campaign. --Timeshifter 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please would someone provide a reference to the other half of the conversation on this page?! PalestineRemembered 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are asking. Can you elaborate? --Timeshifter 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional relevant categories
When people go to the categories below, how can they understand any of those topics without studying the history of Jerusalem?


 * Category:Crusades
 * Category:Ancient Israel and Judah
 * Category:Arab-Israeli conflict
 * Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Isarig has removed these additional categories, and the previous ones I listed, several times. Here is the last diff.

Isarig, please answer my question, and engage in discussion on this talk page. I don't understand why any of these additional categories are at all controversial. --Timeshifter 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)