Talk:Yom Yerushalayim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Yom Yerushalayim is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 'Observed By' section in panel

I wouldn't say that it is only Israelis and Religious Zionists who celebrate this day - many secular Jewish Zionists in the diaspora also celebrate it

[edit] Quds Day

I don't think this belongs in an entry on an Israeli holiday. Create a new entry for Quds day if you so desire. I won't delete it yet, but I want to hear what other people think. Yossiea 16:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It should have a separate entry, and possibly be mentioned or linked to here.

Here is the text removed from the article page:

Quds Day There also exists a celebration by the same name in English: Jerusalem Day or Quds Day is largely an anti-Israel rally to show support the Palestinian people. It is celebrated in parts of the Islamic Middle East and more specifically in Iran. The largest gatherings take place in Tehran. It was established by Ayatollah Khomeini and is marked annually on the fourth Friday of the month of Ramadan.

The Iranian holiday has its own entry here: International Day of Quds.

[edit] NPOV

this article seems to be pro-isreali, but I don't really know enough about it to correct it


Ummm... That's because it's an Israeli holiday. The same could be said about Bastille Day or Canada Day. - Hersch


That's ridiculous. Because it's an Israel holiday, it's allowed to be biased? I mean really, the entire article was taken verbatim from the official Israeli Knesset website [1]. I've just responded to the pov check tag, and renamed the article to the English name, since this is the English version of Wikipedia. The Hebrew name is clearly articulated in the article. --AladdinSE 13:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


Agreed. The bias is clearest in the misrepresented story of the city and the notion of the "recapture" of East Jerusalem. I have flagged the article as neutral disputed. Estr4ng3d 09:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous claim. There is nothing misrepresented here. Israel proclaimed a holiday and is entitled to celebrate it without people with an overly-developed sense of "political correctness" making the decisions of how it should be presented to the world. I would advise utilizing your zeal to fix up things that really need fixing. --Gilabrand 10:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the flagging as NPOV (I am not the other anonymous person above) and re-added NPOV tag.

It seems that the NPOV issue is with words like "recapture" and sometimes even "liberate" on the one hand, and "occupy" on the other hand. Random anons will eternally stick these words into the article to push their POVs, and I don't want this article to be eternally marked with the NPOV tag, so here is my proposal:
1. The article should only use the neutral "capture" and "conquer" in factual contexts of the article. If POV words pop up, please just remove them, and not tag the whole article as having POV.
2. The relevant POVs do have a place in this article, which is basically about the Jewish and Israeli reaction to the Old City's "liberation." For the Palestinian side, the link to al-Quds Day at the end is probably enough. I don't expect that article to say much about the Israeli POV either, except for a link at the end to Jerusalem Day.
3. Finally, this article does not capture the drama of the moment when the IDF paratroopers reached the Kotel, or the euphoria that gripped the Jewish world right after the war. Since, again, this article should describe the history of Jerusalem Day, it's almost an NPOV violation not to talk about this aspect of the event. Of course, we must make the POV clear with statements "Jews around the world saw it as..." to avoid NPOV violations.
Really, this article's so short, NPOV should be easy to control!  —Rafi Neal |T/C 00:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change

Hi again, it's me.. back, with a registered username. Heh. Now, while I agree the text of this article shouldn't be copied from the Knesset's website, today my comments are about the name change. I'm not so sure that it's a good idea. If you hold this to be true, would you change Yom Ha'Shoah to Holocaust Remembrance Day? Yom Hazikaron to Memorial Day? Yom Ha'atzma'ut to Israel Independence Day? No. Because that's not what their name is. --Hersch 07:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

I removed the following text, which was copied from the copyrighted article [2], and replaced it with a short paragraph in my own words that provides key facts from the same source.

Following that victory, on June 27, 1967, the government presented the Knesset with three law proposals. These proposals dealt with the annexation of Jerusalem and sanctioned the application of Israeli law in the entire area of the city. The municipal boundaries of the city were altered and its area was increased threefold: from 38,100 dunams to 110,000 dunams. At the same time a law was adopted that enabled free access to the holy places by the members of every religion.
On May 12, 1968 the government decided to make the 28th of Iyar the symbolic holiday, "Jerusalem Day," designed to "symbolize the continued historical connection of the Jewish People to Jerusalem." In 1980, this holiday became anchored in law when the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel was adopted. This law determined that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and the seat of all government ministries and national agencies.
On March 23, 1998 the Knesset passed the second and third readings of the "Jerusalem Day Law", which reiterated that the date that Jerusalem was "liberated" during the Six Day War was now a national holiday.

--Hoziron 05:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem Day in the Western Calendar

I have removed the section "Jerusalem Day in the Western Calendar" as it is already included in the holiday infobox. There are many holidays (Jewish and non Jewish) based on other calendars and the infobox is enough to inform the reader of that. Jon513 22:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Iosef aetos 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Surely this article should be Jerusalem Day or Jerusalem Day (Israel)? We don't call Bastille Day "Jour de Bastille" or "Quatorze Juillet". After all, this is the English Wikipedia! Number 57 15:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The English wikipedia uses the most common word by English speakers even it is not English. For example there is an article on Tefillin not phylacteries. In this case Yom Yerushalayim is what the day is called by english speakers. I never hear anyone say "Jerusalem Day". Jon513 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Similarly, I have never heard anyone call it Yom Yerushalayim when speaking in English. The English language media in Israel also seem to prefer Jerusalem Day (see [3] or [4]). I don't like using google hits as evidence, but combining Haaretz and JPost gets 161 for "Jerusalem Day" and 2 for "Yom Yerushalayim". The only "Yom" I can think of which is commonly used in English is Yom Kippur (and even that is translated sometimes). Number 57 18:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As there has been no substantial opposition or evidence to prove otherwise, I am moving this page to Jerusalem Day. Number 57 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

Since I also usually hear of the holiday as Yom Yerushalayim, I propose that the introduction should be changed from

Jerusalem Day (Hebrew: יום ירושלים‎, Yom Yerushalayim) is an annual Israeli national holiday celebrated on Iyar 28 (כ"ח באייר).

to

Jerusalem Day, also known by the Hebrew name Yom Yerushalayim (יום ירושלים), is an annual Israeli national holiday celebrated on Iyar 28 (כ"ח באייר).

The first line should also mention the holiday's significance, so:

Jerusalem Day, also known by the Hebrew name Yom Yerushalayim (יום ירושלים), is an annual Israeli national holiday celebrated on Iyar 28 (כ"ח באייר), commemorating the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967 and the return of Jewish soveriegnty to the Old City for the first time in over 1900 years.

Well, I more than propose, since I made the edit :). I'm sure someone will dispute my POV, but I think the 1900-year break in Jewish sovereignty over the Old City is highly notable and one of the greatest significances to the holiday.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 20:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your changes are perfectly fine and much appreciated, thanks. 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that putting the date here just slows up the article. Most non-Jewish readers don't even know what Iyar 28 is, and in any case it can be introduced lower if really necessary. In any case, it's already in the call-out box together with secular equivalents. Also, the word `annual' isn't necessary. It isn't, for example, used in the Yom Ha'atzmaut article. I've made these changes.

Also, not convinced about the "return" of Jewish sovereignty. The `after 1900 years' bit shows that in any case. Haven't replaced because I can't think of a neater way. substituting `establishment' is too pompous. Yided 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What's there to be convinced about for the "return"? Jerusalem was our capital for 1000 years, and for 1900 years after that it remained the geographical focus of our religious identity and longing. The conquest of the Temple Mount in 1967 is therefore arguably one of the most significant moments in modern Jewish history. (Please don't hound this last point, the event is highly significant regardless.)
Second, I agree with your removal of "annual," but not with your removal of "Iyar 28." Check it out, almost every other Jewish/Israeli holiday mentions its Hebrew date in the lead section, and the few that don't should. Furthermore, Iyar is wikified for those who don't know what it is.
In other words, the first line of this article serves as its lead, and should be a summary of the entire article. The date and significance of the holiday should be mentioned here, even if mentioned later or in a sidebox. I'll hold off to make the edit so you can respond, since this really isn't worth an edit war.
Also, thanks for changing all those "celebrate" occurances.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify -- my argument was with the use of the word `return,' since the article in any case specifically mentioned the last time the city was under Jewish sovereignty. Thus `establishment' might be seen as a more neutral word, while the context still indicates the event as a repeat.

However, I also note that someone has deleted the entire phrase and substituted the more politically charged `occupation'. Off to find out how to revert changes. Yided 09:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about those words popping up, they get cleaned up quickly. Also, yesterday was a hot day for POV inserts, being Jerusalem Day itself. In fact, just compare the article's current version to just two days ago, you'll see that it's grown and changed dramatically, for the much better. Makes me happy.
Anyway, maybe "reestablishment" would be the best word.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, let's use "establishment," I see what you mean now.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In any event, Israeli control would be better, not Jewish, since Israel is a multiethnic state. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just one sentence!?

The article only has one sentence describing the event the holiday celebrates! I added a link to the broadcast of the event, but the article should describe more of the drama of the soldiers reaching the Western Wall, being careful about NPOV, of course.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deir Yassin

The claim that Jordan "killed or forced the Jews in [the Old City and the eastern side of Jerusalem] out in response to the killings and destruction of Arab towns in the western part of Jerusalem, i.e. Deir Yassin" is unsubstantiated and questionable at best. I am removing it and would request that anyone including it in the future provide a reasonable reference. 71.129.42.138 08:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Paragraph

There was lots of "celebrating" going on in second par: at least five times in four sentences. I substituted synonyms. Also removed the "celebrated in Israel" with hallel etc. because it's celebrated in same way outside of Israel.

Question: is the first sentence of this paragraph really necessary? We specifically mention that haredim and Israel's enemies take a different approach. And we say it's an Israeli national holiday. I think it can be safely removed without detracting from the article. Yided 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Holiday Cleanup

After the massive editing of this article on Jerusalem Day 2007, I am cleaning up the article to make it more coherent. Some facts need references, others are not directly related to Jerusalem Day, and others that are relevant were cut out.

"Under Jordanian rule, all 58 synagogues in Jerusalem's Old City were demolished. Jewish gravestones were broken and used to pave roads and Jordanian army latrines." I believe it, but many won't, and the "58" sounds exaggerated, so someone please get a source. I marked it with {{fact}}.

"Israel had not intended to enter the West Bank at the begninning of the war, and had sent a message to Jordan’s leader King Hussein via the US State Department, the UN and the British Foreign Office, saying that, despite the outbreak of war, it would not move into the West Bank if Jordan maintained quiet on that front. King Hussein received false information from Egypt denying Egyptian losses and claiming a massive and successful Egyptian attack against Israel. Believing his Arab brethren, King Hussein had Jordanian forces launch multiple attacks upon Israel that included thousands of mortar shells pounding West Jerusalem which hit civilian locations indiscriminately (including the Hadassah Hospital and the Mount Zion Church), and artillery shelling of the civilian subsurbs of Tel Aviv. 20 Israelis were killed in these attacks, approximately 1000 were wounded and an estimated 900 buildings in West Jerusalem were damaged." This is a nice paragraph to incorporate into the Six-Day War article, but many details don't have much relevance here. Some of its NPOV is questionable too. So I summarized it, since I guess we should note that Israel wasn't the aggressor.

Traveller75 cut out Dayan's quote, which doesn't suprise me considering Traveller75's history of sticking "occupation" into this article. I put it back, and some other stuff he cut out as well. I also think the quote should be sourced, so I marked it with {{fact}}.

We still need a description of how the soldiers reacted to the conquest, as that moment made a big impression on the Jewish world, and is, as I've said many times in this discussion, the great significance of this holiday.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FeldBum, we've sort of tripped over each other, I kept the change you made of "was" and hope I didn't mess up any other edits you made. All the best,  —Rafi Neal |T/C 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Moshe Dayan quote removed? It is critical to this article. --Gilabrand 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the reference:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Jerusalem+Capital+of+Israel/40th+Anniversary+of+the+Reunification+of+Jerusalem.htm?DisplayMode=print--Gilabrand 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It was removed by someone who considers Jerusalem as "occupied" when controlled by the nation that originally established its holiness. Thanks for the reference, I'll include it.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the POV tag which I originally added. Rafi Neal, with your above comment you show that you do not have enough neutrality to remove it again, although I do think you have improved the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.41.203 (talk • contribs)

You're right, I am very biased myself, and proud of it, but I felt that the article was fair overall after my cleanup. The reason I kept removing the tag is that no one who put it up gave a reason on the talk page to show me why the article was not NPOV. You finally have below, and I thank you for that. Let's discuss!  —Rafi Neal |T/C 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag readded, end the revert war

I added the POV tag yesterday. Now I have re-added it because of the description of Jerusalem as being "their [the Jews']..city", and "the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty" which pushes the POV that there is no Palestinian claim on Jersualem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.41.203 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion: This is not the article to wage the war in. This is an article which naturally gives some more time to the jewish points of view, as it is about a jewish holiday. In a similar manner, I will not expect an article about a muslim holiday to be 50 percent about why Islam is wrong or something. Greswik 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition: This article should describe the reasons the Jews celebrate the reunification of Jerusalem. Among those reasons are the Jordanian abuse of Jewish sites, the prohibition against Jews visiting their sites, the 1900 year gap in Jewish sovereignty over our capital, and the subsequent freedom with the return of sovereignty. Inclusion of all of these points is necessary coverage, not POV. These facts can be explained using NPOV language. Other perspectives on Jerusalem reunification, such as the Palestinian's, are not directly relevant to the Israeli celebration of Jerusalem Day. They at most deserve mention in an ending paragraph, certainly not in the article's lead paragraph.
As for your complaint that the article pushes the POV that Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem, well, that feels a little far-fetched. Jerusalem is Judaism's holiest city, that's an objective fact, and it does not exclude other religions from ascribing holiness to the city. When you quote this fact as "their [the Jews']..city", you're pulling the quotation out of context. As for "the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty," I don't see the POV. This is an objective fact as well, and it even implies that there have been other sovereignties in the meantime. If you want, we can add a link somewhere to Positions on Jerusalem to show that there are other POVs, but I think this is unnecessary since we already have the more relevant al-Quds Day. As I said, this article's role is to objectively explain why Jews celebrate Jerusalem Day. Al-Quds Day fulfills the same role for the Muslim protest, and I think it does a lesser job than my version of Jerusalem Day in using objective language.
In summary: If you can think of more objective wordings for facts, do tell. But the facts themselves belong. Thanks again for finally bringing the NPOV dispute to the talk page.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrants

2nd par says the day is celebrated (among others) by secular Israelis. Poll published on Ynet argues otherwise. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3400210,00.html "According to the poll, most religious Zionists (67 percent) celebrate Jerusalem Day, compared to only 23 percent of non-religious Israelis, 24 percent of haredim and 63 percent of observant Jews."

Haven't made a change to reflect this, as I would like to find the original source and use that as a reference. That might not be possible. Not sure how sensible it is to use a newspaper report as a source.

  • You also have to consider the make-up, demographically, of Jerusalem. Jerusalem Day doesn't mean much to people outside of the Capital, and people inside are mostly National Religious (דתי לאומי). --FeldBum 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It does mean something to two thirds of observant Jews outside Jerusalem, which I find surprisingly low. You also have to ask what level of celebraion the poll meant by "celebrate." Day off school? Barbecue? Visit Jerusalem? I imagine that most secular and national-religious Israelis at least recognize Jerusalem Day, and most Haredim don't.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] meyuhad/meuhad

The last change from "mashehu meyuhad" to "mashehu me'uhad" points up the fact that the slogan for the 40th anniversary is actually a PUN. It SHOULD be "meyuhad" in keeping with the original transliteraton - but the slogan is clearly a play on these two words that sound similar. Translating it as "something special for everyone" does not convey this, so perhaps a comment would be helpful. --Gilabrand 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move 1

I think that the page move was too bold. --Shuki 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. LordAmeth 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree as well. The most common name is the Hebrew one, Yom Yerushalayim.--DLandTALK 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that's not true: Yom Yerushalayim has 68,100 hit, Jerusalem Day has 74,300. From Haaretz and Jpost the stats are 2 and 161 respectively. Number 57 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The newspaper hits are irrelevant. The question is what's most commonly used in regular conversation. I can guarantee that most Conservative and Orthodox communities outside Israel, perhaps even including the Reform, secular, and other groups, refer to these holidays by their Hebrew names even when the community is an English speaking one and the majority of its members do not speak Hebrew. LordAmeth 11:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
But we are not talking about merely the Jewish communities. Wikipedia is read by non Jews too! As I have pointed out, it is common in English for religious or traditional festivals to retain their native name, but national holidays are usually rendered in English (e.g. Bastille Day). Number 57 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all of the above. --GHcool 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this page should be at what English calls it; there is a Hebrew Wikipedia for Hebrew speakers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move 2

Is there consensus then to put the name of this holiday into English? Let's take a poll. Add below in bold, followed by your reason. I will start:

Change This is an English-language encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources

sides like "jerusalem post" and "jewishvirtuallibrary" are dubious and worthless as credible and reliable sources! --Severino (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Says who? The Jerusalem Post is a leading newspaper & jewish virtual library articles are written by academic experts in the subject. Let's see you bring a better source before you criticize. Until now this article has cited no sources.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

both are (apparently) extremely biased. of course, for a ManU fan, a ManU fanzine cannot be biased enough...about the citations, look at the section "references". --Severino (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some suggested changes

when looking over this page, the following statements strike me as biased and/or incorrect (as a citizen of Jerusalem for 30 years). Observed by: Jews, especially Religious-Zionists. This is wrong. Jews in Russia, Spain, or the US do not as a rule observe Jerusalem Day. This is an Israeli inspired holiday to mark the re-unification of Jerusalem -- as a matter of fact, the creation of the holiday was a political move to show the world Israel's soverinty over the city. Not all things Israeli are Jewish or vice versa.

Under HISTORY: the use of the word "liberated" (i.e., Israel liberated the Old City of Jerusalem) should be replaced with the word "conqured" or "captured") as this was a military operation.

It is odd that mention is made of Haredi disagreements with the holiday, but no mention is made of the 34% of the city's population (in 1967 - 74% Jewish, 26% Palestinian, in 2007, 66% Jewish, 34% Palestinian). For those 34%, Jerusalem day is not a festive day, but a day signifying disenfranchisement. Tgumpel (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)TGUMPEL

The word liberated was used in a direct quotation and thus is only the opinion of the person quoted. If you can find another quotation from an equally eminent source on the other side, by all means add it to this article. You can, of course, make additional edits to the article to reflect the facts you mention, but you should include your sources or I am sure they will be reverted. It is good to hear from you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)