Hi all,
I've been investing some time lately in expanding this article (as well as the Israel's article). However, due to the masses of travel information, there is a necessity in partitioning it into districts. Some of the current districts are irrelevant, in my opinion. I would suggest to divide into:
Old city (exists)
Ein Karem (exists)
Haredi area (exists, but offering name change, currently there is an empty link "Mea Shearim" and an article for the district Jerusalem/Chareidi)
City Center ("downtown" Jerusalem with Jaffa st., Ben Yehuda st. etc..)
National Quarter (where the 3 branches of the govrenment as well as the Hebrew University, Israel Museum and serveral other museums and more..)
As of now, the District section has links to seven districts but three of those do still not exist. I’d like to remind you that if there is very little of interest to travelers (or no accommodation whatsoever) we usually merge a district with a neighboring one. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So are we any closer to really defining districts in a way of use to visitors? Given that a listing that was recently created was deleted pointing to a district article, the issue seems to be not just an academic one to me... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this are still developing. East, West, and Old City is a natural division. However, I get the sense that the West Jerusalem article is growing to the point where it will have to be divided into a City Center article and an "everything else" article. The Haredi article is awkward because it described a culture rather than a contiguous geographical area - maybe it should be merged into West Jerusalem, or given a specific area even if some Haredi neighborhoods are elsewhere. Finally, I'm still uncertain what to do with historic sites just outside the Old City. I planned to keep them in the Old City article, but now I think it may be better to put them in the East Jerusalem article. Ar2332 (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is my proposal for districts, plus a map. This basically corresponds to the current district pages as I have been editing them. Hobbitschuster, Ikan Kekek, others - thoughts? Districts of Jerusalem. Intended for use with WikivoyageAr2332 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been to Jerusalem, but I trust your judgment, and the map (including the light rail line and the green line) makes sense to me as far as I can tell... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing one has the right focus: the history of the city. The bright lights make it look too much like Paris or New York. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I haven't made my religious leanings clear already, suffice it to say, there is little love lost between me and faith, yet for Jerusalem, we might want to have a quote like Psalm 137, whose Verse 5 goes (in the King James Version) "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning." - Which above everything else promises a visit to Jerusalem to be an unforgettable experience. Though I guess such a quote would probably inherently be problematic or even controversial. Thoughts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in question is part of the Hebrew bible and as such inherently Jewish. As for a Muslim quote, I frankly don't know any. It has also been put to music by - at the time - Hasidim Jewish singer Matisyahu from New York. Though arguably in an "uncommon" translation. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“[the Sultan son of the Sultan son of the Sultan son of the Sultan, Suleyman] has decreed the construction of the wall he who has protected the home of Islam with his might and main and wiped out the tyranny of idols with his power and strength, he whom alone God has enabled to enslave the necks of kings in countries (far and wide) and deservedly acquire the throne of the Caliphate.”
This was inscribed in the walls of the old city by the time of their restoration by said Suleyman, The Magnificent, the famous Turkish sultan.
"I declare the glory of Him who transported His servant by night from the Masjid al Haram (the Mosque at Makkah) to the Masjid al Aksa (the Further Mosque) at Jerusalem"
This is from the Koran (xvii. 1).
Just for reference.
If we research quotes from Crusaders, I'm sure we'll hit something interesting about the city. Let's keep discussing. Ibaman (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the combination of the Biblical verse and the Qur'an verse. I'm not sure a specifically Christian verse is needed, as Christians accept the Tanakh as the Old Testament (yeah, there are a few differences, but this is basically accurate). By the way, I understand that a more accurate translation of the verse from Lamentations is "...let my right hand wither", but that's less poetic. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Let my right hand wither" was actually what I typed into a certain search engine and I was quite surprised that the "iconic" translation of the bible does not in fact use said words. If we do use more than one quotation (I personally value the worth of brevity), I guess a verse from the Hebrew bible is apt to represent most factions of Christianity and Judaism, as Ikan said. I knew that Jerusalem has a high importance in Islam, but up to this moment I thought it was not even mentioned in the Q'uran. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, beauty is a fine reason to use the King James version of this translation. But it is absolutely essential to represent Islam in the quotes. Offering only a Biblical quote would be seen (accurately, I think) as blatantly taking sides in the religious dispute over Jerusalem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course right. And I would not find any offense in using more than one quote here. After all, it is a city that has a high degree of emotional importance to three major religions, and a quotation that represents two but not the third is imho ill advised. What would be a good Muslim quotation that is short and memorable enough to accompany the Christian/Jewish one? After all, I guess there is way less secular quotations on Jerusalem. And of what there is much will probably be "nationalist" in one sense or other. I feared this would be difficult, but two quotes are a workable compromise, don't you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glory be to Him Who carried His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Distant Mosque, the environs of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our Signs. Surely, He alone is the Hearing, the Seeing.
No mention of Jerusalem. That is an interpretation. It is not in the text of that Qur'an verse. Incidentally, 27:1 is In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I like the prophets and angels one better. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So do I, but I'm not certain whether it's actually a hadith or just something some Wikipedia editor made up. I couldn't find it after several minutes of searching on hadith websites. —Granger (talk·contribs) 13:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there once this Muslim scholar who went through all proposed Hadiths and threw out like... all of them except for a handful? And he was still left with hundreds upon hundreds Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it closed down in 2001 - that is a decade and a half ago - should we even continue to mention it? It seems somewhat beside the point to me. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the signs are all or nearly all gone now (I haven't seen them while traveling nearby, but I also haven't specifically looked for them). But the runway is still drawn on maps, and the airport is still discussed on old websites (including a few discussions about reopening it). For these reasons, I think it's better to keep this section, so that people can know definitely that it's not an option. Ar2332 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So Jerusalem/Ein Kerem is currently described as a "district" of "West Jerusalem" in its own article, but not listed among the districts here. Should we a) transform Ein Kerem into a city article b) merge it into one of the existing district articles c) add it to the district list and map d) do something else? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A) It's part of Jerusalem, so it should not be a separate city. B) I think there is too much information, and it's too much of a distinct destination, to be merged into West Jerusalem. C) It would be fine to make it into a fifth district within Jerusalem. D) Is the current setup, where it is "a district within a district", not acceptable? Ar2332 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current setup is problematic as it is formally a district directly beneath Jerusalem but in its prose it is described as a district within West Jerusalem yet it is not mentioned or linked in either. This all makes it likely to be overlooked and for listings to be added to the wrong article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Major undiscussed reorganization of districts[edit]
I am sorry, did I miss something? Why was the district layout changed in such a major way basically overnight? Where are the discussion and consensus backing that up? Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole set of articles are currently in the midst of a major expansion. Please let me finish adding all the new points of interest and information. We could discuss re-organization afterwards. Why isn't there a w:template:Inuse template on the English Wikivoyage ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I propose you create the proposed articles in userspace and we can discuss them then. In general major changes that "make sense when you see them" are proposed by creating or outlining them in userapace. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please make the edits in your user space? I don't want to destroy your work needlessly, but I think for now the mainspace articles need to be reverted until we come to some consensus. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. I have already started doing so. I have a lot of knowledge about Jerusalem and I hope that we'll all be able to work together to create the good expanded travel articles this prominent city deserves. I must emphasis that I am not interested in showing any Israeli bias in the way the city in presented in the English Wikivoyage (and I fear other Wikivoyagers might assume that, although I hope most members would remember that my many good contributions to the English Wikivoyage over the years indicate that I have no other interest than creating good expanded articles) - in my opinion, the traveler's interest is above everything. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not want to discuss the politics of any of this here and please let's keep our opinions out of this, but it is a fact relevant to travel that the US has moved its embassy to Jerusalem these days and this article indicates (which) other countries might follow. We should keep a close eye on this and update accordingly when needed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor has reverted my reversion of their edit. I think the IP editor is acting in good faith and there are some aspects of the edit that might merit salvaging, but I would very much like someone else to give their opinion and maybe propose a solution. Nota bene: This is not in the slightest about politics, thankfully. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good edits except that "children's" requires an apostrophe every time and "post box" perhaps should be changed back to "mailbox", per American usage, unless Israeli usage is normally different in this case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP's edits, except for "childrens" and "vents". I would leave "red British "pillar" post boxes" because they aren't "British "pillar" mail boxes", but use American spelling/usage elsewhere in the article. And yes, it is a relief to be able to discuss edits to the Jerusalem article without politics coming into it. Ground Zero (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that the original revert was done with no edit summary. Uncommented reverts should, in my opinion, be done only when the reverted edit obviously was not a try at improving the article. Regardless of what version is better, this edit seems at least an honest try at improvement, with quite an amount of effort. --LPfi (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, I often fail to justify my edits and reversions, which always raises merited complaint, so I have been making conscious real efforts on always "saying something" in the summary. I remember having looked at this edit, and saying to myself, "humm, this anonymous user seems to have read Words to avoid actually, this edit may stand". Ibaman (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
