Talk:Jerusalem Day

Sentence fragment

Could someone please change:

The strain of controversy has been felt during the Jerusalem day parade. violent interactions have been reported between Arabs and Israeli youth during.[38]

to

The strain of controversy has been felt during the Jerusalem day parade, during which violent interactions have been reported between Arab and Israeli youth.[38]

I'm not sure about the wording of the first part, but this seems to be the most minimal change for it to be grammatically correct. a11ce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

'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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It may be informative to add that Rav Sraya Diblitzky , a Charedi student of the Chazon Ish held that Yom Yerushalayim should be observed. The link at the bottom of the article just referenced is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.163.34 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

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)

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.--DLand^TALK 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)

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)

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)

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)

Dayan quote . . .

Removed the Dayan quote. It seems to be referring to the Israeli victory and not to the holiday itself, which is what the article is about. If it is reinserted, it should be accompanied by a quote from the losing side, preferably one made on or around the same date as Dayan and by somebody with equal qualifications. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight for some possible help here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Completley disagree. These are the texts the national day is celebrated with. This IS the israeli story of the tale. You can see there are articles like Al Quds Day. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight has nothing to do with here. Amoruso (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This sentence "We have united Jerusalem, the divided capital of Israel. We have returned to the holiest of our holy places, never to part from it again" is the point of the whole holiday. Or the reader won't understand what they're celebrating. Amoruso (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't care to quarrel. If this particular text is recited or otherwise quoted by public officials as a normal part of the holiday observance (or printed in newspapers or whatever), then of course it should be included, so have at it and add to the article what significance it has to the holiday. Otherwise, it seems like an intrusion. I say this only to make the article more acceptable to everybody concerned. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This particular text together with some other texts (poems and Mota Gur's statement about the Temple Mount) makes it understandable what Israel is celebrating. It's been quoted quite often, for example by the PM in the holiday speech: [5]. Thanks, cheers, Amoruso (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A good place to look for inspiration might be Independence Day (United States), where a quotation from John Adams introduces the holiday, but that quote actually presages the monumental event that has been celebrated in the U.S. since 1776. I'm not sure the Dayan quote has the same relevance in this particular article, but if it does, then it should be pointed out. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jordanian citizenship

Palestinian residents of Jerusalem kept their Jordanian citizenship under Israeli rule until 1988. The Israeli authorities considered them Jordanian citizens and permanent residents of Israel. In 1988 King Hussein of Jordan decided to cut Jordan's relations with the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in order to allow the PLO to claim this territory without interference. Since 1988 the Jerusalemite Palestinians have no citizenship, and they have to request a lessez-passer from the Israeli authorities when traveling abroad. DrorK (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious holiday

Yom Yerushalayim is basically an Israeli national holiday (a minor holiday, with business as usual). It has religious meaning only among the national religious group, and this group is not the majority of Jews, nor is a majority group even among religious Jews. Therefor I think categorizing this holiday as a religious holiday is redundant. DrorK (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It says on wikipedia that the chief rabinate of Israel has declared Yom Yerushalayim a religious holiday. I think that's enough to include it in the category of jewish holy day. It also says people are reciting Hallel in the synagogues and many people in the Diaspora also considers it a holy day. In Sweden where I live there are jews who consider it holy. --Fipplet (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the vandalism

Someone should remove the vandalism. It wasn't on the "edit this page" link, which is odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.134.38 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed POV

This sentence is so POV as to be self-parody: "As soon as the over-armed Zionist military groups started their offensive in 1948 to drive the Palestinian population out..."

I changed it to "During the fighting between Zionist and Arab armed groups in 1948..."Shrikeangel (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The nays outweigh the yays in number but the arguments in support are based in guideline and those relied on in opposition are in large part outside of guideline; were debunked and yet repeated without change; are based in classic examples of fallacious arguments we even have pages here describing (often in the context of deletion arguments); and most critically, pertinent evidence was provided which was never met by any counter evidence. Specifically, substantial evidence was provided that Jerusalem Day is the common name used in English in a wide selection of reliable sources from different English regions (and not just Ghits), and that the sources are not simply translating the Hebrew for English speakers but using the English title as the title of the holiday. This was countered by 1) it isn't so (backed only by assertion) 2) I've never heard the target name used/I always hear the present name used; 3) past discussions ended with a decision not to move; 4) these other pages which appear to resemble this one aren't at the other name; and 5) ignoring the subtlety that though some foreign named holidays are at the foreign names, they are so when the foreign name is the most common used in English, and they are not when that is otherwise. To state this last issue again, since this does not appear to have been taken in well: Yom Kippur is not at "Day of Atonement" because the Hebrew title is the common name used in English. By contrast, Bastille Day is the title because the French, "le quatorze juillet" is not the common title used in English. In either case it is the use in English, regardless of the language of origin of the title, that is dispositive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Yom Yerushalayim → Jerusalem Day — As the common English name of the event this page should be moved to Jerusalem Day per WP:NC. --Nableezy 00:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, this discussion has already occured in the past several times and the consensus is to keep as is. --Shuki (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And each time the page was moved to Jerusalem Day with some users remaining adamant on violating WP:NC, specifically WP:ENGLISH (Articles are named in English unless the foreign form of a name has greater recognition by English-speaking readers) and moving it back. See #Name, #Page move 1 and #Page move 2. nableezy - 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, most English speaking people recognize Yom Yerushalayim more so than Jerusalem Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for that? nableezy - 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, A) It is not about COMMONNAME. B) It's called consensus on several discussions above and elsewhere (Yom Ha'atzmaut, Yom Hazikaron, Yom Hashoah). The same 'consensus' you wave around elsewhere when it's convenient for you. C) Let me quote myself from the past:

... would you support moving the page on Eid ul-Fitr to 'Breaking the fast'? How about Sham El Nessim? Please comment on other Islamic festival/holy days in Category:Islamic holy days. I support keeping those as is, would you? --

There are numerous examples of 'foreign', ethnic holidays that are left as is and not translated. --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The two examples you give do not have common English equivalents. It is not just a translation (and you didnt translate the word "Eid" in your example) and the words "Eid ul-Fitr" have become words used in English (compare 35,000 results and 1 mil+. Ramadan as well has become an English word, as has Hajj and these are all the most common names in English for the events. The same is true for Yom Kippur, that has become an English name. Can you demonstrate that the English name for this event is "Yom Yerushalayim"? nableezy - 22:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly dear, I don't have to. Since you brought the subject up, the onus is on you to prove that consensus here is 'wrong' and that the Jewish/Israeli/Zionist common use around the world, celebration publicity, and other references over the past 40+ years is actually what you claim.--Shuki (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay dear, here you go. results from an Israeli paper for Jerusalem Day: 224, that same paper for Yom Yerushalayim: 31. Another major Israeli source for Jerusalem Day: 138, Yom Yerushalayim: 9, Google Books for Yom Yerushalayim: 514, for Jerusalem Day: 672 which is close. scholar for Yom Yerushalayim: 98, Jerusalem Day: 346. Yom Yerushalayim is clearly used, but it is not the most common English name for the event, indeed multiple Israeli sources use "Jerusalem Day" in their English language versions. This is, to steal a quote from above, like calling Bastille Day "Jour de Bastille" or "Quatorze Juillet". We use the English name of the event, and there are cases where that name is taken from a foreign language, such as fir Eid ul-Fitr of Yom Kippur. This isnt one of those cases. There should be no walled gardens on wikipedia where widely accepted policies and guidelines are ignored without cause. nableezy - 23:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support per evidence cited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as this is clearly the common English name for the day, and is used by the English-language press in Israel. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You state above that "I have never heard anyone call it Yom Yerushalayim when speaking in English." The question is have you ever heard anyone call it "Jerusalem Day" when speaking in English? I went to a Jewish school and live within an active Jewish community. It is always, always referred to as Yom Yerushalayim. If this is not the case in Sulfolk or Berkshire, it is an anomaly. I reiterate the view of User:Jon513 (above) that "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"." Chesdovi (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose move - These are Israeli civic memorial days and holidays given official names in Hebrew and 'English' by the Israeli government. There is no need to translate and propagate ignorance. This is rehash of old identical closed discussions in which consensus already reached:

Talk:Yom Yerushalayim#Page move 1

Talk:Yom Ha'atzmaut#Move

Talk:Yom Hazikaron#Page move

Talk:Yom HaShoah#Requested move --Shuki (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "propagation of ignorance", the most commonly used English name for this event is "Jerusalem Day". If that is the case that should be the name of the article. It is pretty basic. And I dont see any consensus for this name in any of the discussions about this page. nableezy - 13:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is the English Wikipedia, not the "fill-in-the-blank not-English" Wikipedia. Atleast this title is in ASCII... but its still not English. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If someone came up to me and said its Jerusalem Day next week, I would probably reply "Jerusalem Day for what - culture?". Everyone I know refers to this day as Yom Yerushalayim, just as they refer to all other "Jewish" holidays by their hebrew names. Whenever it is referred to as Jerusalem Day, it is done so as a translation so non-Hebrew speakers know what it means. But for those who English speakers who observe it, it is always refered to as Yom Yerushalayim. The only other Jewish holiday which is named in English is Passover. No one I know ever uses this word, only Pesach. Chesdovi (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  This isn't about what is most common among a portion of the English speaking world. Most of the results above from Ynet and Haaretz dont mention "Yom Yerushalyim" at all when calling the event "Jerusalem Day", they are not just providing a translation they are using it as the English name. The name of the article is determined by the most common English name. Is there any evidence that the most common English name for this event is "Yom Yerushalyim"? I posted links above that show otherwise, so if there is any evidence that this really is the most common English name please provide it. nableezy - 21:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this accurate? I counted that 31 out of the "Jerusalem Day" in Haaretz were referring to Quds day in Iran. I then did: "jerusalem day" site:haaretz.com -ahmadinijead and it returned 745 results? Chesdovi (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a look at individual results: Jerusalem Day 2008 marks the end of a host of celebrations honoring 40 years since the reunification of Jerusalem. Never once mentions Yom Yerushaylim and uses Jerusalem Day multiple times. The entire city fell under Israeli control during the 1967 Six-Day War, an event marked annually by Jerusalem Day Only name used. Jerusalem Day celebrates the conquest of the city during the 1967 Six-Day War, before which Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, while Israel had the western section. Shortly after the war, Israel annexed East Jerusalem Never once uses the term Yom Yerushalayim uses Jerusalem Day twice. I think this would probably be the best search term 391 results for ""jerusalem day" israel -iran site:haaretz.com" compared to 10. nableezy - 22:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The BBC Calendar uses Yom Yerushalayim, (Friday 22). I oppose the re-name becuase it is known as Yom Yerushalayim by most people who observe the day. (Of course, I cannot "prove" this) You are basing your argument for Jerusalem Day based merely on the fact that it has more Google hits. Besides for Search engine tests being unreliable, the google book result shows that there is divided usage here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See below, it is 2:1 on google books when you have exclusive searches. nableezy - 13:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

tThe ratio would have to be much higher. Does Google books search every book ever published? Chesdovi (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course not (though ever published would not be necessary for an event that has existed for less than 50 years). And why would ratio have to be higher to show which is more common? Also, your argument has been based upon the idea that it is a more common English name among those who observe it. You said you cannot prove that, but even if you could, WP:COMMONNAME does not say the most common name among those who observe it, but rather the most common name in English. And has anyone not notices that the article itself uses Jerusalem Day as the name everywhere except the title? nableezy - 14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "most common name in English" mean? Chesdovi (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You serious? The most common set of words used to describe a certain thing in English. Not the most common among a subset of English speakers, again even if that were true, but among all English sources. nableezy - 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What are "all English sources"? Israeli-English language online newspaper editions? I am not convinced that all sources can be obtained by a Google search. Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that a google search obtains "all English sources", such a statement would be silly. But it does give us a decent sample to choose from and absolutely no evidence has been given that the common English name is in fact "Yom Yerushalayim" whereas examples have been given showing that it is not. I used Israeli papers for a reason, but if you wish here are a few more: NYTimes, Jerusalem Day: 245, "Yom Yerushalayim": 1, The Guardian, Jerusalem Day: 15 Yom Yerushalayim: 0, Reuters, Jerusalem Day: 34, Yom Yerushalayim: 0. nableezy - 18:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Best known by its Hebrew name. The English name is most commonly used? I beg to differ, on what is that assumption based? As for the argument This is the English Wikipedia, not the "fill-in-the-blank not-English with all due respect, but that's nonsense, e.g. Yom Kippur is also hebrew (it is not named by its English translation day of atonement). Metzujan (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  I posted evidence that the common English name is Jerusalem Day and Yom Kippur is the commonly used name in English for the event. That is not the case here. Could you provide evidence that the Hebrew name is more common in English? nableezy - 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Some Jewish and Israeli festivals, such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, are better known by their Hebrew names despite having English alternatives (Jewish New Year and Day of Atonement). Some, such as Passover and the Tenth of Tevet are better known by their English names, despite Hebrew alternatives (Pesach and Asara BeTevet). Judging by the evidence provided, Jerusalem Day clearly falls into the latter grouping. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you not agree Passover and Pesach Sheni are inconsistent? Chesdovi (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support as per YeshuaDavid. LordAmeth (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Shuki. We already discussed this several times. I don't know anyone, English speakers included, who call it Jerusalem Day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. See WP:GHITS, which does not allow for the sole reliance on ghits, especially in this case, where the difference is de minimus. The accepted transliteration is the current name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  This isnt just about the google hits, specific sources from even Israeli press have been given showing that they use "Jerusalem Day" as the name. Is there any evidence that "the accepted transliteration is the current name"? nableezy - 04:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this is the Hebrew name of a Hebrew created holiday and is widely used. It would be inconsistant to name this Israeli holiday "Jerusalem Day" when all the others are titled as "Yom HaShoah", "Yom Hazikaron", and "Yom Ha'atzmaut". - Epson291 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my above argument, to the effect that the common names for Hebrew festivals in English can be the original Hebrew, or they can be anglicised forms. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A Google Books search, finds almost the same amount of Yom Yerushalayim vs. Jerusalem Day. Jerusalem Day is not the name of the holiday, rather a translation. It also brings the very apparent problem of having two events with the same name, Yom Yerushalayim, and Quds Day (aka Jerusalem Day (anti-Zionist)). - Epson291 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The google books argument is a bit more complicated than that. The very first result calls it "Jerusalem Day/Yom Yerushalyim". When restricting the searches you get numbers comparable to the rest: "Jerusalem Day" -"Yom Yerushalayim": 665, "Yom Yerushalayim" -"Jerusalem Day": 399. And you are also not looking at the scholar results or the results searched on major Israeli news media. nableezy - 20:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Best known by its transliterated Hebrew name; just like Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Purim etc..etc --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Could you please provide some evidence for that assertion? nableezy - 04:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The evidence presented shows Jerusalem Day to be more more common than the English transliteration of the Hebrew name for this event. Tiamut^talk 13:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Shuki. Consensus has been achieved on this issue multiple times and repeatedly trying to reopen it to get a different result seems like an attempt to game the system. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  That is both factually false and not based on any reasoning as to why this article should not be titled under its common English name nor does it show that this is the common English name. Please strike the personal attack (attempt to game the system) that you clearly do not understand the meaning of. nableezy - 18:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is absurd and so is the incomprehensible reason for closing which does not justify the decision. The WP:CONSENSUS is to keep as is. WP:COMMONAME policy does not automatically override WP:CONSENSUS policy. Bastille Day is certainly not the bellweather to decide all other naming conventions. And on top of all that, It has not been proven that Jerusalem Day is 'commoname', certainly not by the closing admin. --Shuki (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since my considered and carefully written close is incomprehensible to you I doubt anything I say here is going to change your position but I invite you to read Wikipedia:Consensus more closely—especially the part that says "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." In any event, I am not going to argue the close with you. You are free to make another request to move the article and I urge you, if you are going to do so, to avoid repeating the same unsound arguments which I linked to relevant pages for explanation in the close, and instead attempt to provide evidence supporting your position.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is site-wide consensus, it is part of a policy which needs a reason to override, not just that a set of editors feels like it. nableezy - 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of an admin closing a discussion against consensus because he agrees with one side of the argument. 24.120.153.187 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No its not. Chesdovi (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's an excellent example of how admins should behave - i.e. taking into account the strength of the arguments and evidence, rather than counting votes which may have no substance. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This is one of the best RM decision/closings I've ever seen. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I know many of the above editors have been chased away, but there really is no reason for this page to not be called Yom Yerushalayim. It is called that by everyone. It is the common name, it is consensus and it should be the name of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per the argument that articles on Wikipedia should use the most common name in mainstream English publications. Note: I know an involved editor shouldn't close discussions, but in the current case consensus is overwhelming and unambiguous. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Jerusalem Day → Yom Yerushalayim – As per the entire talk page above. I believe the admin above acted incorrectly when he closed the above move request with a move to Jerusalem Day. Jerusalem Day is not used at all. YY is the most common usage in the English speaking world, similar to Yom Kippur and all the Eid holiday in the Muslim calendar. I reiterate all the arguments above, Wikipedia is supposed to use common usage, and consensus, and firstly, the above RPM had ample consensus to keep the page at Yom Yerushalayim, the admin even admitted as such, he decided to use AFD logic and move regardless. Other users argues that since YY is sometimes translated as Jerusalem Day then it should be moved to that, but it is common usage that is key and in common usage Yom Yerushalayim is the one that is most often used. Some of the users above mentioned that because some of the sources were Jewish they were not RS, I shouldn't even have to comment about that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia is actually supposed to use reliable sources to determine common usage, which in this case is Jerusalem Day. There was no evidence that anything other than Jerusalem Day is the most commonly used words to describe this event in English sources, and there was plenty of evidence to indicate that Jerusalem Day is the most common name for the event. Per WP:NAME, that means this article should be titled Jerusalem Day. Your argument is nothing but unsubstantiated assertion, or rather already disproven assertions. nableezy - 17:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME means that if you go on the street and ask someone about the holiday, they would answer Yom Yerushalayim, not Jerusalem Day, even if they speak English. While it's anecdotal, nobody I know says Jerusalem Day. Similarly to how everyone says Bastille Day, or how everyone says Eid al Fitr, and not the English translation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That unequivocally is not what that policy says. And Bastille Day kinda sorta disproves the point you think you have, as the French name for that is Le quatorze juillet. nableezy - 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although I personally might say Yom Yerushalayim and most people I know might, it does not appear to be the common name. If you do a google search for both in quotes, Jerusalem Day has three times as many hits. - Galatz^Talk 17:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what WP:COMMONNAME means, if you and I and everyone else we all know use the term, then that's what the name of the article should be. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME it states "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources" which to me means check out most RS and see what they call it there. If you think the common name in RS is Yom Yerushalayim then look for articles in NYT, CNN, Fox, etc and see what they call it. Provide a list of articles from these major RS and see what they refer to it as. - Galatz^Talk 18:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So Israeli sources, like jpost is not a rs? Jpost uses YY. I haven't checked the others. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Never said that. I gave examples. JPost might call it one thing but what do MOST RS refer to it as? - Galatz^Talk 18:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For one thing, CNN has both. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In the above discussion I posted results for Haaretz JD 483 YY 16, Yedioth Aharnot (JD 316 YY 27. And for English sources around the world the same pattern was evident (above are links for NY Times, Reuters, and the Guardian). The most commonly used name in English for the subject of this article is Jerusalem Day, and as such our article should be titled Jerusalem Day. I once again note you have brought zero evidence challenging that statement and instead have claimed that WP:COMMONNAME says exactly the opposite of what it actually says. nableezy - 18:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I showed above, CNN shows both, also, Israel uses YY, in addition, why are we showing only US news sources? The OU, OK, and most other Jewish organizations use Yom Yerushalayim, and that is common usage. They're based in the US, and they're not saying Jerusalem Day. Anybody searching for the day would use YY, and if not, we can have JD as a redirect but most people would know the day as YY. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? US sources? Two of them are Israeli, one is among the biggest wire services and is headquartered in the UK, one is a UK newspaper, and one is a US newspaper. And where pray tell did you show that CNN uses both? Because they actually dont. The only CNN pages I can find, with one single exception, that even contain "Yom Yerushalayim" in it are iReports, or unaffiliated and non-professional random people on the internet. CNN itself however uses Jersualem Day. nableezy - 18:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Nableezy (nice to see you here) and Galatz (also nice to see you here). Debresser (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we rename Yom Kippur to Day of Atonement since that is how it is described in English? And Rosh HAshana is descried as Jewish New Year, what about Eid Al Fitr, is that touchable? What the issue is, is how is this term used in the street, what is the common usage to describe the day and it is clearly Yom Yerushalayim. I am surprised by your vote.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, because Yom Kippur is the most common name used in English sources for that holiday. nableezy - 18:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And Nakba day? Catastrophe day is pretty much the common English name used for that day, will you be changing the name? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is evidence shown besides your speculation, which, forgive me for being blunt, doesnt exactly have a proven track record, that shows that some other name is more common in English usage then I'd be fine moving that page. I mean I doubt that is true however, but no matter, that isnt really relevant to the discussion here. One more time. The English Wikipedia uses the most commonly used term for a subject in English reliable sources for the title of an article. There are instances where the most commonly used term is a transliteration from another language, for example Eid al-Fitr or Yom Kippur. There are times where it is a translation like Bastille Day. But it is the use in English sources that determine the article title, and here that usage has been repeatedly shown to be Jerusalem Day. nableezy - 19:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. Every term should be checked separately. There is no rule saying that since this term is in English, therefore other terms, like Yom HaNakba, should be in English as well. It all depends on the most common term in English. Debresser (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. The move rationale ("Jerusalem Day is not used at all. YY is the most common usage in the English speaking world") is manifestly untrue (as is Sir Joseph's claim that the Jerusalem Post uses YY), as demonstrated by looking at the five main English language media sites in Israel:
  1. Haaretz has 483 uses of "Jerusalem Day" but only 16 uses of "Yom Yerushalayim".
  2. Israel National News has 1,070 uses of "Jerusalem Day" but only 233 uses of "Yom Yerushalayim".
  3. Jerusalem Post has 2,640 uses of "Jerusalem Day" but only 52 uses of "Yom Yerushalayim".
  4. Times of Israel has 866 uses of "Jerusalem Day" but only 162 uses of "Yom Yerushalayim".
  5. Ynetnews has 311 uses of "Jerusalem Day" but only 27 uses of "Yom Yerushalayim".

Number 57 09:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title is more commonly understood. Most, if not all English speakers who refers to the day as Yom Yerushalayim would understand that "Jersualem Day" refers to the same thign while few English speakers (particularly non-Israelis) would know the reverse. Alexander's Hood (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Violence Section

I think the violence section is extremely undue and way too large for this article. We don't need every mention or every source. Every year doesn't need to be mentioned. I think the whole section should be pared down and possibly if others wish, the refs can include multiple events but in no way should half the article be on the violence section. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed many sentences that were either redundant or not necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the noteworthiness of Jerusalem Day is now the violence, vandalism and racism that surrounds it. If what it's getting into the English language news is for this controversy, then attention to it is not undue.VanEman (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that every year needs to be mentioned, then create a new article. Right now it is extremely undue. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't need to list every year, nor are we a crystal ball so we don't need to list pending court actions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Take the IP Conflict, the article doesn't mention every attack, there is another article for that. This is an article on Jerusalem Day, not violence associated with it, more than a mention. You may not find the parade in the news because it's just a parade and holiday. What should the news and what should we put in? "In 2015 was Jerusalem Day, in 2014 was Jerusalem Day?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Finally, please read WP:UNDUE, as it is now the violence section is undue and makes the article weighted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

VanEman likes to stress all kinds of controversies, and give them undue attention. Same here, and I agree with Sir Joseph completely. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and since I was reverted, I will modify the paragraph and include "in recent years..." Wikipedia is not a directory and we don't need a new sentence or two every year. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Since these are clearly contested edits you shouldn't just be changing things without a consensus. Please read MOS:REALTIME, which your edit was a perfect example of. If you think its giving too much information then please use this space to propose your changes prior to making them live in the article. - Galatz^Talk 17:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

And yet you blindly revert. You could have just changed the "in recent years" to "from 2015 onwards" or something similar. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I see a more serious problem. Two actually. 1. This is a copyright violation. 2. This was published as an opinion piece. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to revert and add "since 2014" so we don't have the "in recent years" issues. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Sir Joseph, was this addressed to me? If so, why should I revert a removal based on no less than 3 policies and guidelines? Debresser (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were going to remove/trim the next paragraph which has every year as a new sentence or two which is not needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, per WP:NOTNEWS. I think it can be trimmed even a bit more, but I'll leave that up to somebody else.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2017

"In 2017, the Jubilee Year of Jerusalem day will be celebrated. During the course of the year many events marKing this milestone took place in celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem."

--181.91.129.186 (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 09:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193002/http://www.passia.org/seminars/2000/israel/part3.html to http://www.passia.org/seminars/2000/israel/part3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jerusalem Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151207101607/http://www.bethjacobrwc.org/yomyerushalyim.html to http://www.bethjacobrwc.org/yomyerushalyim.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707195428/http://www.jerusalempedia.com/Education-week_in_Jerusalem.html to http://www.jerusalempedia.com/Education-week_in_Jerusalem.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170529152730/http://www.jerusalem.muni.il/RecreationandCulture/tarbutuopnay/Pages/Jerusalem50-OpeningEvent.aspx to https://www.jerusalem.muni.il/RecreationandCulture/tarbutuopnay/Pages/Jerusalem50-OpeningEvent.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

background section

The background section is seriously lacking in NPOV. It presents an exceedingly one-sided portrayal of the events of 1948 and 1967 as fact. Will try to rectify it with material and sources from the relevant articles, but for now tagging for statements like On 15 May 1948, the day after Israel declared its independence, it was attacked by its Arab neighbours. Jordan seized East Jerusalem and the Old City. (without mentioning the prior year of hostilities or that Israel "seized" western Jerusalem) and the entire third paragraph. nableezy - 17:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

racism

this article lacks material on the widely covered racist abuse by Jerusalem Day march participants, euphemistically calling racist attacks by Israelis "violent interactions have been reported between Arabs and Israeli youth during the procession." That needs to be corrected. nableezy - 17:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Small typo fix request

Hi all,

I don't have XC status, and don't want to have to worry about that not allowing this update. There's a small typo in the overview section. "A notable celebrations that marks the holiday..." should be in the singular ("celebrations").

Thanks, GreenEli (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Fuchsia the Sun (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

Change "Jews" to "Zionists" in sidebar. Conflating Jews with Zionists is antisemitic. Nachowithan.a (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done I removed it since it's not covered in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)