Talk:Jerusalem corridor

Add geography
The geography of this region is also important: elevations, streams, forests (if any), national parks or nature preservation area (shmurat teva). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.36 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
I'm a bit confused by the following sentence in the lead:
 * Not including the Arab population of annexed East Jerusalem the areas population is almost 99% Jewish.

Isn't that kind of like saying, "not including the males, the population is almost 99% female"? Assuming the 1% difference is not one or the other. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with this sentence. The population of the corridor, including the "West" Jerusalem is almost entirely Jewish. However, if you simply state that "the population is almost 99% Jewish", that leaves the question of whether the figure includes annexed "East" Jerusalem or not. This needs to be clarified in some way. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But does the average reader know that? I certainly didn't. Wouldn't this sentence make more sense? "Excluding annexed East Jerusalem, which is mostly Arab, the corridor's population is almost 99% Jewish." I read the original sentence to mean "excluding the Arabs who live in the area, the population is almost 99% Jewish."
 * Of course, that begs the question, why is the Arab population of East Jerusalem being excluded from the rest of the population? What is the percentage of Jews among the population if the Muslims (and Christians) are counted as part of the whole? This seems to me to be a more worthwile statistic, and one that should be included for the purpose of balance. That is, if the population of Jerusalem corridor is 75% Jewish overall, but 99% Jewish if East Jerusalem is exluded from the count -- well that would be good to state. (That number is completely made up; I was just trying to illustrate my point.)
 * I guess what I'm trying to say is that the inclusion of this sentence as it is, with the "not including the Arab population", seems a bit dodgy and un-balanced. I know relatively little of the topic, though, so I'll just leave my opinion here for others to sort out. :) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 14:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also -- does that mean that only the Arab population of East Jerusalem was excluded, or the entire population of East Jerusalem? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 14:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dunams?
Why is this measure used in the article. It means nothing to most of the English-speaking world. Would it not have been better to use acres or hectares? (I know that they are not equal to a dunam, but the article only refers to "hundreds of thousands" of dunams. ExpatSalopian (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)