Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Whether the content has merit with respect to sourcing etc. is a content question and even if I had an opinion about it, I would not be allowed to let it influence this closure. On this basis, we have no consensus about whether to delete the article because of its alleged content deficiencies. But this disagreement can be solved editorially through talk page discussion about whether (and to which extent) to merge or redirect the article to Islamization of Jerusalem.  Sandstein  05:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is WP:SYNTH. The only two sources which mentions "islamization" in this context are the highly partisan Bat Ye'or and the former Israeli mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek. The article is also the work of banned user. Frederico1234 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete; agree with the nom that this is synth. I don't think it would be necessary for all the sources to use the word "Islamization," but they don't support the creator's argument that Jordanians tried to make Jerusalem an "Islamic" city. Ye'or's reliability or lack thereof is actually irrelevant, because we can't create an article in such a charged topic area based on the thesis of only one historian. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Islamization of Jerusalem during Jordanian occupation is a well known and well documented fact. The article is well sourced. The sources are reliable. The article should be kept. Broccolo (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why Bat Ye'or and Teddy Kollek are reliable sources. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable persons. Kollek is the former long-time mayor of the city.  Hard to imagine a person who would be more notable to cite to on the subject, actually.  Same as why Rudy Giuliani would be an appropriate person to quote in an article on 9/11.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A "notable person" is a not inherently a reliable source. Kollek took over as mayor of East Jerusalem following the Israeli occupation. He can not be trusted to be unbiased regarding how his predecessors ran the city. He's neither reliable nor a reliable source by Wiki-standards. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly, he is not a historian. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There was Islamization alright. Chesdovi (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Wailing Wall Road, 1967.jpeg
 * Keep. No valid substantive grounds stated for deletion. GScholar and GBooks search shows that "Islamization of Jerusalem" is a recognized/reputably discussed phenomenon outside the immediate context of this article. In the absence of a suitable, historically broader, merge target, there's no basis for removing this content, which is more than adequately sourced by the books from academic presses. The article text has problems -- for example, I don't know whether "arrogated" is an appropriate term here -- but nothing that can't be addressed through ordinary editing processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Frederico. Hullaballo Wolfowitz's !vote is highly misleading. Googling with Gscholar for "Islamization of Jerusalem" + JJordan generates very few hits all of which seem to be quotes referring to a 12th century dynasty that controlled land West of the River JJordan. His/her reasoning is therefore not policy compliant. This search also confirms Frederico's point that the article is synthesis/original research and therefore not policy compliant.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment is completely inappropriate, misleading, and borders on being an unfounded personal attack. The user does not deny that "Islamization of Jerusalem" is a concept generally recognized as worthy of scholarly discussion. Instead, he ignores my carefully phrased limitations like "outside the immediate context of this article" and my suggestion that the content might be better placed in a "historically broader" discussion. The general concept is reputably recognized. The claims that the process occurred in some form during the relevant time period for the article are reliably sourced. It's a measure of how miserably polarized the field of discussion is that it takes barely an hour for my carefully phrased and relatively neutral comment to be met with a groundless implication of bad faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject itself appears non-notable (one related result between Google Books & Google Scholar; no results from the Google News archives). Clearly this article is a WP:POINTy response to the (nearly-as-bad) Judaization of Jerusalem article; two wrongs don't make a right. If editors want to write an article about the Islamization of (Christian) Jerusalem in the 7th century AD, which there are some sources for, they should feel free, but this would be a terrible starting point for such an article. ← George talk 06:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clean up this article, but I can only do so much, and I still don't think the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. I've had to leave in some of the existing SYNTHesis, because if I remove it this subject of the article completely changes. ← George talk 03:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect into a new main Islamization of Jerusalem article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What content should be merged? --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Fred, that kind of "question" does not require an answer at an AfD. But for starters, there is room for at least a succinct paragraph about the facts of "===Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation===" unless one wishes to deny that it ever happened. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem here it that there is no reliable source in this article which refers to "Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation". As far as I can tell, the subject was fabricated by the sock who made this article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fred, the subject was not "fabricated" - it's a legitimate topic and an article was created albeit by a sock but in this case it does not negate the topic. In fact the Islamization article itself needs lots of work but its contents validate this article just as it validates many other "Islamization" articles such as Islamization in Iran, Islamization of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Islamization of Palestine, Islamization of the Temple Mount, Islamization of Syria, Islamization of Egypt etc, so while it needs improvement, it is a worthy topic. IZAK (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This article's content does not validate that this article should exist as there is no source referenced in the article qualifying as WP:RS which discribes this alleged islamization process by Jordan. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons given. Merge any appropriate content elsewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. After reading the sources it is clear that this is a notable and recognized history topic . Marokwitz (talk)
 * How did you reach the conclusion that "Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation" is a "notable and recognized history topic"? What "sources" are you referring to? --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fred, you seem to be ignoring facts of history. For a start, see Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan:
 * 1) "Jordan, although mandated by the UN to let Israeli Jews visit their holy sites, refused access to them.
 * 2) They also led a systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many ancient synagogues.
 * 3) Under Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem, all Israelis (irrespective of their religion) were forbidden from entering the Old City and other holy sites. (Martin Gilbert, Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century (Pilmico 1996), p 254.)
 * 4) The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, with gravestones used to build latrines for Jordanian army barracks,, Oren, M, Six Days of War, ISBN 0-345-46192-4, p 307 and
 * 5) almost every synagogue was demolished in the period from 1948 to 1967." Then see: "Jerusalem:
 * 6) "After 1948, since the old walled city in its entirety was to the east of the armistice line, Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated.
 * 7) 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses.
 * 8) Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. (Letter From The Permanent Representative Of Israel To The United Nations Addressed To The Secretary-General)
 * 9) The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war.
 * 10) In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area. (Doson, Nandita and Sabbah, Abdul Wahad (editors) Stories from our Mothers (2010). ISBN 978 0 9956136 3 0. Pages 18/19.)
 * 11) 'Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. (Martin Gilbert, "Jerusalem: A Tale of One City", The New Republic'', Nov. 14, 1994)
 * 12) During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations. (Dispute Over Jerusalem Holy Places Disrupts Arab Camp, Greg Noakes, publisher=Washington Report on Middle East Affairs" and many, many more like this that you are blatantly ignoring. What's up? IZAK (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Desecration of holy sites and refusing access to worshippers is not the same as "Islamization". ← George talk 07:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But the passing of discriminatory laws restricting the growth of the Christian community is:
 * From 1948-1967, when Jordan controlled EJ, Muslim & Christian holy places were protected, although Christian rights of access to them were limited. In 1953, Jordan passed laws restricting the right of Christian religious communities to own or purchase property near a holy place. In 1964, Jordan further limited Christian rights by prohibiting churches from purchasing real estate anywhere in Jerusalem. During the Jordanian control of East Jerusalem, synagogues, yeshivoth and cemeteries were damaged (intentionally) and sometimes destroyed….Jews were totally deprived of access to their holy places, in open violation of the cease-fire agreement. Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives By J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte.
 * Thus, for example, Christians in Jordan and abroad protested vigorously in 1953 when laws were enacted which gave the government strict control of Christian institutions, making them subject to Jordanian regulation and inspection and restricting their right to acquire real estate. There were also more general complaints about bureaucratic interference and discrimination in favor of Muslims. In the words of one Christian scholar, Monsignor John Oes- terreicher, "Petty restrictions were imposed on pilgrims institutions were prohibited from acquiring new property, Christian schools were subjected to control of the education they offered." In view of these considerations, many Christians left East Jerusalem after the establishment of Jordanian rule. The total population of the city increased from about 41000 in 1948 to approximately 50000 in the mid-1950s and then 70000 in 1967. Jerusalem's Christian population declined during this period, however, not only as a percentage of the total population but in absolute terms as well. It went from roughly 17,000 in the mid-1950s to about 12,000 in 1967. On the other hand, Christian holy places were consistently treated with respect, and no serious obstacles were placed in the way of their operation and maintenance. A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict By Mark A. Tessler.
 * In 1964, incidentally, Jordan banned the activities of J. Witnesses on the grounds that their sect was over- friendly to Jews. The Christian communities were dwindling for other reasons than religious ones. There was discrimination against Christians over all sorts of appointments, especially in government services and the armed forces. Whose Jerusalem? Terence Prittie 1981
 * In 1965 Jordanian legislation was passed restricting the development of Christian institutions by cancelling their right to acquire land in or near Jerusalem. UN chronicle, Volume 16, Issues 1-5, 1979 Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This also doesn't indicate "Islamization," and the argument that "discrimination against Christians" = "Islamization" is why the article is synth. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "indicate" it? What's your definition of Islamization then? If Judaization of Jerusalem means that "Israel sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem to correspond with a vision of a united and fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty", any sources we find which correspond to Jordanian actions in the city can surely be termed Islamization aswell. We have "Settlements and house demolitions" by israel, and we have the demolition of the Jewish Quarter by Jordan. We then have whole chunks on "Residency rights" imposed by Israel - Jordan refused Jews residence in their sector. We have "Replacing Arabic place names with Hebrew names" and we have the renaming of Jewish locations to give prominence to Muslim associations. Then there's the "Demographic debate". Jordanian measures displaced thousands of christians from the city too. So now please explain to me why this page is not warranted, while the Judization one is. Chesdovi (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's lacking in the sources provided is any mention of making the area more Islamic as a motivating factor. None of these sources say that the the Jordanians were trying to make the area more Islamic, or intentionally shifting demographics in favor of a larger Muslim population, which would be my definition of Islamization. I'm not saying that that didn't happen, but so far no one has provided any sources making that claim. It's like pointing to a source that says "the ground as wet" as proof that it's raining, when the source itself never says so. ← George talk 00:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The probelms you highlight above occur in the JoJ article too. It that page we have quoted: Justus Weiner - who has been accused of of dishonesty in reporting his research about Edward Said; Oren Yiftachel - who has described the settler-model ‘creeping apartheid’; Cheryl Rubenberg - on the board of advisors of "Deir Yassin Remembered"; Ian Lustick - who is on the advisory board of FFIPP-USA: working for an end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Why should we not be able to use Raphael Israeli, Bat Ye'or and Kolleck on this page? When the facts are clear, we may not need to sources to spell it out. What else can we call it? Discimination in Jerusalem under Jordainian rule - or do we also need sources for "discrimination" too? Chesdovi (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, the major problem is that this is a response to the Judaization of Jerusalem article. If that article didn't exist, this article would have never been created. That alone should throw up red flags to any honest, independent editors that the notability of this subject is lacking, and the article is only meant to make a point. I haven't reviewed the JoJ article in depth, but the proper response isn't to create this article, it's to either fix or rename that article, or nominate it for deletion.
 * FWIW, "Discimination in Jerusalem under Jordainian rule" may indeed be a valid subject, but I haven't look at its notability. I've only looked at this article's notability, which definitely doesn't meet Wikipedia's bar. ← George talk 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * CommentJust to make it clear, this article is the creation of one of the socks of User:Historicist who is indefinitely blocked for repeatedly using socks to circumvent his topic ban from the Israel-Palestine area. The content of the article is symptomatic of the aggressive POV-pushing which led to the ban. This article still contains substantial similarities to the sock's last contribution. --Peter cohen (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the destruction of Jewish sites is overdone. Chesdovi (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:SYNTH, which is a part of WP:OR, one of the core Wikipedia policies, says that we should "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". The conclusion in this context is the assertion that Jordan tried to Islamize Jerusalem while occupying the city. The words "explicitly stated" in the policy are important. They mean that the sources actually has to talk about "islamization" (or use words which are truly synonymous). Perceived implications based on sources 1,2,3,4 and 5, such as "synagogues being demolished[1], Israelis being barred from entry[2], Jewish graves being destroyed[3], Jordan endeavour to emphasise the significance of Jerusalem in Islam[4] and requiring the schools to close on Fridays and on all Muslim holidays[5] implies islamization" does not cut it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. I find it difficult to understand how the referenced statement "Jordan undertook to Islamize the Christian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem by laws forbidding Christians to buy land and houses and by establishing strict controls over their social and educational institutions.'" is not sufficiently explicitly stated to meet the requirements of WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH does not state, after all, that the conclusion be set out expressly in all of the cited sources; by its terms, a single source would be sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement you mentioned, which also occurs in the article, would be indeed be sufficient if its source qualified as a WP:RELIABLE source. It (Bat Ye'Or) does not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, the source of the claim is Teddy Kollek. Second, you've put a gloss on WP:SYNTH that isn't consistent with that policy. Littman may be a controversial figure, but a book published through a highly reputable university press is presumed to be a reliable source. Even if it were to considered a partisan source, that wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate its factual content was unreliable. There's a big difference between, say, Ann Coulter and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken about the source being Teddy Kollek. It is Bat Ye'Or: link. What work by Littman are you referring to? --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apology, I cut and pasted the wrong quote. The Kollek quote (which seems to have been removed from the article during this discussion reads "Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek charged Jordan with 'Islamizing and Arabizing the part of Jerusalem they occupied, a policy which gravely affected the national freedom and privileges of the Christian communities.' This appears to be a slight misquotation of the published source, which turns out to be trivial; the source reads "Arabizing and Islamizing" rather than "Islamizing and Arabizing." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am partly responsible for this AfD (see this exchange on my talk page after I declined a speedy deletion of the article. While I have no opinion on the merits of this AfD at this time, I'd like to comment that the creator of the article is not the issue here. I know policy does allow deletion of articles created by banned users in violation of their ban, but it does not require it. This article was created six months ago. Yes, it appears to be pushing a particular POV, but even that doesn't mean the article merits deletion on its face. Any decision in this matter should rest on the merits of the article itself. I see valid arguments above for deletion and may submit my own opinion (for what it's worth) but as the one who declined the speedy and more or less forced this AfD, I just want to focus the discussion on the article itself, where it should be. Frank  &#124;  talk  22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and supported by sources. This is just another article about a controversial subject. Nothing special. Also agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. What would help me decide one way or the other would be scholarly sources in Hebrew on the topic. Google doesn't turn up anything noteworthy for "אסלום ירושלים" or "איסלום ירושלים."—Biosketch (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe try אסלאמיזציה. Chesdovi (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Off-Wiki canvassing taking place at Wikibias — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And, unsurprisingly, the partisan keep votes come rolling in after the canvasing. Hopefully someone actually reviews the subject's notability among sources, instead of just counting up the "it's notable because I say so" !votes. ← George talk 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's really not fair. People who have commented since I left my note have been long-time contributors to the subject, and characterizing their !votes that way is no more accurate than describing opposing !votes as "it's not notable because I don't like it". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize an editors level of experience was a factor in determining whether or not they could be canvased. Hopefully some editor will provide a source that actually mentions Jordan "Islamizing" Jerusalem so I can change my delete vote. ← George talk 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable, and well-sourced to multiple reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced article on notable topic. Do not merge on a topic as complex as the history of Jerusalem, it is mecessary to have discrete articles on each period of the city's history, the changed with the shift from British Mandate government to Jordanian rule are sharply defined and would inevitably be lost in an article that attempted to cover all of history.  Merging to Islamization of Jerusalem would ma~\ke that article overly long, and lose the detail this article includes.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cut the fat and merge to Islamization of Jerusalem. The subject is notable, but the article is riddled with SYNTH and COATRACK jabs at Jordan. I think the material belongs in an article that puts it in historical context. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is there to merge? Why not simply deleting it? Should a subsection of the same name be created at Islamization of Jerusalem, as IZAK suggested? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Malik here, and it can easily and logiclly redirect to Islamization of Jerusalem. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: As per I.Casaubon. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  13:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comment by filer: Still after one week not a single WP:RS has been presented which explicitly talks about the alleged islamization. Bat Ye'Or (who does use the term "islamization") is referred to as a historian in the article, which would make her a WP:RS. However, she is not as she doesn't have the academic credentials. Her Wikipedia entry should also make it clear that she is far from unbiased. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Kollek charge remains, and uses the term "Islamize," as I mention above. I inadvertently copied the wrong quote when responding to this argument earlier. Malik Shabazz's suggestion is quite sensible, although it might be better to keep the content in the target he suggests as more of a summary and move more detailed content into Occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem_by_Jordan, rather than doing a simple merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.