Talk:Jerusalem

Lead

Looks like discussion and progress has stalled, in spite of general consensus. What now? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not actually sure. Maybe I should ask an admin to take a look at it? That Ironholds fellow seems to be good at such things. Perhaps he has time in his schedule. Sol (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know him, but sounds good. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is not a propitious time to revive my suggestion that we lead the article with a statement that "Jerusalem is the seat of government of Israel." This statement is undeniably correct, not contentious, clear, and probably, for that reason, completely unacceptable to both sides of the dispute. Ah, me! --Ravpapa (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That wording might work well in the fourth paragraph of the revised lead: "Today Jerusalem is controlled by the state of Israel, and is its seat of government." I still believe that the contentious issue of Jerusalem's current political status should be kept out of the opening paragraph entirely. *** Crotalus *** 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus to have the lead Crotalus wrote. The fact that we don't have it in the article seems to be a result of screwed up ArbCom enforcement or the original ArbCom decision. I would say at the least the the lead should have a POV tag on it, don't you think? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have put the revised lead back in the article. It has been over a week since the lead's main opponents have participated in this discussion in any way, and no one else has showed up to oppose it since. Given the short, single-purpose contribution histories and redlinked user pages of two of the opposing editors, I suspect that they may be sockpuppets of banned editors. Constructive criticism and suggestions for change is, of course, welcome, but simply saying "no" or "we've discussed this before" or "you didn't follow process" is not helpful. (See WP:BURO). I don't believe that neutral editors should allow POV-pushers to use the ArbCom case as a method of intimidation — that's precisely the opposite of what it was intended for. *** Crotalus *** 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks for being brave. I was just complaining about this somewhere else. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, I have participated in the discussion, and I would like to voice my (weak) disagreement with this lead. It seems to me an artificial and circuitous way to solve the problem. Because the truth is that the most notable things about Jerusalem today are (a) that it is the seat of Israel's government, and (b) it is the focus of an intense dispute between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors. The fact that we Wikipedians can't decide exactly how to say that doesn't make it any less important, and doesn't render it unworthy of inclusion in the lead sentence of the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in the lead, but not the lead sentence. We don't bias things toward their current as opposed to overall significance. Its religious significance is far greater than its political significance. The passing current state of the city per international arguments certainly belongs in the lead, but Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and in this case the religious and historical significance is far outweighed by current bickering. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem shouldn't be treated any differently than how Wikipedia treats the capitals of other nations like London, Paris, Moscow or Washington D.C., for example. By deliberately omitting the status of the city as Israel's proclaimed capital, you're adopting a non-neutral POV. You are singling out Israel for special treatment and this is entirely not acceptable. If there are issues with the status as capital, those can be addressed in the body text.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

London, Paris, Washington D.C., and Moscow are not in the least bit comparable to Jerusalem in regards to their legal status. Under international law, Jerusalem is supposed to be an international city, and the annexation of it by Israel is technically illegal. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not the same as WP:NPOV. It is not the de jure capital, it is the de facto capital. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No country in the world recognizes Taiwan as an independent country and the UN took it's seat away and gave it to the Mainland. Yet in Wikipedia articles, Taipei is still recognized as Taiwan's capital. I'm going to AGF but the recent edit, which is contrary to the long standing consensus version, smells like a massive POV push given the disparate treatment Israel receives.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No city in the world is valid for comparison to Jerusalem in terms of legal status. One can only compare politically unrecognised independent entities such as Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh to this. Both of those articles make it abundantly clear that these de facto states are not de jure recognised. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How about Nicosia? I see you tried to change that one without success as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being mature and assuming good faith on my edits there. Speaks highly of you as a person.

Nicosia is not unilaterally declared in the article to be the capital of only one state, so your point is moot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you're reading an assumption of bad faith in what I said, but never mind. For the record, I could not possibly care less what your opinion about me as a person is. Anyway, the northern part of Nicosia is under military occupation, right? Nobody recognizes it as the capital of Northern Cyprus, right? Yet it is stated at fact that it is the capital. You tried to change it but were reverted, so it's not like the solution you want for this article is being accepted for that article either. What difference does it make how many states declare it as their capital? The point is that it's not recognized (like Jerusalem), part of it is under occupation (like Jerusalem) yet it is stated as fact that it is the capital just based on the fact that a country almost nobody recognizes said it is. Declaring the point "moot" because you don't like the comparison just won't work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not commenting, I've been extremely busy. As noted several times above, in this encyclopedia capital cities (per deceleration of the country that controls the city, even if the country itself is not recognized) are listed as such in the first sentence of the lead, regardless of whether the city is recognized as capital or if it is occupied or not. See List of capital cities. Claiming Jerusalem is somehow unique just doesn't fly. The alleged consensus you guys keep citing to push this into the article (for the 4th time now) also doesn't fly. This also goes for misrepresenting what I and other editors said, accusing me of being a sockpuppet, an SPI, or generally a disruptive editor (I've noted all these things for future reference, as I doubt this is going to end here). Bottom line, we have yet to agree on how the city's political status should be described. Moving the political status from where it normally appears in wikipedia articles just makes it worse, not better. There is obviously no consensus for this change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I voice my concurrence with No More Mr Nice Guy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an invalid argument to say "we treat it differently in X article (say Taiwan), thus we should do it the same way here." That may be an argument that the other article has the same problem as this one, but it is not an argument that we do not have a problem here. Arguments about what should happen at this article must be drawn from first principles of Wikipedia policy, not from precedent. Therefore, let us put such arguments entirely aside, or else find a place in policy that says the precedent of one article is valid on another, despite questions of NPOV. We can talk about moving the description of its status as a capital higher up, which would be a possible compromise. I've tagged the lead as having a POV problem. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Posted at NPOV/N [1]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can say that all the other articles are broken too, or you can realize that there is a certain consistency within this encyclopedia and this is the only article you are arguing should deviate from that consistency. How many other occupied and/or non-recognized capitals do we have to show you until you realize that you're trying to make an exception where there is none? We are not discussing moving the description higher up, as it is already in the first line like every other similar article. It is you who needs to provide policy based arguments to move it. How does it violate NPOV to put the political status in the first line of the lead? I hope you're not going to use NOTNEWS again, since status as capital is not a one time event with no enduring notability. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia is based on sources, not its own conventions. You seem to be making the claim that, unequivocally, RS state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That, however, is not the case (I believe the regulars here agree on that). Thus, per WP:V and WP:NOR, stating unequivocally that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not allowed. Please stop making the argument that we should do it your way because that's the way other articles do it, unless you can quote policy which supports that position. Since I agree with your position, personally, I would love it if you could make a valid argument that we can unequivocally state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I have not heard such an argument, however. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was talking mainly about where we place it in the lead. As for the description, we've been over it above, I really see no reason to repeat myself with someone I've already discussed this with.

By the way, please spare me the "I agree with you but the system doesn't allow it" shtick. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You say there isn't a consensus in support of the new lead. Can you give me a list of editors who do not support it please? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In this section we have Ravpapa, Jiujitsuguy and myself. In the previous section talking specifically about this suggested lead we also have Someone65, Why Me Why U, and Noon. We have several others who objected to changing the wording but did not specifically comment on the new lead which both changes the wording and moves the placement of the political status. For example, Tomobe03, brewcrewer, RM and GGdowney. Also looks like there are a couple of people at RS/N who support the current wording. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this being taken to Arbcom, because its clear that neither side will ever be happy otherwise and will just keep arguing over it, trying to "one up" the other side. Each time an RfC or like discussion fails to achieve one side's "objective", editors return with slightly different arguments. Wikipedia is not the place for wars, nor is it a place to "keep trying until I achieve my preconceived outcome"...which unfortunately has been the case in regards to Jerusalem. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 02:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not in my case. I had no opinion coming to the article, and really I could care less. It's just that it seems pretty obvious under our rules, if the sources have been explained to me properly. What I mean is, I took it as agree here that RS say that Jerusalem is and is not the capital of Israel. I also looked it up in Britannica, and saw that they only say Israel claims it as its capital. So it then seemed to me that there was no call to decide the issue in WP as is now the case. I would certainly support solving the issue in any way possible, so let me know- let's work together on this okay? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Both "sides" share fault in this issue, just to make myself clear. I still support this going to Arbcom for the reasons stated previously and in the interest of some sort of long-lasting stability. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 03:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I suppose by having an opinion here I've become "involved." I'm not sure I want to be subjected to arbitration though... Still, I doubt they could find fault with me legitimately. So let me know what your plan is. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I also like the idea of taking it to Arbcom. Regardless of how any debate turns out the issue will just be raised again. There's got to be some neutral solution we can adopt and neither side seems to be persuading the other. Sol (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean try to do something under the current sanctions, or open a new case? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously useless trying to talk to some people/puppets, Arbcom is definitely required here to fix the intro. Passionless -Talk 05:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

All it needs, in fact, is for those who just don't like Israel very much to be put in their place. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as a matter of simple empirically verifiable fact. Britannica doesn't like this fact, or William Hague, or Obama? That is simply irrelevant to an encyclopaedia entry. The height of Mt Ruwenzori is x metres, whether or not the UN likes this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.71.134 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"By deliberately omitting the status of the city as Israel's proclaimed capital, you're adopting a non-neutral POV. You are singling out Israel for special treatment and this is entirely not acceptable" - hear, hear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Under international law, Jerusalem is supposed to be an international city, and the annexation of it by Israel is technically illegal" - that is factually wrong. UNGA recommendations are not 'international law'. Under post WWI-treaties, Jerusalem is part of the Jewish homeland. That legal situation has not changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

until the dispute is resolved

I suppose that's referring to the dispute on the wording of this article... :-( פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I do feel that the lede is a bit bloated, 3 para would be more concise and readable following WP:LEAD guidelines, however the tag appears nonconstructive. Looking at the lede discussions at United Kingdom article, WP:FOOTNOTE style could be used more for political clarifications and the rest could be integrated in the article body. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't contest the removal [2] of the tag at this point, but the dispute was never resolved. At the time I wasn't willing to risk taking the dispute to DR, but at this point I feel I understand the atmosphere better and would be willing to do so. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to DR. Before you do, I wanted to make sure that you are aware that of your few past supporters, one has been [BANNED] from this site, for being an abusive sock puppeteer, and another has been topic banned for battleground editing in this area. I am not sure that's going to look too good at DR. Two for the show (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, is that how it's going to be spun? That people were supporting me, as if I were leading a charge? Well, anyway, I'm not just "taking it to DR," but would be willing to now in consultation with others. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that block logs are hardly relevant to discussing an edit, and even if they were there is a long list of "Zionist" editors and their sockpuppets that have been banned. What's relevant in DR are arguments and the relative quality of the arguments. --Dailycare (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Key to color codes

Hi all,

The graphic, "Overview of Jerusalem's historical periods," does not include a key to the color codes which it uses. I would like to see one added so we know what the colors are meant to represent. Thanks. Akenderes (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem's status, as discussed in the lead paragraph.

I will preface my statements here by highlighting what is probably already obvious by my lack of an account here on Wikipedia. I cannot quote WK: whatever in defence of my statements, simply because I do not understand them well enough, I am not an editor of Wikipedia pages - in fact I have made but one post on any Wikipedia page at all. As a result I would ask not to be attacked for what I am about to outline; that which I believe to be nothing but a common sense view on the matter of Jersualem's status and it's treatment as such in this article.

The opening sentence of this article states the following, 'Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel, though it is not internationally recognised as such'. I cannot be the only one who recognises the internal inconsistency of such a statement? If Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as such, then it is tantamount to false information to state in the same sentence that Jeresulem 'IS' the capital of Israel. Clearly, seeing as Jerusalem is not recognised as the capital by the UN or any of its member states - all of which maintain embassies in cities such as Tel Aviv, including the US, and refuse to recognise the Jerusalem Law - the statement that it is the capital is true only to the Israeli's. I agree that Israel's stance on the matter must be represented, to neglect mentioning it's status as the capital at all would constitute a rather glaring omission, one that would open the article up to accusations of bias. However, it seems beyond ridiculous not to point out the qualifications of its status with a statement of greater quality and clarity than the mere generality of 'though it is not internationally recognised as such'.

I realise that such qualifications, constituting a greater and more detailed illustration of Jerusalem's status may well be discussed at length in further sections of the article, however, this does not seem an exhaustive encyclopedic explanation to me. I bring forth a rather common scenario as my evidence for this. The average internet user wishes to find out the answer to a query, here the capital of Israel; they bring up google to type in their query and are directed straight to this page, they read the lead paragraph/s. What follows is one of a few scenarios; they read on after the lead to discover exactly what these international disputes are, they simply accept that Jerusalem is the capital period (the article says it 'is'), or they give up and cease looking. Now I personally would read on, and I would encourage anyone else to do so, in fact if you are going to use resources like Wikipedia, and neglect to read them in their entirety you are clearly misusing them. However, in this day and age it is not likely that many will read an entire article of such size, and if either the second or third scenario come to fruition, people leave misinformed. Not the fault of hard working editors here at Wiki I know, but still easily fixable by such people.

As such I suggest it is appropriate and necessary to extend and qualify the existing statements on record in this particular lead. By representing the fact that Jerusalem is not considered the de jure capital of Israel by the international community (in clear and stated terms) but is however the seat of the Israeli parliament and considered to be the capital of the country by both the Israeli government and its citizenry the facts would been fully fleshed out in terms easily digested by all readers of this article. It would then be up to the reader as to whether they, like the Israeli's, accept Jerusalem as the capital, or take the opinion of the international community at large, whereby they default to Tel Aviv or other large cities as the base of diplomatic operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.253.194 (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The short answer to your question is that no, indeed you're not the only person to realize the statement isn't correct. You might do well to have a look in the archives of this talkpage (accessible from the top) which contain past discussions on this very subject. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A slightly longer answer is that countries determine their own capitals, and the "international community" has no say in the matter. For plausibility, the seat of government must be there—as it is in this case. The volumes of discussion about the wording of the lead in this article have repeatedly come up against these irreducible basics. The current wording results from a series of compromises crafted through seemingly endless discussions. To say that the statement "isn't correct" or is "false information" or biased is to do a disservice to those who took part in those earnest discussions, and especially to the underlying principles that emerge again and again. Your question is nothing new. Reading the archived discussions will help inform you on the background. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me towards the archived discussions, I will certainly make sure to use them. I don't know why I didn't automatically assume there must be an archive of old discussion posts, it would be rather ridiculous to delete old posts over a matter of time passage, thanks again. However, I must point out that I never said the statement as is, displayed any particular bias, in fact I said that to pass over its status as 'capital' would display a bias. While it maybe true that the international community at large has no say in the matter of the capital cities of other countries, it is ridiculous to suggest that the international feeling on the matter is inconsequential. You will of course hit back that you no where suggested that the matter is inconsequential, and that volumes of archived discussions convey its particular consequence. While this may indeed be the matter, the current wording of the first sentence of this article, still suggests that Jerusalem is the capital and the international disagreement is of little to no consequence. I point out that if a similar matter held sway in Britain or the US, so Birmingham or Philadelphia were held to be capitals but not recognised as such internationally, the matter would recieve words of far more consequence in the lead sentences of the appropriate articles!

It is not really a matter of logic but of sourcing. Certain reliable sources do state that Jerusalem is not the capital. Thus, we have a difference of opinion in our sources. However, instead of describing this dispute, the current article takes sides in the matter, and thus we have a simple instance of breaching Wikipedia's core policy, NPOV. Being clear on the fact that Wikipedia does not take sides in debates will guide you in your perusal of the former discussions (some of which I moved back here since they're still current). The only way the current lead should stand is if the sources disputing that Jerusalem is the capital are not reliable, or if it can be stated that there is a contrary consensus among reliable sources. Otherwise, it's a simple matter of NPOV and our own thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Anthem

Satan will always say that he is 'god'... This is well known...

I wonder how we ever managed with out all of this Science And Technology (SATanic) and SATellites just as SATanic.

Jerusalem Anthem (But what is 'Jerusalem' and why 'Jerusalem'? That would imply 'Jerusalem' or Jew-ruse-a-lem everywhere globally.

And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon our mountains green And was the hol(e)y lamb of 'god' On our pleasant pastures seen

And did the countenance divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills And was Jerusalem builded here Among those dark SATANIC mills

Bring me my bow of burning gold Bring me my arrows of desire Bring me my spears o'clouds unfold Bring me my chariot of fire

I will not cease from mental fight Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand 'Til we have built Jerusalem In our (once) green and pleasant land 'Til we have built Jerusalem In our (once) green and pleasant land

You see?

Our creators only regard us as dogs (as with dogs of war) or as mere vermin as with the extermination, or death, camps.

The epithet vermin is also well known if you know your Bible intimately.

Yes, I know 'people' never like to hear the truth.

The Three Wise Men, on behalf of The Unborn Child a child concept which can never suffer and never die, be abused or killed.

ianchattan@yahoo.com