This article was nominated for
deletion on 1 January 2021. The result of
the discussion was keep.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Hi, the term "reunification" is extremely political, and not accepted by any official body in the world but Israel. The content itself of this page is far from neutral and also quite far from the truth let alone the hole truth. Most of the lands that were "reunified" with Jerusalem were actually not jerusalem ever before this point, such are Silwan, Isawiyya, Sho'efat and so on and on. There is nothing about the protest, and objection of the local community and the entire world to this action, that is against the law, but the significance for settler city planners - that's important. I don't have the will power to enter a wiki war about this, but just pointing out, this article shouldn't stay.
Neenche (
talk)
17:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The term "reunification" must be removed because it is tendentious and partial. That term implies a wrong and absurd comparation with "Berlin reunification". While Berlin was always a part of Germany, Jerusalem was never a part of the State of Israel (created in 1948) nor the State of Palestine (created in 1988). Jerusalem was, according to international law, a Corpus separatum before Israel and Palestine does exist.--
Elelch (
talk)
15:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Its also used for
German reunification. In both cases there was a physical barrier built that was knocked down. Its a reunification of a city, regardless of who is in control or not. The physical location was unified into one space. Its a term that describes the physical characteristics, not the political implications. - GalatzTalk15:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I added the POV tag because the title is simply incorrect. East Jerusalem is "unified" with West Jerusalem in the same way that the West Bank is "unified" with Israel, or even Iraq is "unified" with the United States. That is to say, not "unified" at all, the territory is under belligerent occupation. No one describes the Russian annexation of Crimea as a unification and neither is the Israeli conquest of East Jerusalem.
ImTheIP (
talk)
14:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@
ImTheIP: Considering international law, the Israeli annexing of
East Jerusalem is obviously illegal. However, the term "Reunification" doesn't mean that the city has become part of Israel, it meant that it restored its pre-1948 status. That is, to be ruled by one authority.--
Maher27777 (
talk)
19:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Reunification is perfectly fine. The city was a divided city for a brief period of time, and became unified on the municipal level, reunified. The wider political context is detached from the local level.
11Fox11 (
talk)
18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC) strike sockreply
Use of "reunification" nearly always indicates that an Israel pov is being presented. That's why it is a bad title. It doesn't make any difference whether an argument can be made that reunification is a correct description.
Zerotalk03:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Far more than the title needs to be fixed before this article approaches neutrality. Actually I wonder why this article exists, since it doesn't cover any topic that isn't already covered elsewhere.
Zerotalk12:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)reply
There is definitely a problem here, I am just not entirely sure what it is, so I am looking into it a bit. The
Jerusalem Law could be taken as a kind of domestic (Israeli) formalizing of the 67 events and in that sense it could merge there as the history of that. The defacto annexation kind of gets lost in the process, the difference between this and the Jordanian annexation is that this one is subject to UNSC resolutions declaring it of no legal effect internationally but Israel refuses to recognize the validity of these resolutions. As usual in WP, we are skating around the issues to some extent.
Selfstudier (
talk)
13:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)reply
WP has as well articles on
Jerusalem and
Status of Jerusalem to address the situation of J en toto. Then there is
East Jerusalem addressing the situation there, then I think it is correct that all of the material here should go into one or other of the existing articles which would in the process deal with the non-NPOV here.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 9 February 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reunification of Jerusalem →
Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem – See the discussion preceding this RM. This article, together with the
Jerusalem Law article are respectively, the de facto and de jure annexation of East Jerusalem. The proposed title is a redirect to the latter. Apart from renaming, a merge of the two articles can also be considered in the alternative, with this article being the history of the other. In the past, because Israeli authorities avoided using the term officially, there were some doubts about whether it was in fact an annexation but it is not denied nowadays and is now treated as such by Israeli courts.
Selfstudier (
talk) 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Selfstudier (
talk) 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
23:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Well I object, this should just be redirected to
Jerusalem Law. It is non-neutral to describe what is disputed as an annexation as an annexation. What it is treated as by Israel is not how it is treated internationally, and using an Israeli POV for the title is non-neutral. nableezy -
14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect is OK with some of the content going over as history of, it is not a POV problem to treat the annex as applicable de facto and de jure under Israeli law, since that is actually the case, but not de jure internationally (because not agreed either by the annexed population or the international community being the principal difference between this annex and the Jordanian). The other side of the coin is represented by
Israeli occupation of the West Bank which includes East Jerusalem.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Annexation and occupation are not matters of local law, they are issues of international law. And as a matter of international law, given the UNSC resolution on this, East Jerusalem was not annexed and it remains occupied. nableezy -
15:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree that internationally that is the case and we have an article that reflects that,
Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Annexation is simply the seizing of territory and then usually applying the law of the seizor in the seized area. Afterwards, it is a case of whether that is legitimized by international recognition. If not, then internationally it remains occupied.
Whether the end article is called Jerusalem Law or Israeli annexation is neither here nor there, they mean exactly the same thing in this case. Anyway this is not crucial, if we redirect and give the Jerusalem Law a bit of infill history wise (the UN resolutions mainly) then it's all good, my main concern (and Zero as well) has been the NPOV in this article and how to deal with it. Redirect will do that just as well.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I did not consider commonname since both titles are descriptive of the seizure of territory and commonname does not apply. Although, fwiw, Reunification of Jerusalem and Annexation of East Jerusalem produce roughly the same number of hits in Google.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Support - While appreciating the reservations that some have that this title would lend weight to a position not accepted by the international community, annexation is fundamentally a neutral term that has no bearing on whether the action was legal or illegal, unilateral or bilateral, etc. The sources support it.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
20:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stick to Neutral POV
To say The "Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, also known as the Reunification of Jerusalem" means that both those terms are equal, which are not, and that the cause of removing the title!
Maher27777 (
talk)
07:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Is the reunification term only prevalent in Israel, and, if so, is 'also known as' a bit sweeping? If the usage is thus limited, 'known in Israel as' might be more apt.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
09:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The recent name change was an attempt to start fixing the POV problems in this page and
Jerusalem Day which is also the same thing but dressed up as a national holiday. Idk if the usage occurs mainly in Israeli/pro-Israel sources, probably (Golden in the RM above said that they thought it was), if you can demonstrate that, go ahead and change it.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I think it's more neutral to say :"Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, known in Israel as Reunification of Jerusalem"....
Maher27777 (
talk)
09:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect proposal
This should be redirected to
Jerusalem Law, it is a POVFORK of that article. We already have an article covering the act that purportedly annexed East Jerusalem, this just presents that same information in a biased manner. nableezy -
15:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I know you prefer occupation. Leaving aside that we're both kind of skating around the status of Jerusalem, which is technically neither, why is what is described in sources a NPOV violation?
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Its a minority viewpoint on the status of EJ (annexed), it should be obvious why promoting a minority viewpoint as though it were the commonly held one is a NPOV violation. nableezy -
16:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree that the parts of East Jerusalem beyond what was there in 67 are occupied, of course I do, that's a given. But the Israelis did carry out an annex, de facto. It's not so different from
Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Will you head over there and ask for that to be renamed Russian occupation of Crimea?
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)reply
We both made our views clear in the RM above just 3 months ago. I said then a redirect would be OK but the majority of other editors thought not. I'm still OK with a redirect but not with title Jerusalem Law. Occupation is more common exactly because there is an occupation, that's why we have
Israeli occupation of the West Bank which includes the area referred to here. This is not about the occupation, it is about the (effective/purported/de facto/occu-/whatever) annex. I fixed the opening sentence of the lead and gave a ref/quote.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose redirect too. These are two different subjects; one about the 1967 event, implications, commemoration, views, etc. The other about a basic law of Israel, which merits its own article.
Tombah (
talk)
15:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Likewise explicitly POV. Occupation is a super-majority viewpoint, and this is a minority one, and "reunification" is a fringe-sized minority one. nableezy -
16:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)reply