Jump to content

Talk:Katamon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

title

[edit]

If "it is universally known as Qatamon," why is the article under Gonen? (Languagehat 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This article does not talk about modern Katamon. It only makes it seem like it is occupied land. Whether or not it is occupied is currently disputed, thefore the article's neutrality should be also. If a section were added that talks about the modern day community in Katamon (formerly Gonen) in a neutral way, than the article could be called neutral.

NOBODY calls this neighborhood Gonen. It is known as Katamon, and that should be the name of the article.--Gilabrand 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

katamonim

[edit]

I think the material on the Katamonim should be in a separate article linked to this one. Any thoughts?--Gilabrand (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough material to justify a separate article? It's not as if this article or the "Katamonim" section is very long. (not opposing, just commenting) Rami R 11:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katamon is in Israel

[edit]

Why was Israel removed from the lead? I'm thinking of starting an ARBCOM clarification but the country is certainly within the green line and as such should not be contentious. It is Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the world is still waiting for Israel and Palestine to reach a peace agreement and terms related to Jerusalem before they are willing to declare ownership of any part of the city to one country or the other. As no nations technically recognize Jerusalem as being in Israel it would be quite odd (read is) for Wikipedia to take a stance different from the international community. Sepsis II (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be about Jerusalem and the whole kerfuffle about embassies and what not, but "west" of the green line is Israel, it was never part of Jordan, or any other nation but Israel. It went from Mandatory Palestine to Israel, it is not disputed territories. It's not Palestinian territories. I could see not doing Jerusalem, Israel, but instead have Jerusalem, Israel, as two distinct entries. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the perspective of international law, the status of West Jerusalem is undetermined. On the other hand, practically nobody doubts that Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem will be accepted as part of any future "settlement". It would have been accepted already if Israel didn't demand both parts. That makes it de-facto quite different from East Jerusalem. Personally I am not too bothered by "Israel" attached to West Jerusalem locations, while I am adamantly opposed to attaching "Israel" to East Jerusalem locations. Zerotalk 04:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing your opinions are irrelevant anyway. Now excuse me while I walk through east Jerusalem, part of the CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.137.147.16.137 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier, I posted a "RFC" on the Jerusalem page about these neighborhoods. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sir Joseph: Firstly, no IPs should edit this article anyway, after Wikipedia:ARBPIA3. Secondly, all the IPs which were reverted were from Telstra, Australia. Now, Telstra-IPs have a history since last summer with death threats, rape threats, threats against editors family. See User:Huldra/Telstra-socks. (I got plenty of death- threats myself, because I insisted that Duma, Nablus was not in Israel...). This is why many of us have a "revert on sight" whenever a Telstra-IP turns up on ARBPIA-pages: they should be felt *very* unwelcome. Huldra (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry you had to go through that. Some people are just well, horrible I guess would be a decent enough word to use. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the "problem user" probably needs a shrink, IMO, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MAP?

[edit]

A map would be very helpful. I am not an experienced editor, or I would try to do it myself. Victor.Sac (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we split Katamon and Katmonim into two articles?

[edit]

Today Katamon is splitted into two sections: Old Katamon (the one that existed in 1948) and Katmonim which is a cluster of neighborhoods south of Old Katamon built between 1950s to the 1970s. They are administered as two different neighborhoods but share the same name. Should Katmonim and Katamon be splitted?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katamon. 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:

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) 16:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katamon. 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:

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) 23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Katamon really cannot be compared with Kaliningrad or Istanbul; these two cities have never been emptied of their population, and have a completely different population moving into their houses/buildings. I thought this was obvious, no? Huldra (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the case with Kaliningrad. It was a predominantly German-speaking city and the capital of a prominent state and in WWII the German population fled or was expelled and (to my knowledge) was never allowed to return. It was repopulated with Russians who today make up 87% of the city's population while Germans make up 0.4%. That is actually extremely similar to Katamon. And Istanbul serves as an example of a place that people with POV would love to describe by its historical status as a Christian center as opposed to its recent and contemporary history as an Islamic center. Katamon is today inhabited by Jews. The fact that it started as a Christian Arab neighborhood is not to be ignored as well as the fate of its previous inhabitants, but it can't be the main description of the neighborhood. On a larger scale, imagine describing Israel as a "state since 1948 with a Jewish majority that had a predominantly Palestinian Arab population that fled or was expelled and never allowed to return". This is sadly too common in articles about Israeli localities, where the Nakba gets too much weight. This is also caused by the fact that many articles on Israeli localities are short and lack description but that's not the case with this one.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also take a look at the edit I made--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, User:Bolter21; I believe you just broke 1RR on this article; please self-revert (I'll hate to report you). And Königsberg was basically a heap of ruins in 1945, (and Königsberg and Kaliningrad are two different articles), Huldra (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra I am not sure I have broke 1RR because I didn't revert any edit but made complete change. If that constitutes a revert I'll revert but I will be more inclined to revert if you'll express disagreement with the edit I've made because you can't technically revert it due to 1RR and I am more concerned with edit warring. Since we usually have an understanding I took more liberty.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First: User:Bolter21, yes, you did break the 1RR; if you revert anything twice: you broke it. See eg here: My 2nd revert (after 23 hours and 59 minutes after the first) was of newly inserted stuff, ie stuff that hadn't been there when I did my 1st revert. I still got reported by Shrike. Now, If I (or Zero, or Nableezy) was like Shrike; you would have been at WP:AE now :/ Thankfully we are not, but you really need "to get" this, (as for the issue at hand: I will return tomorrow (hopefully); when I have more time) Huldra (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this, You made an edit and inserted new information ("presently a Jewish neighborhood"), I reverted it stating I find it POV, you made a new edit with slightly different wording "since 1948 a Jewish neighborhood" and started a discussion afterward. I know I can't revert twice in 24 hours, but I didn't revert your edit, I completely removed the "Jewish" from the description. So this isn't exactly a revert because I didn't cancel your edit, I removed an entire part of the lead section that is clearly causing disputes. In respect for the value of discussion I have also clearly stated in the edit description Huldra feel free to revert if you disagree. Instead you threaten me with a report and effectively forcing me to accept a disputed edit you made twice. I can't find the logic here, especially if the purpose is to prevent edit-warring. The purpose is to solve the dispute and find a consensus for the wording in the lead section.
24 hours have passed and we hadn't yet had a discussion over how to describe the neighborhood. I can self-revert myself but it will go back to a wording I disagree with. So even if I will self-revert, after 24 hours I can also change the wording again to the neutral "Katamon is a neighborhood" which has no controversial compounds.
If you tell me to self-revert or get reported I will self-revert I just think it is an abuse of Wikipedia's policies because you clearly know your edit is disputed and found time to threaten me but not to engage in a discussion--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I really have no time for this if that's how it goes. I clearly have no time for an AE now and with all the threats I can't be sure my good faith will save me. Reverted my edit back to your disputed version. I stand with my opinion that the neighborhood shouldn't be explicitly described as a "Jewish neighborhood" just like Kiryat Malachi isn't a "Jewish city". The lead section can state that it was established by Christian Arabs who fled in 1948 and were repopulated with Jews because that is a more accurate description. A neighborhood is an urban subject and not a national narrative and neighborhoods cannot be circumcised or go to Mass on Sunday so it is better not to describe them by the nationality/religion of their inhabitants. Katamon in reality is a bunch of concrete inhabited today by Jewish people and in such a controversial topic it is better to be precise in the description of places, events, and people. Cheers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bolter21; but that is the point I am trying to make: it doesn't matter if it was reverting two different edits; you are not supposed to revert twice (in 24 hrs). If you look at above, at where I was recently reported to AE; my two reverts (23 hrs 59 min apart) were of totally different parts. And I never wanted to report you; and I don't think it is fair to say that I "threaten" you; sorry if you feel that way. But I do feel that you need to understand what a revert is in the IP area (and that is even more important than the issue at hand), Huldra (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would changing Jewish to Israeli solve both your concerns? nableezy - 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record I dont really see why call it a Jewish neighborhood or an Israeli neighborhood anyway, I think the version by Bolter is fine. nableezy - 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra you said "I'll hate to report you" so it felt like that is your intension. As far as I know, a revert is to negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version, but I didn't restore any previous version and instead created a new version (in which there is no national/religious description for the neighborhood), which in my view at least, removed a disputed part. I backed down because AE and ANIs are not pleasant. But let's put that behind us. Feel free to comment on my talkpage to comment on this matter. An opinion from an administrator may be good.
I see that Nableezy agrees with the rationale that there is no need to describe the neighborhood as "Jewish" but simply as a neighorhood of Jerusalem. In the same paragraph, it can be written that the neighborhood was inhabited by Christian Arabs (or Palestinians whatever I won't argue with that) and that since 1948 it has been populated by Israeli Jews, as it is already stated. Huldra, would you concur?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bolter21; well, the last thing in the world I have time for just now, is engaging with any WP:DRAMA-board. As for getting an opinion from an admin: I totally agree, and I tried asking El C. Unfortunately he wasn't interested, (another (non-admin) user thought it was a violation, though, see User_talk:El_C#1RR),
And I have changed Jewish -> Israeli, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra Why not simply "Katamon is a neighborhood in Jerusalem"?--Bolter21 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem map by neighbourhoods needed

[edit]

See discussion at Talk:Jerusalem#Map by neighbourhoods needed. Arminden (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katamon&oldid=1203215112"