Talk:Jerusalem

Adding a sentence to the opening section

My simple and correct edit was reverted by a user, claiming this subject is very sensitive and needs to get consensus first. So here I am, asking for it. Thanks Yambaram (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. We recently had a formal procedure to determine how to represent Israel's and Palestine's claims to Jer as capital in the project, you can read the discussion and result here. The result is binding for three years, which is still running. --Dailycare (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I read through this page now. I suggest that someone put a link for it properly here to prevent unnecessary future discussions. I'm personally not satisfied with the outcome of that long discussion, since it was partially the result of a mostly leftist majority of users, for a lack of a better term. Anyways, Israel is and forever will be my capital.. Yambaram (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Yambaram this article is ridiculous. I mean Israel controls the city, it's the capital in every sense of the word. Even a majority of the arab people who live there want it to remain in Israel(http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/a-surprising-process-of-israelization-is-taking-place-among-palestinians-in-east-jerusalem.premium-1.490367). So basically a foreign power wants to take over the city against the wishes of its residents and Wikipedia's editors agree with them. This article is very political and one sided and no one can edit it because of some ridiculous arbitration. I can't even fix the BAD grammar in the opening paragraph or add in brackets under "country" beside "Palestine" that only the eastern part of the city is disputed because apparently some people have determined that even the western part is disputed which is just insane(and no one says that not even the UN). This article has destroyed the trust I once had in Wikipedia, now I always do my own research on the side to make sure the article I read on Wikipedia is true or like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csi.southpark (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Doing your own research is commendable. In your research, you'll doubtless have discovered that even the United States does not recognize West Jerusalem as being in Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You're half right Dailycare, I worded it wrong, quote from the Wikipedia article on West Jerusalem: "West Jerusalem refers to the section of Jerusalem that is in Israeli territory in reference to the borders usually accepted by the international community and that fit to the ceasefire lines of the First Arab-Israeli War. A number of western countries such as UK and USA acknowledged de facto Israeli authority, but withheld de jure recognition." Csi.southpark (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact I'm completely right, see e.g. Victor Kattan: "no state recognizes Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem in neither its eastern nor western half". (page 2, paragraph 2) --Dailycare (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well not really, most countries de facto recognize West Jerusalem as being a part of Israel. Here are two links http://trueslant.com/nealungerleider/2010/06/04/jerusalem-headaches-for-iphone-users/ and http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/19/obama.israel.palestinians/index.html . The second one is interesting because in pre 1967 borders West Jerusalem would stay a part of Israel. The debate is more about East Jerusalem. Csi.southpark (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway I'll give you the last word Csi.southpark (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. But highly improbable. Ravpapa (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's true that the debate is mostly about EJ since WJ is slated to become Israeli in case a two-state solution is agreed. But for the time being, no country recognizes WJ is in Israel so it's not "insane" to say it's also part of the dispute. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ironically I must comment that it does sound insane to me when I hear that the place I lived in for most of my life, East Jerusalem, is not only not the capital of Israel, but also not in Israel itself! According to the international community, I grew up outside of the Jewish state without even knowing! Yambaram (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

To you it seems 'insane', since you grew up in an occupied land as if it weren't thus occupied. 'Without even knowing!' There's still time to learn. Ask the folks in Hārat al-Muslimīn, or the next time you see a joyful Jewish family accompanying a smiling kid on his bar mitzvah visit through Sha'ar Ha'ashpot to the Western Wall, ask yourself why no Jerusalem-born boy of the same age can enjoy a similar joy by going with his family to the Haram ash-Sharīf a few yards away. That is what strikes the world as 'insane'. You can't legally discriminate like that in Israeli law: you can in East Jerusalem, ergo. . . Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, why does it say "retired" or your userpage? Looking at all your anti-Israel/Jewish contributions on Wikipedia (which I plan to review soon), you seem to be quite active for someone who claims he left Wikipedia. My first respose to you is that this is not an occupied land, it's DISPUTED territory, click on that link and read about it, because as you said - "there's still time to learn". Obviously no country is perfect, but Israel is a true democracy with equal rights for all its citizens. I'm not going to get into details here but this not-very-nice life situation which you described above has its reasons. Sometimes Israel has to take ugly actions for security purposes, all of which have very well known and understood justifications. -Yambaram (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Did I say "highly improbable"? Hah! That was an understatement! Ravpapa (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yambaram

Did you say that it is not occupied but disputed? According to the website of the New South Wales Board of Deputies [1], it is not even disputed. It is already part of Israel. If that is correct, then Israel is not a democracy since the Arabs living in Gaza, Judea or Samaria do not have a vote in Israeli elections. Trahelliven (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

IRavpapa, your comments aren't helpful, and Trahelliven, is this a forum discussion here or what? Some knowledge about the history of the Land of Israel and modern Israel is required in order to fully understand the answer to your question. There are currently "Palestinian Autonomous Area" and "Palestinian Administered Territories" in Judea and Samaria. Also, the majority of those under Israeli rule there don't even recognize it as a state, and definitely don't want to become Israeli citizens. The circumstances are very complex and need to be judged in a neutral point of view. By the way, Israeli Arabs comprise 20% of Israel's population, and sometimes actually enjoy even more privileges then I do. Yambaram (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The current form of lead is tragically poor as it looks that the de facto situation does not exist. Concerning Haram ash-Sharīf I think no one believes that a Muslim family can not enjoy at the place. As far as I know it is only forbidden to Jews, Christians and non Muslims to pray at the site (all the time) and even to visit it beyond two or three hours daily. I do not think that this article should state that there is no occupation in E. Jerusalem, this view has mainstream support, but to negate the fact that Jerusalem function as de facto capital of Israel is an unrepresented collision (for any Wikipedia article) with actual situationTritomex (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)--Tritomex (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The article says that many Israeli government institutions are situated in Jerusalem, which may be read as an indication that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel. During the decade-long wrangling over the wording of the Lead, one of the suggestions was that the article should state that Jerusalem is the de facto capital, but that was rejected by those opposed to any change in the former wording. It little matters what editors think the 'real' situation is; what matters is neutrally reporting what sources say.     ←   ZScarpia   12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Wikipedia should provide real and factual NPOV content, and not what was decided by a group of people in an almost private "formal procedure". I too propose the addition of the sentence "Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel" in the article's entry. Yambaram (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You are actually pushing a real POV, and are trying to make the change from your own viewpoint. Note that this group of people were trusted administrator and they worked out the lead only after a long discussion participated by a large number of users, and not in an almost private "formal procedure" as you wrongly accused.

The juxtaposition of words Jerusalem and capital of Israel will give people the wrong impression that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel which is the negation of truth. For example, Encarta encyclopedia (2008) says Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such. The truth often seems bitter to you because Israel illegally occupied lands and the international communities are aware of this. -AsceticRosé 15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Encarta encyclopedia contrary to this article has a very reasonable and balanced definition based on facts, the problem is that this article lead is detached from any reality.--Tritomex (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

AsceticRose, whether this sentence is added to the article or not, Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel, even if you don't like it. So we're hiding this fact because of the impression people will get from reading it? I mean, isn't it a little pathetic? Regardless, this rightly "occupied" land is disputed, so please write with NPOV too. I'm not the only user here who thinks that the "lead is detached from any reality". Even if some administrators think otherwise, it won't actually change much in real life anyway so I'm not going to argue here anymore. Yambaram (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Who told you that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, whether de facto or anything? It is Israel itself which claims so, but this claim has not been accepted by the international bodies and other countries. The matter is simple: Israel claims, and international community rejects. The article is saying the same thing: Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally. So I don't see how or on what point it is detached from reality. Palestine also claims Jerusalem as its capital. So why don't you advocate that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of State of Palestine?

And it is not some administrators as you again wrongly blamed; they made this lead on the basis on wikipedians' comments. So, by disregarding the lead, you are actually insulting the Wikipedia community.

@ Tritomex, I do not see any encyclopedia's wording is better than the other. Wikipedia's version is also balanced, and needless to say, based on truth.-AsceticRosé 17:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm just frustrated with what I believe is a little unbalanced, that's it. De facto often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law", and so I would personally accept an equal Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as its de facto capital. Regards Yambaram (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a question, why is east Jerusalem considered occupied and Tibet is not? Also correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Morocco or Turkey have ever been condemned for "occupying" the Western Sahara and northern Cyprus at least not by the UN(or if it has been condemned then certainly not as many times as Israel). Csi.southpark (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sean it's rude to just delete someone's comment. Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not the talk page? Csi.southpark (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:TALK and either remove your comment or rewrite it so that it is consistent with WP:TALK. Disruptive misuse of the talk page like this on a page covered by discretionary sanctions could cost you your editing privileges, so I suggest you comply with WP:TALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay what would you suggest that I change Sean.hoyland? Which part of my comment is against Wikipedia's policies? Thank you for your feedback. Csi.southpark (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in your comment that complies with WP:TALK. Talk pages are not for asking and answering questions about the real world or voicing your personal opinions about the real world. So, your entire comment does not comply with WP:TALK and shouldn't be here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland I'm not sure if you have noticed or not but most of the comments on this page don't comply with what you cited. So I don't understand why you have chosen to single my comment out. I guess I should have worded it differently; I only thought that "I have a question" was a nice way to word it(I wasn't really asking a question; it was more of a rhetorical question). I was just looking to see what others thought of my point and if it was agreed upon in the talk page, which I understandably highly doubt; seeing as most of the editors to this page don't live in Jerusalem(myself included) and are of a particular view point(not that there is anything wrong with that; but maybe this article could benefit from a more mixed group of editors) then the article could be changed and the legality of Jerusalem could be better explained(from both sides; in a non-biased and equal fashion). The suggestion that I had was the article could include the fact that while Tibet's annexation is universally recognized, East Jerusalem is not. Another fact that could be added could be that while East Jerusalem's annexation is heavily condemned Northern Cyprus's occupation/rule by Turkey and Western Sahara's annexation by Morocco is not and Jordan's annexation of East Jerusalem also wasn't condemned heavily(or at all; not sure). Yet another relevant fact(in my opinion) that could be added is that Israel captured East Jerusalem in a war of self defence. Another relevant fact(in my opinion) is that a majority of its citizens both Jewish and Arab don't want to divide the city and also don't want to live under Palestinian jurisdiction (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/a-surprising-process-of-israelization-is-taking-place-among-palestinians-in-east-jerusalem.premium-1.490367). Again thank you for your feedback. Csi.southpark (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. Imagine what the talk page section would look like as a heat map with comments color coded based on their inconsistency with WP:TALK and WP:SOAP, from cool blue (consistent) to hot red (inconsistent). It's true that most of the comments on this page don't comply with what I cited but this section was turning blue with comments like "so I'm not going to argue here anymore". The addition of your comment was an abrupt transition from blue to red, which in the WP:ARBPIA topic area is how to start a fire. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand it's not personal. Thank you for your advise Sean.hoyland next time I will word my comments better. I was not trying to turn the comments "red" I was only trying to start a discussion that might with a little luck lead to a change. I hope someone will discuss my points with me(which correct me if I'm wrong, still new on Wikipedia, is why they created the talk page). Csi.southpark (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages aren't the place to discuss the points you raised (in this edit<-added for clarity). Per WP:TALK, this page is "to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article..." Editors can discuss the points you raised with each other on their talk pages if they wish. If you are interested in Western Sahara you might be interested in "The International Law of Occupation" by Eyal Benvenisti, section "7.2.2, The Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara (1975)", Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199588893 Sean.hoyland - talk 07:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if worded myself wrong, but I'll try to be clearer. I was suggesting including the facts that I raised be included in THIS article(the one on Jerusalem) and was looking for feedback. Which would indeed fit your definition of what the talk page is for. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Thank you for the article on the Western Sahara I will read it. My suggested edit to THIS article is that it include the discrepancies between the treatment of East Jerusalem and other places that have been recently won through war. Also that THIS article should state that Israel captured East Jerusalem through a war of self defence and that a majority of its residences(Jewish and Arab) want to remain in Israel. Csi.southpark (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my mildly chiding attempts at sarcasm above, but the point of my comments has obviously not been understood. So, at the risk of making a joke boring by explaining it, I will clarify: The lead of this article is embedded in stone by a community decision in which dozens of editors participated actively, and which is enforced by the communal will of editors and administrators. The purpose of taking this extraordinary measure was to obviate endless arguments just like the one you are conducting on this talk page.

No amount of disputation, however impassioned, however sage, however convincing, is capable of causing a change in the lead, at least not for the next three years. I imagine that is clear to all the disputants, but, driven apparently by some strange power - maybe a rabbinical dybbuk driven to unrelenting talmudic exegesis - they seem unable to let it alone.

Therefore, I suggest that you continue this argument elsewhere. http://wikipediareview.com/ is, for example, a forum where you can steam all you like without adding megabytes to this already bloated talk page. Ravpapa (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I know what I did wrong now(I'm new here). I wrote my comment under the wrong column/section. I didn't mean for any of the facts I wrote above to be included in the opening because I know that's impossible and wouldn't make sense in an opening paragraph anyhow. What I mean is that it should include, under political status(not in the lead paragraph; it should say this in the section on political status), that while Tibet's annexation is universally recognized, East Jerusalem is not and that while East Jerusalem's annexation is heavily condemned by the UN Northern Cyprus's occupation/rule by Turkey and Western Sahara's annexation by Morocco is not and that Jordan's annexation of East Jerusalem wasn't condemned heavily(or at all; not sure) My second suggested edit was to maybe include, somewhere else in the article(not the lead paragraph), that Israel captured East Jerusalem in a war of self defence. Another suggestion that I have is that this article should say(somewhere; again not in the lead paragraph) that a majority of its citizens both Jewish and Arab don't want to divide the city and also don't want to live under Palestinian jurisdiction. I wrote this in the talk page because I thought thats what I was supposed to do. I hope that someone will consider these suggestions. Csi.southpark (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The second suggestion, 'a war of self defence', seems to be based on something you appear to believe is a fact rather than a narrative. But even if it were true, why do you think it should added here given, for example, International Law: A Dictionary p.213, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and many other sources about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay I'll research that more. My point on that was just that the section on political status could be expanded(on both sides). But what about some of my other suggestions? Csi.southpark (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Some(not all) good points are raised in this article http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/international-law-and-the-arab-israel-conflict#7 Csi.southpark (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Stone's views probably fall in the fringe category. They are mentioned in the East Jerusalem article (search for "Lawyers have argued that Israel has sovereignty over East Jerusalem under international law") and indirectly in the Israel section of the Positions on Jerusalem article. I don't think this article should get bogged down in the details of the various legal arguments. The Political status section has a link to the main article, Positions on Jerusalem. John Quigley (academic) has written about this issue at length too. Questions like "why add Stone here but not Quigley" etc will come up. It's probably better to keep the details over at the Positions on Jerusalem article, especially minority views like Stone's.

The third suggestion, or something similar to that, looks okay to me. There's some related info in the Status under Israeli rule section (search for "On the other hand, a poll conducted in June 2013 found 74% of Israeli Jews reject the idea of a Palestinian capital in any portion of Jerusalem, although 72% of the public regarded it as a divided city"). Or perhaps the Current demographics section is better. It has related info too. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your feedback! If you think the third suggestion I made is a good one then could I ask you to please add it to the article. I'm still very new on here and every time I edit something it gets reverted. Anyway thanks for all your feedback, learned a lot. Cheers, Csi.southpark (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to improve syntax of a sentence in the lead.

Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.

I apologise for not opening up a discussion on the talk page before I made the edit. However the grammar and the syntax do not read well. You have four separate concepts in the above:-

Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital. This should stand alone.

Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power. You might expect the international community to recognise one of these claims. Rather it recognises neither. This relationship is expressed by the use of although at the beginning of a subordinate clause, or by the use of however after a semicolon. Using as simply makes no sense. I certainly did not intend to alter the meaning. I certainly do not intend to push the point. Trahelliven (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You make good points. However, right or wrong, we are locked into this wording until Jan. 2016 per the Request for Comment linked to near top of this page. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeeds you both, a good edit prevented. When the RfC was closed, last June, the concluding editors thought it OR to write good sentences. -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

'Ultimately foresees it' is a, well, I've foregotten the right rhetorical term for this crassness, but it is a void phrase. 'Ultimately foresees' means on one level, that 'now they don't foresee it being/becoming such', and is only saved from such an absurdity by the ambiguity in 'ultimately' which may also, as perhaps intended here, suggest 'in the final analysis', which however is not true either. One foresees now, and what one foresees, if it occurs, is the ultimate result of that aim. It doesn't help that it follows by 'its' is cleft-thumbed stylistically. One could go on. Will you all join me in an offline eheu? (On the other hand, the sentence's shambolic incoherence reflects faithfully the discursive and practical impasses of all I/P realities.) Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In defense of the editors who created this sentence (I was not one of them), I would suggest that the intent is, "... The State of Palestine foresees it, ultimately, as its seat of power." That is to say, "ultimately" is intended to modify "seat of power" rather than "foresees". Jerusalem is today not Palestine's seat of power, but ultimately, Palestians foresee, it will be. Of course the sentence structure certainly obscures this intent, with the placement of ultimately obviously modifying "foresees". Fortunately, these niceties fly past readers with an agility and grace that we trundling editors seem unable to appreciate. Ravpapa (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I'm conditioned, in editing here, by memories of what chaps like Raja Shehadeh and Edward Said said of the initial early 90s peace talks. Lack of lawyerly attention by the Palestinian political elite to the niceties of phrasing, and the past history of contentious, indeed ominous wording that had previously been rejected on good technical grounds, translated out into endless woes for them. Twitter-age eyes zip, sure, but encyclopedias should get things straightened out beyond ambiguity, because, like all encyclopedias, this one will become eventually citable as authoritative. No criticism of the team who had to wade through the huge wasteland of bumf we collaborated in writing up. That they got to the other end without a Masada reaction was no mean achievement. It is nice to wake up, in any case, every day, and realize one doesn't have to look at 30 edits overnight to the Jerusalem lead and disentangle them. My morning coffee has less mourning in it these days:) Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I found it curious that the RfC conclusion into these sentences did not include sources.

A minor quibble about the lede

I know the RFC results are binding for three years, but would it be too much to ask that Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally be changed to The states of Israel and Palestine both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as the former maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the latter ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally (changes bolded). It is factually incorrect to assert that all Israelis and all Palestinians support their respective governments' claims. A territorial claim is made by a government, not by an ethnic or national group. The phrases "Israeli" and "Palestinian" aren't even mutually exclusive, as Arab citizens of Israel attests to—as currently worded, this article implies that an individual of Palestinian descent with Israeli citizenship would support both nations' claims to the city. Once again, I appreciate that this wording is the result of a great deal of discussion and a long-awaited consensus, but I'm really only asking that a few words be changed. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be too much since the RFC really is binding. On a practical level building consensus to edits that affect that specific aspect of this article is arduous even in the absence of a binding text. --Dailycare (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems rather... bureaucratic. Perhaps this request is more controversial than I think. But I'd at least like to hear what others have to think. In my view, this is the simple correction of an error. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• It has been over a week since I made this comment. If no one can actually explain a non-procedural reason to not make this change in another week's time, I will be invoking the fifth pillar of Wikipedia and doing so. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you change it, it will be reverted. The RfC result is binding until January 2016. That is all anyone needs to know. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We are here to improve the encyclopedia. Any enforcement of policy must be in the name of that ideal. To revert an edit simply on procedural grounds, without considering its content, is contrary to the principles of a wiki. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that your proposal is very good and I would have supported it during the RfC.

I will not revert you if you introduce it but you will be reverted if you do so.

Have in mind that this article was the theater of a several years long dispute about the lead and that the ArbCom decided a binding RfC closed by 3 uninvolved contributors to put an end to this situation. If you are allowed to perform this (clever) edit the Pandorra box will have been opened. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In my view, what PinkAmpersand has pointed out is probably technically correct. However, due to the binding, we can't alter it. Another problem is that if we start making any change (even if it is logical) to any binding item, others may advance similar demand. Ultimately, system will collapse. One consolation is that most readers are not so fastidious as we are the trundling editors.

As to the improvement of the article, the binding is for the greater interest of the article which you should recognize. Cheers!-AsceticRosé 12:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is how I see it. Someone wants something. I agree that it's an improvement but someone else will agree that a different amendment is also an improvement, and the RfC binding breaks because people want things. People wanting things is one of the reasons the topic area is broken. The argument that the binding nature of the RfC can be ignored because one or more people regard something as an improvement can be made by anyone for anything, at great length, as was the case before the RfC. I think it's the way to restart a fire that burned for 10+ years before being finally put out, for a while at least, by the RfC. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right, and we have to accept the binding for the greater interest. Most readers will not find much difference between the two wording. Hope, the issue has been resolved! -AsceticRosé 14:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The article should be totally re-edited.

Just a small example: The list of notable residents is a mixture of real notable residents, people of secondary or even marginal or no encyclopedic importance and beside them people who have not really been residents of Jerusalem like for example Rachel Bluwstein who had stayed in Jerusalem for few weeks only. 18:34, 24 October, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.28.130 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think yonks ago we agreed to remove this. Contemporary figures there amount to publicity and boosterism, etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem as a capital

Israeli Foreign Ministry building On 5 December 1949, Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel's capital,[186] and since then all branches of the Israeli government—legislative, judicial, and executive—have resided there, except for the Ministry of Defense, located at HaKirya in Tel Aviv.[187] At the time of the proclamation, Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan and thus only West Jerusalem was proclaimed Israel's capital. In July 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law as Basic Law. The law declared Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel.[188] The "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" is a main reason for the international community not to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In an unusually quick action, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 478 on 20 August 1980, which declared that the Basic Law is "a violation of international law", is "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith". Member states were called upon to withdraw their diplomatic representation from Jerusalem.[189] Following the resolution, 22 of the 24 countries that previously had their embassy in (West) Jerusalem relocated them in Tel Aviv, where many embassies already resided prior to Resolution 478. Costa Rica and San Salvador followed in 2006.[190] Currently, there are no embassies located within the city limits of Jerusalem, although there are embassies in Mevaseret Zion, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, and four consulates in the city itself.[191] In 1995, the United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which required, subject to conditions, that its embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.[192] However, U.S. presidents have argued that Congressional resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem are merely advisory. The Constitution reserves foreign relations as an executive power, and as such, the United States embassy is still in Tel Aviv.[193] Due to the non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, some non-Israeli press use Tel Aviv as a metonym for Israel.[194][195][196][197] On 28 October 2009, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine if peace is to be achieved.[198] Capital of Palestine[edit] See also: East Jerusalem#Jerusalem as capital

Orient House in East Jerusalem. Important Palestinian political and diplomatic center, closed by Israel in 2001 The Palestinian National Authority views East Jerusalem as occupied territory according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. The Palestinian Authority claims Jerusalem, including the Haram al-Sharif, as the capital of the State of Palestine,[182] The PLO claims that West Jerusalem is also subject to permanent status negotiations. However, it has stated that it would be willing to consider alternative solutions, such as making Jerusalem an open city.[199] The PLO's current position is that East Jerusalem, as defined by the pre-1967 municipal boundaries, shall be the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel, with each state enjoying full sovereignty over its respective part of the city and with its own municipality. A joint development council would be responsible for coordinated development.[200] Some states, such as Russia[201] and China,[202] recognize the Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. UN General Assembly resolution 58/292 affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over East Jerusalem.[203]

Very pro-palestinian rather than pro-israeli ,please balance the information bellow... "capital of israel" has more cons and negative critic than information and "Capital of palestine" has only positive information. please add criticism to both sections ,in the good way and in the bad way. --Dorpwnz (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

History and religion

With all respect for the Bible, it is problematic that some sections of this article use the Bible as the only source to present events from the Bible as facts. The existence of Solomon's Temple is not a historic fact (in contrast to the second Temple, which we know existed), just as the existence of David and Solomon are not proven. That is not to say that they did not exist. They might have, they might not. What we should not do is to present the history of the Bible as undisputed facts in the cases where there is no scientific evidence to support it.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Third Paragraph

This paragraph is biased: According to the Biblical tradition, King David established the city as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple; there is no historical evidence that Solomon's Temple existed [6] These foundational events, straddling the dawn of the Ist Millennium BCE, assumed central symbolic importance for the Jewish People.[7] The sobriquet of holy city (עיר הקודש, transliterated ‘ir haqodesh) was probably attached to Jerusalem in post-exilic times.[8][9][10] The holiness of Jerusalem in Christianity, conserved in the Septuagint[11] which Christians adopted as their own authority,[12] was reinforced by the New Testament account of Jesus's crucifixion there. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city, after Mecca and Medina.[13][14] In Islamic tradition in 610 CE it became the first Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (salat),[15] and Muhammad made his Night Journey there ten years later, ascending to heaven where he speaks to God, according to the Quran.[16][17] As a result, despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi),[18] the Old City is home to many sites of seminal religious importance, among them the Temple Mount and its Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.

The first five words already state that it is according to Biblical tradition that King Solomon built the first Temple. The sentence: "there is no historical evidence that Solomon's Temple existed" is not necessary, that fact is already discussed later in the article in a more appropriate place. The words in biblical tradition make it obvious that there isn't any proof yet. If you disagree with me and you do think it necessary to say this along with "according to the Biblical tradition" then we should also include that there is also zero historical evidence of the night journey and ascension to heaven. Also the fact that virtually zero archaeological research been done on the temple mount might also be worth mentioning or we could just remove the sentence and leave it where it is more appropriate (later in the article) and not in the lead. Csi.southpark (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)