Talk:Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem)

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

Requested move 30 March 2019[edit]

Status quo of Holy Land sites → Status quo of holy places in the Holy Land – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with holy places, and generally how such generic article names seem to be constructed? PPEMES (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.   samee  converse  10:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a tad redundant, and how is that consistent when the other article's title isn't similarly formatted? UpdateNerd (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does seem redundant, but in fact is not, because the present "sites" is completely unclear and unspecific. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now I understand. It is technically more accurate that way, but also unlikely to be confused with another status quo of the the Holy Land. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we don't need to get ultra-specific with article names. The sources generally just refer to it as the Status Quo, so perhaps another approach could work, like Status Quo (Holy Land). UpdateNerd (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone confirm that the SQ applies only to Jerusalem sites? I quite like the formulation Status Quo (Holy Land) except that Holy Land is also inaccurate as that is geographically a large area of uncertain borders. In which case I would prefer Status Quo (Jerusalem) if that is confirmable or else simply Status Quo which is the way I usually refer to it myself (though of course, the context is usually clear in that event).Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are places in Bethlehem too, especially Rachael's Tomb and the Church of the Nativity. Zerotalk 00:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which were considered/administered as part of the wider Jerusalem area back in the day (up until 1947 - Bethlehem was intended to be part of the Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) (which doesn't have a map - but maps are readily available in a search - e.g. JVL). In terms of modern day application (as opposed to Ottoman/British Mandate) - the provisions in the Jerusalem proper are very active (and followed) - the ones in Bethlehem possibly less so, but not certain. Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Status Quo (Jerusalem area) or Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) - The Status Quo is strictly in the Jerusalem area - it does not cover Nazareth or Sea of Galilee sites for instance. Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem and Bethlehem were not even in the same sub-District until 1945, and the Corpus Separatum was just an idea that came to nothing. Nor is Bethlehem administered with Jerusalem today. So there is no case for including Bethlehem under the umbrella of Jerusalem. I have no objection to "Jerusalem and Bethlehem". Zerotalk 08:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now. The 1949 UN conciliation ref lists the sites including those in Bethlehem while referring to their location as being in the Jerusalem area. So "Jerusalem and Bethlehem" would be OK, I guess, if a bit of a mouthful. Else just Status Quo (along with suitable disambiguation). I don't know for certain, I imagine most persons arriving at this page reach it via a link or searching for Status Quo.Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is for simply Status Quo, which is currently just a redirect to the general topic. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2019[edit]

Status quo of Holy Land sites → Status Quo – more specific proper noun naming UpdateNerd (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit like Brexit, no-one likes the current deal but no-one knows what they want instead.In the absence of an alternative, I'm fine with status quo (disambiguated).Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The next best title would be Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem). UpdateNerd (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)2[reply]
Not sure. As s minimum, though, shouldn't "sites" be replaced by "places", as argued? Either way, "Status quo" should not be written "Status Quo". PPEMES (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources refer to it as a proper noun. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While the current title is not perfect, nobody here has suggested a better title. Zerotalk 01:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keen on "sites" or "Holy Land" for reasons already given, how about "Status Quo (Holy Places)"? (Cust's semi-authoritative missive is called the "Status Quo in the Holy Places")Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That has a nice ring to it, albeit it being a little vague. Status Quo (Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem) would be more on the nose. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is still open for discussion, but I saw no reason not to make the gradual move to Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem), which no one objected to. Feel free to continue making suggestions for a more refined title. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Immovable Ladder[edit]

Both articles are somewhat limited in their scope and one helps illustrate the other. I propose that the contents of Immovable Ladder become a section on this article. Simply losing the Ladder's subsections and compressing it into one overview would achieve the job nicely IMO. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing little reason not to go forward, and assuming that most will only be able to judge the merge a posteriori, I have migrated the majority of the Immovable Ladder article to this one. I stripped out a handful of vague unsourced claims & redundancies, and personally find that the articles work better together. If there is any strong objection, an undo process is fully possible.
Note that I incorporated the image of the Treaty of Berlin mentioning the Status Quo to the History section, as the image didn't contribute much. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening this discussion, which I didn’t notice previously.
Personally I don’t like the way the merged article works. Even after half a year there are still a significant number of pageviews going to the Immovable Ladder redirect. To my mind that is because these are simply different topics. I get that they are both smallish articles, but encyclopedias are meant to have small articles on small topics. This setup makes the Status Quo article too heavily weighted to one minor subtopic. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who disputes the sites[edit]

This [1] is not OR - it is a summary of Cust: wikisource:The_Status_Quo_in_the_Holy_Places.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem quarters[edit]

1841 Aldrich and Symonds map of Jerusalem

I just moved the following unsourced passage from the article:

As a result of the Status Quo, the city of Jerusalem was divided into four quarters. The Temple Mount became a Muslim holy place, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as well as various other sites were recognized as belonging to the Christian world.

The map to the right from 1841 shows the city's quarters clearly. This may have been implemented beforehand, but I have not seen a source proving it.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the historical summary in wikisource: The Status Quo in the Holy Places, this is definitely incorrect. The status quo built up over time, in different sites at different times. There is no suggestion that the quarters of Jerusalem were fixed in this way.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: I was skeptical of that passage, having not seen it in any of the references. Thanks for removing it. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the ladder[edit]

Is it wood? Why won't it rot?--82.37.67.151 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it seems to be protected from rain by the eaves above. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration[edit]

Hebrew: סטטוס קוו, Arabic: الوضع الراهن

Whenever significant words from other languages appear in scripts other than the Roman, please can we have them transliterated into Roman characters so as to be readable by English-speaking users?

This is, after all, English Wikipedia. Nuttyskin (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherds' Field: which site?[edit]

The confusing thing is that there are two 4th-century sites claiming to be the Shepherds' Field of the NT, one Orthodox and one Catholic.

This article states

The link leads to the Catholic site, while in the Beit Sahour article the very same is stated about the Orthodox site. To which one does it actually refer to? It's most likely the Orthodox one, which is the more likely candidate for the site mentioned by Egeria. I have started this discussion on the Chapel of the Shepherd's Field talk-page, pls clarify there and then edit accordingly all 3 articles: here, there, and at Beit Sahour. A separate article on the now Orthodox site should be written. Arminden (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David's Tomb and Cenacle[edit]

I have added "David's Tomb and Cenacle": closely related. During the Mandate not part of SQ, but similarly contested until today. Catholics have built the structure, thr Ottomans have confiscated it for the Muslims, and Israel plus some Jewish organisations have gradually taken control over it.

Did the initial, 1750s firman, mention the Nabi Dawood complex? What about the 1852-53 ones? If none did, then only a "related" topic. Arminden (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Status_Quo_(Jerusalem_and_Bethlehem)&oldid=1210547933"