Template talk:Jerusalem

Changed the emblem of the the so called Jerusalem Municipility to a more neutral pic. see my contribution to the discussion at the discussion page of the article, under the Emblem section. --Thameen 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Go first to change the flag of denemark and the flag of england - they have a cross on it - I bet u find it offensive as well to all musilm inhebitants.

I am sorry but your tone and what you say is not constructive. No I do not find the flag of Denmark or England offensive. Their flags is their business. It is up to the people of Denmark or the UK to judge their flag.

As for Jerusalem, the Municipility Emlem is not its flag, nor it is accepted by all parties concerned to represent the city. It is a symbol of the Israeli authority which has no legal rights yet in East Jerusalem. Putting this emblem is very biased and provocative. We need a neutral image. --Thameen 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * as all the citizens of the city can vote - it is a democraticaly chosen emblem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deror avi (talk • contribs)


 * Every encyclopedia article on any city include (or should include) its emblem. Not "accepted by all parties concerned to represent the city" - if not municipality, who represents the city? The PLO, Hamas or Fatah? Please take a look at their own emblems.
 * This is an official municipal emblem (a fact), and encyclopedias should reflect facts. If some notable scholar expressed an opinion about it, you are welcome to add it to the article where it is described. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If it "is up to the people of Denmark or the UK to judge their flag", why isn't it up to the people of Jerusalem to decide on their emblem? Thameen seems to contradict himself or to apply the same principles unequally. Keep in mind that the city government of Jerusalem is democratically elected. The Mayor and 2/3 of the population are non-Zionists. Still this is the emblem the city uses and you will see it on all sewage puts throughout the city. If tomorrow it is changed to that of the Hamas we will change the emblem accordingly. Others again will be very unhappy, but NPOV is not about pleasing everyone, just about fairly representing the reality in the field. gidonb 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV is that:

1. Jerusalem is internationally devided in two parts, the East and the West.

2. The East part, according the international law, is Occupied. And it is a matter of debate between two parties, the Israelis and Palestinians.

3. The Palestinian population of the East part do not recognise the state of Israel. They part of the Palestinian people who seek the end of the occupation.

4. The Municipility is not an idependent body. It is part of the Israeli Ministry of Interior. Thus the Municipility is, for East Jerusalamites, part of the occupation apparatus.

5. The Municipility was imposed on the East Arab Jerusalamites. They did not accept or recognise it. To them it is occupation.

6. So, the Municipility do not represent the whole city. If the article was about West Jerusalem, it does represent it. But not the whole of Jerusalem.

7. You can not compare Jerusalem to any other city in the world like NY or London. Simply because these cities are not partially occupied. East Jerusalem is occupied, according to the security council 242.

8. The Israeli government IMPOSED its rule on East Jerusalem Palestinians. But this does not make its presence legal or accepted by them or the UN. Not yet.

9. Although this is not our concern here, but I need to note that, Israel is a democracy for the jews. But not a democracy for all its citizins. Their is cnstant racial descrimination against its Arab population. However, Jerusalem Palestinians, in their point of view, are not part of the Jewish State. The Jerusalem ID was IMPOSED on them.

So I neutrally think that the Emblem does not represent Jerusalem as a city and as people, and a more neutral image need be put there. As long as their is occupation, and until all the Jerusalamites agree on a single Emblem or two Emblems, we need to but a neutral image.

I'm open to discuss this with the most open mind and clear thought, I really do understand your point of view, but I hope that you try a bit remember that, at least for The Palestinians, Jerusalem is in fact an occupied city. --Thameen 17:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The palesitians have been throught the last century extremely foolish - having missed out all chances they have to have their own nation. Having said that, they can still vote in Jerusalem and have not even once chalanged the symbol.
 * Having said that, and without regards to all you said (most of which is inacurate -you understand nothin in International Law - just read the article jerusalem and see your mistakes) - it is wikipedia policy to have the emblem of every city at the top of the article. even if somene finds it offensive. as long as this is the policy - so it will be for Jerusalem as well. Deror 18:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message is provocative and insulting. You describe the Palestinians as foolish. I do not want to argue with you.

The Palestinian Jerusalamites do not chalange the Emblem because they basically do not even recognise the Israeli rule on them or on their part of the city. You do not chalange details if you reject the principle.

Instead of throwing my talk away altogether, I wished if you could show me the parts that you think I erred in. But your tone and insults do not promise a contructive dialogue. --Thameen 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

""" ....it is wikipedia policy to have the emblem of every city at the top of the article. even if somene finds it offensive"""" where is this policy? plz link to it. --Thameen 19:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To gidonb, I know that you do well sometimes in conflict rersolving and I like some of what you did in the page Jerusalem. So what you said here comes as a surprise to me.

You talk about democracy in electing the municipility and forget that East jerusalem is occupied? Man !!! what is this democracy under occupation? What is this democracy when the subjects (Arabs) do not even recognise the goverment??? is this the mentality of a 'Conflict reolver" . Give me a breakl !!

Do you want us to accept the realities on ground as NPOV in the context of representation?

Lets say Canada occupies the US and raises its flag on the US soil every where, will we accept this representation (the canadian flag being the representative flag of US) as a NPOV. Will we put the canadian flag on the wiki page that will be now called The North America State?

I will accept the Emblem as representative of West Jerusalem. But not for East Jerusalem and thus not for Jerusalem. Yes the Israeli State wants us to believe that the Emblem represents all Jerusalem. But it is not.

I hope you, with your experience in conflict resolving, can give it some deeper thought and help us. --Thameen 19:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thameen, by your logic, the Western Wall is an occupied territory. Jerusalem was central for the Jews and Judaism as early as the 10th century BCE, and I think it would be wrong, even for the UN, to ignore 3 millenia of history.
 * Please read the UN Security Council Resolution 242: you seem to misinterpret it. It doesn't mention East Jerusalem, moreover, it says "every State in the area can live in security" and the Palestinians were not even a party in the war and definitely were not regarded as a "State in the area".
 * In 1964, Article 24 of the Palestinian National Charter stated: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area." - This included East Jerusalem. Only after 1967 Israel's capture of East Jerusalem from Jordan (which illegally occupied it), the PLO decided to assert their "rights".
 * As for the list of "occupied" cities, take a look e.g. at Koenigsberg, San Antonio, San Francisco, etc. I am sure some Germans or Mexicans may feel "occupied"... Perhaps they should begin a peace process? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * the 242 says that "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" in its english version. Jerusalem is part of those terrotories occupied in 1967. There is no need to mention Jerusalem specifically. In this case we have to mention 10 cities and around 700 villages specifically.
 * I know the Israelis have legitimate claims to parts of East Jerusalem. But until the issue is resolved, and I think at the end of the day there will be an agreement reached and hopefully we will have one united mixed Jerusalem for all. But this is not our discussion here. Our discussion is if the Emblem represents East Jerusalem. I think it does not.


 * East Jerusalem is an occupied city that is now a matter of peace talks between the PLO and the State of Israel. Until this issue is resolved, We can not accept the East Jerusalem to be represented by a municipility imposed by military force. The occupier can not neutrally represent the occupied.


 * Your examples of occupied cities, which are very weak examples of course, are a very good reminder to all of us that Israel is the last occupation in our modern world.


 * I want to thank you for your nice way in dialogue. Appreciated.--Thameen 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hummus, I just had a look at the Un SEcurity Council website and found that in 26 resolutions there was mentioned " The Occupied territories, INCLUDING East Jerusalem" !!


 * Also, in a bunch of resolutions the issue of East Jerusalem seems to have been the main subject, see resolution 252
 * Resolution 252 "... Reafferming that acquisition of territory by military conquest in inadmissible  .... 2. Considers that all legistlative and adminstrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties theron, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status."


 * All adminstrative measures taken in the occupied lands !! This to me icludes the municipilty, because it is a form of the imposed adminstrative changes.


 * So if the Municiplty is illegal in the eyes of the UN, so using its Emblem to represent the occupied East Jerusalem is an illegal action.


 * If you want to use the Emblem, then you need to name the template West Jerusalem, but to use the Emblem to represent all Jerusalem is illegal--Thameen 15:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thameen, even you agreed that "the Israelis have legitimate claims to parts of East Jerusalem." As you know, the 242 doesn't say "all territories" or "the territories". Since you contest only East Jerusalem and inserted the picture of only East Jerusalem, I propose a compromise in the all-inclusive spirit of the city: we include both the offical emblem of Jerusalem municipatlity and the the picture of East Jerusalem. Please take a look. ←Humus sapiens ну?

Formatting revert
(reverting formatting changes: they made the template take up an excessive amount of space; templates should not distract people from main articles) —Tariqabjotu

Sorry, I'm aware of this guideline. I tried to avoid violating it in my edit: I kept the width at the same 150px, and I only made the height slightly taller (in my browser at least) by increasing the font-size and padding.

My goal with the reformat was to make the template look more professional, not flashy. It should have breathing room around the title, the content should fit the box snugly, etc. My instinct was to achieve this by expanding the template's content, and apparently my instinct was wrong.

Therefore, in response to your revert, I'm making the template smaller to fit the content—and it now meets my expectations even better than after my first attempt. Hopefully it meets your expectations as well, as it is now a slick 125px wide and shorter too.

Good work on the Jerusalem article, btw. I certainly don't want the template to distract from that :). &mdash;Rafi Neal | T  / C  04:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous (stable) version looked more professional to me. When aligned side-by-side, the two images form an attractive (IMHO) collage, but the pyramid looks weird to me. I may be biased as the original creator of the template. Not implying that I WP:OWN it, of course. If the goal is to save space, I would remove the low-res photo and leave only the municipal emblem. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The question of whose version looks more professional is definitely subjective, I agree. And I didn't mean to disrupt the template's stability, at the time I thought I was just giving it an agreeable tweak.


 * I slimmed it down for aesthetic reasons, not to save space. The content is more centered this way, the collage (which I think should be preserved) has a consistent margin, and "Jerusalem" doesn't look like it's being crushed. That's my opinion, at least. &mdash;Rafi Neal | T  / C  19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Oh, I just realized what you meant by "pyramid." In my browser the two images are still side by side. If they're on top of each other for you, they probably are for others too, and I'm sure it does look awful. You'd better just fix it so it looks okay in your browser. Maybe the safest option is to stitch the images and create a new one for this template. חג שמח, I'll be gone until Friday. &mdash;Rafi Neal | T  / C  19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)