Talk:Jerusalemite

Proposing name change or merge

This article leaves me very confused. We don't have New Yorker or Parisian articles, so why do we need this? There is some interesting stuff here, but it should all be merged into articles more suited for this content. nadav (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps rename to "Sociology of Jerusalem" or something, but not this term "Jerusalemite," which does not help describe the article in any way. nadav (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked for an article on a similar iconic term, "New Yorker", but it is just a disambiguation page, the closest relevant entry being Demographics of New York City. I think it is a hard article to justify. The FreeDictionary just redirects Jerusalemite to Jerusalem [1]. There is an article on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs entitled "How to recognized a Jerusalemite" but it isn't all that notable. There is a movie called "I Am A Jerusalemite" and there is a number of stories about Jerusalemites that contain that term in their titles, but I don't think the concept is notable enough for a significant article, although I can imagine it being a disambiguation page, similar to the current state of the New Yorker article, with its existing content merged into other articles. There should be a Wiktionary entry for the term, I'll check that now and make it if necessary. --Abnn 04:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that renaming the article to something like "Sociology of Jerusalem" is acceptable, its just that right now the name doesn't match the contents. --Abnn 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Every source cited uses the term "Jerusalemite" itself. A google scholar search on the term brings up 573 hits.

I don't know why Abnn (talk · contribs) rated the article "B" class. It should be a "start" class article since it is missing material on the use of the term in reference to the Temple period of Jerusalem, as well as more info on the minority groups who call themselves Jerusalemites. "Sociology of Jerusalem" is no more encyclopedic a title than "Jerusalemite", and the term's use is certainly notable enough. Could you be more specific about what the objections to such an article might be? Tiamut 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC) PS. I have changed the designation to "start" class per my comments here.

When I first saw the article, my initial reaction was that it is absurd to have a special article on word like this, rather it should at most be a redirect to Jerusalem. Upon seeing that there is good content in the article, I now think it should be renamed to something like Demography of Jerusalem, because that's what the article is about. The current title is imprecise, doesn't adequately reflect the focus of the article, and may not be what one would expect from an article Jerusalemite (basically, I would expect a soft redirect to a disctionary definition "one who comes from or lives in jerusalem") nadav (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal and one I am open to considering. However, as I pointed out, all the sources cited use the term Jerusalemite. The term itself is notable and in use. How do you suggest that the term and its use and the content related to it be incorporated together into a Demography of Jerusalem article? Do you think perhaps that there is a place for both articles? i.e. one on the term and one of the demographic breakdown? I am not trying to be arugmentative, but just better understand how your proposal will work practically to build on the material already in the article. Thanks. Tiamut 08:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I join nadav's comment. I'm sure the sources use the term, but what of it? Sources about New-York would certainly use term "New-Yorker", and about Paris - "Parisian". There's no point in having an article about the term, since it doesn't have any special meaning. It's just taking the noun "Jerusalem", and adding a suffix, as we can do to anything ("Tel-Avivian", "Haifaian", etc.).

There's an article called Demographics of Jerusalem, and it's low on content... okedem 09:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Demography was not the word I meant: "Ethnicities of ..." or "sociology of..." are probably better. There is already a Demographics of Jerusalem article. I am not surprised the sources use the word: in fact, that is to be expected. But I am saying that the title is not descriptive enough. "Jerusalemite" does not adequately prepare the reader for the type of stuff he is about to read. nadav (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalemite is a term with a specific meaning that has become broader with time. I tried to reflect the origins of the term, what it refers to and how it has developed in use in the article, as well as including some relevant information about Jerusalemites based on the sources provided. I think I understand what you are trying to say Nadav about the reader being unprepared for some of the information there, particularly say the section on Intercommunal Relations which verges away from a discussion of the term into the realities of life for some Jerusalemites. I could accept limiting this article to the use of the term and its evolution and moving material currently in the Intercommunal Relations section to the existing article on Demographics in Jerusalem as Okedem proposed (perhaps as a sub-section of that article?), or alternatively to another article entitled Intercommunal Relations in Jerusalem or whatever other title might be appropriate from among those that have been proposed. Let's really think about though before doing anything rash so that we get it right the first time. Thanks. Tiamut 10:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, once the sociological content is moved, only a dictionary definition will remain of this article, which is against WP:NOT. I just don't see how you can have a whole article strictly on the word "Jerusalemite" without being mostly dictionary stuff. nadav (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Demographics of Jerusalem is so poor in content, why not add to it, and make "Jerusalemite" a re-direct there? okedem 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The material was not incorporated into Demographics of Jerusalem. Accordingly, I have restored it. Jerusalemite is a fairly often used term and deserves a page of its own. Tiamat 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens (talk · contribs)

Please explain your wholesale deletion of this page's contents. "rv propaganda" as an edit summary is insufficient to explain the deletion of a fully sourced and cited article. Thank you. Tiamat 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been thoroughly explained earlier. Enough of pushing POV and intimidating other editors. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? The concerns raised earlier were aired, but no final agreement was reached on where to put this information. Please remember to WP:AGF. Thanks. Tiamat 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You lost my AGF and you'll need to work hard to get it back. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we need an outside opinion then. Rather than deleting this article's content by turning it into a disambiguation page, you might try taking it to an AfD instead. Tiamat 12:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you might try to avoid a POV fork, and write this content where it belongs - either Jerusalem, or Demographics of Jerusalem. okedem 13:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's a POV fork, you can make that case at the AfD. Material in this article was all originally composed to deal with the subject of "Jerusalemites". Some of it has since been incorporated into the Demographics of Jerusalem page, but the sources here all use the term Jerusalemite and much of the article discusses the term itself. Tiamat 13:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jerusalemite" is just a word, and claiming that since some sources use it, it wouldn't be appropriate for the Demographics article is absurd. This is akin to saying the article New York can't use sources using the term "New Yorker". Saying "Jerusalemite" is just shorter than "resident of Jerusalem", and has no other meaning (though you try to give it a political meaning, by linking it with "Palestinian refugees"). okedem 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is still under development - this process that was stalled by its unilateral deletion and redirection to Demographics of Jerusalem. I think if you explore the sources, you will see that Jerusalemite is a rather unique term, with an interesting history. I suggest allowing the article to develop and assuming good faith. Adding material is welcome too. Alternatively, you can take it to AfD. I would appreciate the community input. Tiamat 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No Tiamut, your past conduct has led me to abandon the AGF policy concerning your edits to this subject. Sorry. okedem 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also lost my good faith towards you and Humus Sapiens, but I am willing to work with you on building this article anyway. If you do not want to take me up on the offer, then I ask that you take this to AfD rather than unilaterally deleting this page by blanking its contents. Thanks. Tiamat 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no. I'm not going to help your little POV fork endeavor. Also, this whole article is OR. Not one of your sources discusses the term "Jerusalemite". They all use it in its most basic, obvious, meaning, a person residing in Jerusalem. It's nothing but an inflection of the word Jerusalem, and has no importance of its own. You even manage to get it wrong (or to insert your POV, more probably) in the first sentence, where you say: "Jerusalemite is traditionally used to refer to people whose ancestry can be traced back by the millenia to Jerusalem," - no, even your sources use the word referring to people who live, now, in Jerusalem. People who might have moved there a few years ago, and definitely not related to the city for millenia.

It's not even a widely used term in English. As you can see, the dictionary site OneLook, which searches dozens of different dictionaries, could only find 1 reference to Jerusalmite, where it found 12 for londoner, and 8 for new yorker. Even that single result said nothing of the word, only noting it is a form related to Jerusalem, which is the actual entry in the dictionary. okedem 08:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Those deleting the page in its entirety

Please take it to an AfD to allow for wider community involvement. We have reached an impasse here and the views of other editors would be appreciated. Tiamat 13:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD is for page deletions, not merge/redirect decisions. You can open an RfC if you want further comment, but multiple editors have already opposed having a page for a word that's merely an inflection of "Jerusalem" and that has no other special meaning. I am still bewildered about why you think it deserves its own article, and I don't see what content could fill this article that doesn't more properly belong in Jerusalem itself or its related pages. nadav (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it would be good to get the input of other editors. This can be done in an AfD since the article and its contents have been deleted instead than merged (only a few sentences were incorporated into Demographics of Jerusalem). I have restored the article and the many external links I have since added show that Jerusalemite is in wide use. All the sources used as references use the term "Jerusalemite". Considering too that Jerusalemite is increasingly an identity in its own right (consider the case of those with Jerusalem identity cards), the article responds to a different identity situation than your average New Yorker. Tiamat 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just an inflection of the name Jerusalem. Since you've yet to link one source talking about the TERM "Jerusalemite", most of the article is OR. okedem 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you just missed this one then. Tiamat 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that one, likes the other ones, only uses "Jerusalemite" as an inflection, not a term. It doesn't even mention the term beyond the first few paragraphs. okedem 09:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

From the source:

Perhaps these groups have failed to create a cohesive and distinct identity as Jerusalemites precisely because the history of the city is so varied and diverse. An indigenous Jerusalemite does not (and cannot) exist as one specific definition because of the cosmopolitan nature of the city. The common denominator of the identity of a Jerusalemite can only go so far as a resident of the city. The differences of nationality, ethnicity, and religion are far too great to allow anything more.

Though such a remark can be made of any cosmopolitan city, Jerusalem presents a special case. Even after a millennium of residence in Jerusalem, groups such as the Armenians, still primarily identify with their own nation. Not only is there no assimilation, there is also no desire to do so. For the Armenian community there, the Armenian Church, around which the community is centered, engages in an active effort to prevent assimilation and preserve a distinct national identity.

Yet, Jerusalem is a prime environment for the creation of transnational identities. The term transnational identify refers to the concept that migrant and dispersed ethnic groups can form identities within social worlds that span more than one place.1 It implies cross-border connections, and in transnational communities, people are able to live seemingly dual lives and move easily between two different cultures.2 Though Palestinians may not see themselves as transnationals, they do recognize a “qudsi” – an Old City Jerusalemite who had an ability to maneuver about the alien cultures and quarters of the city.

How is this not a discussion of the term? It even defines and assigns characteristics to it. Tiamat 11:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Only uses it, as an inflection, doesn't define it. OR, and POV-fork. okedem 11:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Please also examine the articles in the external links section. If you are still unconvinced, you should have no trouble convincing others of your position at an AfD. Tiamat 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

Please add {{r unprintworthy}} ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)