Talk:Jerusalem

Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem

Jerusalem became a Mutasarrifate in 1872, not 1874.--ארינמל (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Changing to correct date. --Codyorb (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Al-Quds

Al-Quds should have a separate article for the historical city, just as Constantinople does. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Why? Al-Queds is just the Arabic name for Jerusalem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Practically - because it would be nice to be able to access a separate article. I like that there is one for Constantinople, because it has its own distinct history and character and sometimes that is what I want to read about. It overburdens this article. Trying to pass it off as just the Arabic name for Jerusalem is pretty trite. One is a Jewish city, and a name used by Christians, the other is a Muslim city. It's not an unusual situation in Islamic history that these sharp conceptual distinctions exist, because of the religious nature of the cultures involved. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the name of the city and it has a 3,000+ year history. That Arabs call it al-Quds is not the same as Constantinople. It's not trite, it's facts. There is no distinct al-Quds history. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course it isn't...How is it different from Constantinople, in your mind? One is a name that was used by Christians, the other is a name that was used by Christians, that's at the heart of it. Al Quds is as English as hummus. I'm not Muslim, but it's a net harm to me as a reader that no article exists on Al Quds and its Islamic history, because I am a sane person. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, there are a few sections in this article about the Arabic history of Jerusalem. Secondly, there was no city called al-Quds. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. It is not the same thing as Constantinople. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, right now the etymology section has 7 paragraphs about Jerusalem, and only one about al-Quds. But Islamic history/histiography deals with this very differently and in equivalent detail, and it has an older history then just the term Al Quds. What is the correct city article for that content? Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You are still not getting the point. There is no city al-Quds. The name has been Jerusalem for more than 3,000 years. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know you were that old! ...but not for everyone. There isnt just "one" history, the Historiography for these cities is different. Constantinople starts in a different place, for them it is the Fall of Constantinople. For Ottomans, it is the conquest and the beginning is Manzikert. Or maybe that came later. The point is, while we have only one article for the war, we have different articles for the cities - probably to put it in one article would just make the article confusing. They also have different etymology sections. Why should there be 7 paragraphs about the Midrash and inscriptions about "Yahweh the God of Jerusalem" and none about the term Al Quds - what does any of that have to do with Al Quds? It doesn't make sense for this to be a redirect. It used to be called Aelia. That history, the Islamic history, and the Islamic city should have its own, separate article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It does. Islam_in_Palestine Here for example is one. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Al Quds redirect should at the very least properly point to East Jerusalem, as it's most common meaning is for the Old City. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem that it will point to East Jerusalem but separate article would be WP:POVFORK--Shrike (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing another politics article about the conflict, but it mıght be difficult to prevent the article from turning into a polemic about modern politics. I think changing the redirect to East Jerusalem is a good idea. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Al-Quds does not refer to East Jerusalem (that is mostly beyond the walls). It did, just as Jerusalem did, refer to Old City (Jerusalem) - until the city grew beyond the walls (in the late 19th century). It currently is used to refer both to west and east Jerusalem. If and when a separate Al-Quds municipality is formed this could be revisited - however presently they are used in the exactly same meaning.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It does and the distinction is especially important because Palestinians are claiming only East Jerusalem as their capital (Al Quds). It was the official name until 1967 and is also supported by numerous WP:RS:

• Beilin, Yossi (2004-06-01). The Path to Geneva: The Quest for a Permanent Solution, 1996-2003. Akashic Books. ISBN 978-0-9719206-3-7.
• Segal, Jerome M.; Katz, Elihu; Levy, Shlomit; Sa 'id, Nadar Izzat (2012). Negotiating Jerusalem. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-9276-5.
• Yiftachel, Oren (2006-06-27). Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-3927-0.
• Usher, Graham (1999-05-20). Dispatches from Palestine: The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process. University of Alberta. ISBN 978-0-7453-1337-5.
• Siegman, Henry (1997). U.S. Middle East Policy and the Peace Process: Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 978-0-87609-204-0.
• Canfield, John V. (2002-02). The Middle East in Turmoil. Nova Publishers. ISBN 978-1-59033-160-6. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Wittes, Tamara Cofman (2005). How Israelis and Palestinians Negotiate: A Cross-cultural Analysis of the Oslo Peace Process. US Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 978-1-929223-64-0.
• Barkan, Elazar; Barkey, Karen (2014-12-09). Choreographies of Shared Sacred Sites: Religion, Politics, and Conflict Resolution. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-53806-0.
• Rajkovic, Nikolas M.; Aalberts, Tanja; Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas (2016-07-08). The Power of Legality: Practices of International Law and their Politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-68412-2.
• Schanzer, Jonathan (2013-10-29). State of Failure: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Unmaking of the Palestinian State. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-137-36564-4.

Including the discussion of al Quds, the capital of Palestine, would overburden this article. This article has a wonderfully detailed ancient history section, and is otherwise very long as it is - but the discussion of capitals is brief and linked to their main articles. Thus al Quds, the capital of Palestine, should redirect to East Jerusalem because that is the main article for the topic (which is already linked by a hatnote in this article). Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, having found the relevant policy at WP:REDIRECT, it does not seem that I need a consensus to create an article at a redirect? As with all articles, it would have to satisfy WP:GNG - which there do seem to be a lot of sources discussing Al Quds as the capital of Palestine, or the claimed capital of Palestine. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If and when al-Quds becomes distinct - as a capital of Palestine with a separate defined area - then sure, it would merit an article. Making an article on the Palestinian claim (that varies - and in a maximal setting also includes the western parts of Jerusalem) - would require a qualification of beyond al-Quds (as al-Quds refers to the entire city in common usage). You should probably expect an action at the al-Quds redirect to be challenged (reverted, merger discussion, AfD, or rename - depending on what exactly you hang off there) - I don't see how you get around WP:COMMONNAME (which is currently (prior to any possible, but not certain, geopolitical changes) the entirety of Jerusalem).Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the common name in Arabic - the arwiki (on which this is a FA, and is a topic of interest):Al-Quds in arwiki has this as cognate of Jerusalem (Yerushaliym), and includes the western parts of Jerusalem. I do not think enwiki should get ahead of arwiki in terms of the common usage of Arabic place names.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It can be challenged, in which case it would most likely be merged into East Jerusalem, because of the vast and overwhelming number of WP:RS, in which case the redirect would point there. It might not be merged at all, because it does deal with a different territory. This is very similar to the recent AfD on Turkish Kurdistan where the argument was presented that the conceptual territory included areas like Van. The fact that this argument is poorly reasoned and unsupported by WP:RS is a separate issue, and not one that we need to discuss here, because the sources are copious. A full discussion of Al Quds may not neatly fit within the East Jerusalem article. A possible merger can only be discussed after it has been written - but I am open to further comments on whether it should redirect to East Jerusalem, or be a standalone article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the standards for FA are at arwiki, but al-Quds is not a cognate of Yerushaliym. Ir ha-Qodesh is not Yerushalyim. I would be willing to entertain this line of argument when this article is moved to oYerushalyim, Ir haQodesh. But not until then. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless you are claiming a separate English Al-Quds term from the Arabic القدس‎ (and even then I doubt your sourcing which seems to be cherrypicking use of the term in a very narrow and specific context of a possible solution to the present conflict) - that is not the case. The common everyday name (spoken Arabic in the region, newscasts and newspapers, and other sources) is the entire area of Jerusalem.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well its not, the area being claimed for UN membership is not the entire area of Jerusalem, and in some senses it may be larger then the entire area of Jerusalem, which actually supports a standalone article instead of a redirect. There is enough content to justify a standalone article and some of the content might not be within the scope of the East Jerusalem article. If it can be neatly merged is hard to say before it is written. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem. 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/20080616094322/http://www.passia.org/jerusalem/maps/0_M_A_P_S.htm to http://www.passia.org/jerusalem/maps/0_M_A_P_S.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

'Notable residents' section should be removed

Jerusalem#Notable residents section is too long and a decision who should be included constitutes WP:OR. It's impossible to determine who belongs there and keep it in appropriate size without potential conflicts. Other old big cities don't have it for these reasons. It should be moved to List of people from Jerusalem. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I see it was discussed before with consensus to remove, but nobody cared to implement it:

• Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 15#Notable residents list
• Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 15#Notable residents?
• Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 24#The article should be totally re-edited.

So I created stand-alone List of people from Jerusalem and removed it from here. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Notes

@Onceinawhile: In my edit [1], I removed note vi about the Pact of Umar. Text to which this note was attached to was removed years ago. I also replaced style code with {{Reflist}}, and removed unnecessary note (iv) listing languages in which Jerusalem website is available in. This explains 3,000 bytes deleted. Please, self-revert. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Historal references to Jerusalem should be added

The article could be improved by citing the historical references to Jerusalem in ancient writings. For example: where the city is referenced in Babylonian records; Egyptian records; Greek records; Roman records, and also where the city of Jerusalem is mentioned in religious manuscript like the Koran, the Torah, and the Christian Gospels and epistles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.249.19 (talk) 14:44, December 5, 2017‎ (UTC)

Jordanian control

@Sir Joseph: I don't see where the "other" undefined page says occupation instead of control. Neither East Jerusalem nor Jordanian annexation of the West Bank use the term "occupation".Makeandtoss (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead of Jordanian annexation of the West Bank is "The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation and consequent annexation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: "consequent" i.e. 1948-1950 occupation, 1950-1967 annexation... The period 1948-1950 is insignificant, and this is again according to the consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

They occupied in 48 and annexed in 50, but it was still occupied. Israel annexed the Golan Heights, are you going to say that it's not occupied? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: For the third time, all these points were mentioned in the talk page of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, and were thouroughly discussed and the consensus was to avoid using the term "occupation". I will state the answer to the point thats already in the talk page here: Jordan more or less annexed the West Bank at the invitation and behest of its residents, and it transferred its citizenship to the residents there. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, no. The Jordanian occupation was not recognized by anyone other than Jordan - it was even rejected by the Arab League.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: For the fourth time, all these points were mentioned in this talk page (including the recognition part). Enjoy reading the 8,000 word discussion if you want. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There was both Jordanian military occupation (1948-50: 2 years) and later annexation with civilian administration (1950-67: 17 years); the destruction of Jewish sites occurred mostly during the military occupation period. In Israeli case, the military occupation period was somewhat longer (1967-1980: 13 years) with later transition to annexation and civilian administration (1980/1-present: 37 years). In Jordanian case, the article on Jordanian annexation of the West Bank covers both occupational and civilian governance periods, while in the Israeli case we have separate article on Israeli Military Governorate for the occupational period. Many people confuse the factual type of governance with their personal opinion.GreyShark (dibra) 08:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: - you are actually incorrect. Israel almost immediately de-facto annexed East Jerusalem (and then some - including many villages), applied Israeli law to these areas (as well as handing out identity cards and treating residents as permanent residents of Israel), and extended Jersusalem's municipal borders. This all happend in 1967 - and the instrument via which this was conducted was similar to the way mandate areas in 1948 were de-facto annexed when Israel asserted control (via this ordinance). What happened in 1980 was a declarative law - Jerusalem Law which is also a basic law - that did not change anything really on the ground (but did draw condemnation by the international community). The situation in the Golan (Golan Heights Law) is different - in that this is the instrument that actually changed control in the ground. But in East Jerusalem (including 64 sq. Kms outside of Jordanian East Jerusalem) - control was Israeli civilian, under Israeli law, law enforcement by the Israeli police (not IDF) - from 1967.Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In any case, the Jordanian occupation period was shorter than the annexation period, and the same case is with Israeli occupation and later longer period of annexation.GreyShark (dibra) 09:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Jerusalem and US recognition

Because of an ARBCOM decision that states any modification to the lead requires an RFC, here we are. Once Trump officially recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, several parts of the lead needs to be rewritten. Below are the places I found that needs to be modified. Because this RFC is not a simple Yes/No, I think people should propose modifications and we can discuss those modifications.

---

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

The ending of this sentence needs modification, along with the NOTE3 that it references.

---

"The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies. "

I propose "Most of the international community does.... (or OTher than the US, most of the international community.....)...." 15:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

"Other than the US..." would not be correct. In April this year, Russia indicated that it has, or will, depending on interpretation, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, although with less fanfare and apparently no immediate plans to move its embassy there. See In curious first, Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Russia recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and Positions on Jerusalem#Russia. 104.129.196.161 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• WAIT. Give it a week or two. It's beyond "other than the US" - Additional nations said to consider moving embassies to Jerusalem - but instead of pushing in the latest breaking news, we could wait a few days?Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. Thinking about it is not the same as doing it. I think once the US recognizes Jerusalem, that should be in the article since it's actual, factual. Once other nations decide to recognize or move the embassy, that can be in the article as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• CHANGE Go - The US is still the largest economy in the world accounting for 25% of national GDP alone. The US has more international say then Germany and Merkel. Now that Trump made the announcement, it's time to update the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.4.195 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Economic power does not equate to a head count.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• No change. The current wording is accurate in either case, and no need to mention individual countries. If Bangladesh would recognize Jerusalem Palestinian capital, should we say "Other than Bangladesh"? Or is anyone seriously suggesting we should list the position of 200 different states in the lead? The US is not more important than other nations, no need to single it out. Jeppiz (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Last time I checked the widely recognised leader of the free world (Merkel) didn't recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I've never seen anyone describe Trump as the leader of the free world; the description would seem bizarre, given that he's a self-declared enemy of everything that the (Cold War-era) term free world stands for and a supporter of people, ideologies and movements opposed to that (Putin/Russia etc.). --Tataral (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I see no reason to rewrite anything at all in this article. What Trump does or says is just the opinion of one far-right politician in one country, and essentially a fringe POV as long as international law, the UN and 99.5% of the world's countries don't recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In the world of diplomacy, international relations, international law, the international order in general etc., and in polite society all over the world, people like Trump or his friends and associates like Roy Moore, Britain First etc. don't count. --Tataral (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Under US law, the capital of Israel is now Jerusalem, it's not just Trump's opinion. I will not answer the rest of your biased statement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Under US Law? You mean the Jerusalem Embassy Act? If so you have chosen a rather weak argument since it represents a constitutional suspect congressional over reach. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• , no, not the Embassy Act. The US Constitution gives the US President sole discretion on recognition of foreign countries. See the most recent SCOTUS case involving this, Zivotivsky vs. Kerry. The Embassy Act merely uses the legislative power of the purse. The President is the one who decides and he decided, so it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's not get into willy-nilly idle chit chat. Try to focus on the proposal, and perform political ramblings elsewhere. !dave 20:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

From the International press releases that I have seen, this is an official recognition by the United States of America, not the "opinion of one far-right politician". Especially in times of sudden change we must be guided more than ever by the principles of reason, not personal opinion, based on high quality secondary sources, of which there are many that this is the official position of one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world Savlonn (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Savlonn is correct. Today's statement by the President of the United States, whatever you may think of him personally or politically, constitutes the United States' formal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The President of the United States is authorized by the U.S. constitution and U.S. law to represent the United States' position in matters of foreign affairs. It is also consistent with bipartisan U.S. policy established in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which states that the US should recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and its embassy should be located there. This legislation was overwhelmingly supported by both the U.S. Senate (93–5) and the House of Representatives (374–37). The Democratic and Republican party platforms have also consistently, and explicitly, acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel’s capital for the past several decades, including most recently in 2016. 104.129.196.161 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• On the fence At face value, a mention of the US in the lede would make common sense as it is the world's only superpower. But that begs the question to why the US's recognition should go in the lede. !dave 19:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think because it's the US, the statement that "the capital is not recognized" or whatever it is, needs to be qualified. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment First, this article is under heavy ARBCOM sanctions. Any users disrupting it by using the talk page as a forum should expect a swift block. Second, the text is accurate as it stands. If we mention the US position in the lead, then we should also mention the Chinese, Russian, British, French, German, Brazilian, Indian, Pakistani, Indonesian etc. position. It would be cumbersome. There is nothing incorrect in the current lead. Jeppiz (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• WADR to some of those countries, they are not the US. We can't say "The international community doesn't recognize...." when the US and now Czech does. Even if the current president is Trump, the US is still the US and as such when the US recognizes something, especially when most other countries don't, it deserves a mention. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Trump is not more important than 99.5% of the world's countries. The lead is entirely correct as it stands. Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as Israel's capital. The US, which has isolated itself from the world community recently, doesn't deserve being mentioned in the lead section of an article about a city on a different continent entirely unrelated to the US, not any more than any other country. If we were to include the US, we would also need to include almost 200 mentions of other countries (some of which are bigger than the US) which don't recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, not to mention various international bodies such as the UN. The opinion that Jerusalem is Israel's capital should be described the way mainstream world opinion/RS see it: as a far-right irredentist fringe opinion unrecognised under international law, and it should be noted in any case that 99.5% of the world's countries and all international organisations reject that claim entirely. --Tataral (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • WADR right back, Sir Joseph, the US is less than 5% of the world. We don't give the US any special treatment here as this article is not about the US, and I'm surprised some (American?) users think otherwise. This the article about Jerusalem, a city claimed by Israelis and Palestinians and inhabited by Israelis and Palestinians. Their perspectives are relevant, and we can briefly mention the international community as we do. Starting to introduce irrelevant countries (irrelevant for Jerusalem, that is) into the lead makes no sense. Jeppiz (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Minor change for now– mention U.S. recognition only once in the lede (otherwise the article would be biased). It's one of the five permanent UN security members and the largest economy in the world, so its position is very important. Then, wait a month or so to see the impact of the U.S. recognition and whether any more substantial alterations of the lede are necessary. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wait for further reaction, and clarify sovereignty Various world leaders are reacting over the rest of today and tomorrow, so why not wait for that to settle down. We can then rely on press summaries of the consensus position, and confirm the positions of some countries mentioned in the discussion above such as Russia. Also, note that Trump also said in his speech today: “We are not taking a position of any final status issues including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.” Onceinawhile (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Do nothing The lead still stands true. It's not widely recognized internationally. The US recognizes it? Ok but it's still not widely recognized internationally. Placing anything in the lead places substantial weight on it. I see no reason to give any substantial weight to the US position when, as someone mentioned above, Bangladesh would be ignored. We do not know the potential weight or impact of the US decision or even if it's a stable decision. The next President in about 3 years could remove recognition. Though that's on no consequence here and It's a matter of Undue weight to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed a very good point. Given that Trump is widely perceived at home and abroad as an illegitimate president with extreme policies whose election was highly dubious, and that he and the people around him are the subjects of continued investigations and impeachment efforts related to that, and isolated internationally, we cannot take for granted that anything he does will be recognised by the next president elected by a majority of the people in the country as official US policy or even as legitimate. So it's WP:CRYSTALballing to assume that anything he does is a stable policy stance taken by the US as a country, as opposed to a stance taken by Trump. Climate change denial is another good example of such a stance, where it would seem both unlikely and unfair to assume this is a stance held by the US as a country in the long term. We wouldn't rewrite the lead of our article on climate change based on what Trump says, and we shouldn't rewrite the lead of an article about one of the world's most ancient and holy cities, on a different continent than the US, based on Trump's opinions when the entire world rejects those opinions. If we were to base our article on Jerusalem on Trump's views, what would prevent us from basing the article on Trump himself on how he's perceived in Europe or the world in general? That would be a very different article than the current one, for sure. --Tataral (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• It would be crystalballing trying to say anything he has done will be undone. Like I said it's oh no consequence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

perhaps it's best if you don't edit here considering that you continuously let your bias through. You also appear to know nothing of us policy. Trump is also not an illegitimate President and the rest of your rant is not worth replying to. I feel dumber already just for reading it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look yourself in the mirror. US domestic policy is irrelevant for how we write our lead section of the article about Jerusalem, a city which has nothing to do with the US. Trump's claims about Jerusalem might be relevant in the article about Trump, but not here. --Tataral (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump is the President of the US. That you don't think so, is irrelevant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. Jerusalem is not part of the US. This is the article about Jerusalem. We are discussing the lead section of that article. A statement like "Trump is the President of the US" is as relevant as a statement that "Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany" or "Putin is the President of Russia". Trump is probably the person in the world whose opinion counts the least here in Eurasia. --Tataral (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who mentioned Trump. The question at hand is how to modify the lead now that the US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Your bringing Trump into this is a red herring. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the question at hand is not "how" to modify the lead because Trump says something, but whether to modify it at all. Consensus has determined that there is no reason to modify anything at all in this article based on that. Trump was also, for the record, brought into the debate by those who proposed that we modify the lead based on something Trump said. --Tataral (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Leave it in its present state because the lede is factually correct despite this and since Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, we shouldn't be running for scoop. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment it has been pointed out that not only the US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel capital, so we can't say even now that the "international community doesn't recognize" we could say, "most of the...." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Wait Trump's presidency is the most unstable I have ever seen, and I agree with other editors, if the US is mentioned then Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom and others will have to be mentioned by name. For the United States. But I agree with Tataral, about the international relevance.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It may be tempting to think that the US is only one country, and so its ruling on the issue has little significance. However, we must consider three key points:

1) First and foremost, the US is not just "one of hundreds of countries". It is a major world player and without doubt the most influential country on the planet. Its technology, entertainment and culture are the most universally embraced around the world. The whole world is being shaped and influenced right now by the decisions and policies of the US, for example various forms of "equality" and "political correctness" are being widely embraced all over the world, following the lead of the US. So let us not pretend that the US is merely one of many equal small voices. It is not.

2) Secondly, the United States, and the majority of its population, originates from the United Kingdom, to which it remains inextricably tied, both in ethnicity and culture. We must remember that it is the United Kingdom which created the modern state of Israel in the first place, spurring mass immigration into the land, first by Jews, then by Muslims. Accordingly, the United Kingdom (and, by association, America) has always had a more significant role than other countries in acting as custodians and mediators over the land. Indeed, both the UK and America have been heavily involved in the conflicts since the creation of Israel. So their voices carry a great deal of weight.

3) Thirdly, while the United States may just be "one country", how many other independent countries are there which have any particular interest in the issue? The very fact that America has been prepared to make this controversial ruling shows how strong its feelings are on the issue, which intrinsically grants significance to the country's vote. If other independent countries wanted to make official rulings they have always been welcome to, but for now at least, I believe the US has a 100% representation of the "votes" in such a democracy, simply because it has spoken on the issue. Grand Dizzy (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1) "The majority" of the US population does not "originate from the United Kingdom". In fact Americans of British descent comprise just over 20% percent of the US population. German Americans (like the Trump family) are the largest group in the US, not British Americans.

2) What that does have to do with this question is incomprehensible to me; the US severed its political ties with Britain in the 18th century, experienced a massive immigration from other countries than Britain during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and had nothing to do with British meddling in Palestine in the 20th century. The US is indeed just one country, and particularly a Trump-led US does not enjoy the respect and standing on the international stage that the US of the past did. This is evident by the fact that the entire world has vehemently rejected just about everything Trump has said and done and claimed since Putin installed him in his office.

3) The claim that other countries don't have an opinion on this issue and haven't "made rulings" is just flatly wrong. All European countries that I can think of have made their positions clear. The issue is also clear from the perspective of international law, so in that sense this is quite similar to Trump's climate change denial and rejection of the scientific consensus. Here Trump rejects the world consensus and established legal facts. Let's use an analogy: If Trump had pushed his POV about climate change, Jerusalem etc. on Wikipedia, he would have been banned for disruption, fringe POV pushing and failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Tataral (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources apportion significant coverage to the recognition by the US of Israel's capital being Jerusalem. Why wouldn't our article follow suit? Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to Tataral's points:

1 The fact remains that America was founded by the British, and its constitution, beliefs and values, even today, are all essentially British. Culturally, America is almost identical to the UK, with only a few superficial differences. In any case, it cannot be denied that the two countries are strongly associated as close allies, especially on the stage of world politics, and both have been heavily involved in the affairs of Israel.

2. Tataral claims that "The entire world has vehemently rejected just about everything Trump has said and done". Firstly, that is an unsubstantiated claim (no doubt based on liberal media propaganda, which does not represents the views of the world population). There are millions of non-Americans all around the world who strongly support Mr Trump including myself. But more to the point, it makes zero difference whether people respect Mr Trump or not. He is the American President and his ruling is final. To use an analogy, suppose Hitler had changed the capital city of Germany during his reign, Wikipedia should acknowledge that the change officially took place. Whether Wikipedia editors in other countries happen to respect or agree with Hitler is completely and utterly irrelevant to reporting the legal facts. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion!

3. Tataral seems to be suggesting that the majority is always right? It wasn't long ago that most scientists mistakenly believed that smoking was healthy (as well as countless other scientific errors that prevailed in our textbooks and laboratories). But since "the majority is always right" anyone who thought smoking was harmful would not have been represented on Wikipedia (especially given the commercial pressure behind smoking). Or shall we think back to the days when the whole of society strictly enforced Roman Catholicism? In those days, atheist views would not have been tolerated on Wikipedia, since "the majority is always right". Today, there are many respected and qualified scientists who reject both climate change and "evolution" on the grounds of science, fact, and reason. But of course, these people must be silenced because their views do not conform to the majority. Things never change do they!Grand Dizzy (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Change We cant ignore the official position of world leading power, like it or not.Tritomex (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting the matter suggested is to ignore the position of the United States is really a false narrative. On that matter we should and as I recall it's been placed in the ARTICLE. The matter here however is whether to put it in the LEAD or not. Placing anything in the articles lead places significant weight on it. With regard to the US being a leading world power this still is simply a minority POV. This is a lot of weight to give to a minority POV.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho The fact that the United States is a leading world power can be backed with hundreds of reliable secondary sources, so it has nothing to do with POV. Exactly because USA represents quarter of world economy, (by far in front of any other country) and is ranked in first place in most of other other fields (science, technology, military power etc), the official position of America on the issue which could be again resolved only through American mediation/intervention (again according many reliable secondary sources) has to be mentioned in the lead.Tritomex (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a non argument ignoring basic facts. One basic fact is that this RFC was created to specifically place the USA POV into the lead. This is America's point of view with regards to Jerusalem and it is a minority point of view because it is only Americas point of view in a world full of countries. Everything you list off is immaterial because it does nothing to change this fact. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho—can you tell me in this instance why we should not be following the lead of reliable sources? Reliable sources give great weight to America's recognition of Israel's capital as Jerusalem. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even honestly sure that I should even bother responding to this. Your comments are not worth responding to. They are a mish mash of words that make no fundamental argument and suggest you lack even a cursory understanding of wikipedia policy or even the prior arguments being made. Essentially your comments do not add up to more than WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. Reliable sources do not grant weight. Reliable sources grant verifiability. Anything that can not be verified shouldn't be given any weight but not everything that can be verified should be given weight. Neutrality requires that that care be given to the amount of weight being placed behind article content. The Lead summarizes the article and anything there in is accorded significant weight. While there is reason to give it weight in the article, there is little reason to give it weight in the lead. This is thus far only a minor point of view on the part of the United States. Thus far is of little significance to Jerusalem over all. The death toll from the chaos this has caused may make it rise to a level of significance. When it becomes more of a sure thing that the US will have a diminished capacity and importance in Israel and Palestine peace process it may also rise in weighted importance here. I doubt either and that's simply crystalballing. All we have now is a shift in the POV of one party, which is not significant in itself to put weight behind. You are arguing.. Well as I said you provide no argument that should be acknowledge or discussed but I digress. Now placing this in the lead is a matter of undue weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The weight argument is for long time being the most manipulative excuse that prevented clear policy based editing, although in many cases, it comes down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, especially when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As in other similar cases, the official position of world leading power and the position of only mediator in this conflict, is not just a minor point of view that can be overlooked, as it has been acknowledged by both sides, by reliable sources and by entire international community. This is what gives weight to this issue.Tritomex (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• The weight argument is used all over wikipedia because of clear policy based editing. Specifically because NPOV is a Pillar of wikipedia. It's used pro-Israeli, It's used pro-Palestinian, It's used in articles about turtles. Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world. Adding what happened in the last 5 seconds is undue because it may be irrelevant in 10 seconds. The US as of this moment is not the mediator of anything. And if you can keep up with the conversation, I did not say minor point of view. I said minority point of view. Whether you want to describe the US POV as minor or significant is of little consequence when what was said is that it is a minority point of view. The biggest problem here with anyone making an argument about weight is what's being said is lost to you. Above you say this has nothing to do with POV when you are specifically calling for the inclusion of the US POV. Above you can't tell the difference between a minor point of view and a minority point of view. You started out by suggesting that someone was specifically trying to keep this out of the article altogether and not simply the lead. Respectfully, there's no reason to even respond to you because you don't have any clue as to what's going on and what's being said and as such I will not respond to you further.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The weight argument is absolutely correct, the U.S. policy shift has been opposed by other significant world powers - that is what the press is reporting. This includes not only Saudi Arabia, but China, the United Kingdom, France and Turkey (jointly as of today), Japan. Russia, despite its own recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, still denounced US recognition. At this point adding it to the lede would require also adding the condemnation of it. The other option, which the majority of editors support, it to wait for the situation to stabilize before changing the lede of a major article. Do you support adding the massive international condemnation to the lede also, or do you think that would be undue? Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you agree that it is the US stance that is most conspicuously absent from the lead? Conspicuousness here would I think be defined by the amount of attention lavished by reliable sources on a country's stance on this question. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Lead fails to mention Herod the Great. He had a great impact on the history of Jerusalem that can even specifically be felt today. I don't see him as "conspicuously absent" from the lead either.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What does Herod the Great have to do with what we are discussing? Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Herod the Great had alot of impact on Jerusalem. I said that above. Take a moment a scroll up and read it. He has been lavished with much attention from reliable sources and for an extensive amount of time. He's absent from the lead. Or in short, you argument lacks substance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

AGF you are confusing notability with due weight. The majority view in reliable sources is discussing the "global chorus of opposition" to U.S. recognition, treating it as part of Trump's campaign, and questioning what it means to recognize a capital that still has disputed boundaries. This is the last response I am going to give you, we can not just write whatever we like about a topic because it is discussed in many sources. That is not how due weight works, we have to follow the majority view in those sources.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Change. The article should reflect the importance that reliable sources place on Israel's capital as Jerusalem as recognized by the US. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have been watching the BBC all day and they are still saying not recognized by the international community. Unambiguously. Iran calls the US "Great Satan" but we are not going to change the United States article to say "also called the Great Satan by Iran" in the lede. The fact remains that if we discuss one country's position, we will have to discuss a number of other countries also and it will overburden the lede. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You would need to show that a lot of news sources devote a lot of attention to Iran's calling the US "great satan". We should supply the weight accorded material by reliable sources. We should be just a reflection of good quality sources unless there is a reason for deviating from that principle. But I know of no reason for deviation in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've not seen a single reliable source that supports changing the current lead, "widely recognized internationally". If Trump does something that the entire rest of the world rejects it doesn't make Trump's claims "widely recognized internationally" or alter the status of the widely recognized position of the world or indeed established legal facts (as in already passed Security Council resolutions). This issue has received far less coverage than the sexual abuse allegations against Trump, which are still not included in the lead of his article, btw. It might be relevant to Trump, but we don't need detailed coverage of the US in the lead of the article about Jerusalem any more than we need such coverage of Germany's or Russia's positions here. --Tataral (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

We can discuss until the cows come home various and sundry tangentially related topics but at some point you have to bring a policy-based reason for omitting this material. I happen to agree with you concerning the impropriety of sexual abuse but that is pretty far afield from that which is under discussion here. Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• No change. I see nothing wrong with the current wording. Trump/US recognition does not equate international recognition. --Masssly (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Nor has any editor here asserted that Trump/US recognition equates with international recognition, although it should be said that reliable sources seem to attribute a lot of importance to US recognition. Would you agree? Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources are discussing the widespread repudiation of what they are calling "Trump's Announcement" or "Trump Jerusalem move" (not "U.S. Recognition"). Some examples of the headlines. I think what editors are saying here is that we shouldn't revise the lede over "Trump's Announcement", the embassy hasn't even moved yet:

• "UN, European Union and Pope Criticize Trump's Jerusalem Announcement"
• "Jerusalem for Dummies: Why the World Doesn’t Recognize It as Israel’s Capital"
• "Pope Francis: Respect 'status quo' of Jerusalem"
• "Somalia Calls Trump Jerusalem Move 'Dangerous'"
• "Jerusalem will never be the capital of a settler colony"
• "State Dept. avoids saying Jerusalem is in Israel after Trump shift"
• "Israel: Frustrated, disappointed by Reform rejection of Trump's statement"
• "What approach is this?’: world leaders rebuke Trump over Jerusalem decision"

Which of these sources would we be basing this change on? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, the world sees (and rejects) this as a "Trump announcement" (like any other widely rejected Trump announcement), and not really/necessarily as a long-term US policy; that even the US State Department doesn't seem to recognise Trump's declaration is telling. Hence the current wording in the lead, "neither claim is widely recognized internationally", remains entirely correct. It should also be noted that the international non-recognition isn't just based on individual policians' or countries' stances, but on international law and Security Council resolutions, so we would need to see a significant change on a broader international level involving several countries, UN bodies etc. before we would have any reason to change anything in that sentence. --Tataral (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Just because Trump said it doesn't mean it's not US policy now, which it is. The capital of Israel is Jerusalem as far as the US is concerned. I don't know where you are getting your "facts" that parts of the US don't recognize Trump's proclamation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, Rex Tillerson just said that it will most likely take around two years before the embassy is actually moved. So it may move, it may not - I don't know, my WP:CRYSTALBALL isn't working today, but for now it is "Trump's announcement" and that is how the majority WP:RS are describing it. I don't think the sources that are currently available justify any change. Quote:

Tillerson, however, rejected the notion that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital effectively prejudges the outcome of any negotiations over the Holy City central to three major religions, saying that is a determination for Israelis and Palestinians to make. “With respect to the rest of Jerusalem, the president . . . did not indicate any final status for Jerusalem,” he said. “He was very clear that the final status, including the borders, would be left to the two parties to negotiate and decide.”

Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What does the embassy moving have to do with the proclamation? It takes a while to move a huge government building. That doesn't take away from the POTUS proclamation of recognition of Jerusalem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What Seraphim System pointed out is that reliable sources don't see it that way, but primarily as another "Trump statement", and Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. In any event, the consensus is that even if this were the position of the US as a country and sufficiently stable as such, it wouldn't belong in the lead of this article any more than the position of any other country. This is an article about a city in Eurasia. It doesn't have anything to do with the US. US politicians can make all the proclamations they want, and they still have nothing to do in the lead section of this article. --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's not just a proclamation by Trump, it's a proclamation by the President of the United States. As to whether the US' position should be in the lead is a valid question. And I believe it should, it's not just one country, it's the US, and while everybody loves to hate on the US, it's still the most powerful and influential country in the world. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't imply that editors "hate on the US" because they disagree with you. This is from Bloomberg:

But in a sign the announcement could be more symbolic than substantive, the White House warned that any actual move would take years and that the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem are still subject to peace talks that have bedeviled U.S. presidents for decades.

It's quite obvious that we can't change our article to say the U.S. has recognized a united capital within the boundaries claimed by Israel, because it has not (based on RS). What are we going to say "The United States has agreed to move its embassy to a place that will be called Jerusalem, but we still don't know what the boundaries of that capital will be" - how is that an improvement over the current lede? Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, the capital and embassy are two things. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital and ordered the State Department to start the process of moving the embassy. Right now, the capital of Israel as far as the US is concerned is Jerusalem. That is all. Nowhere in the RFC did I mention the embassy move. That move is starting but it's a process. That has nothing to do with the capital proclamation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is more from the State Department:

• Satterfield said that while the U.S. may recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, there had been "no change in our policy with respect to consular practice or passport issuance at this time."
• passports issued to U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem will not list their country of birth as Israel
• But in making his announcement on Wednesday, Trump avoided calling Jerusalem the "undivided" capital of Israel and said that the move should not be construed as the U.S. taking a side on whether the city should be divided up.

The passport issue is being reported in multiple sources - maps will not be redrawn, no passports, no plans to move the embassy until the end of Trump's first term. From The Times of Israel: "much US policy on the disputed holy city appeared largely unchanged". So, all we have, is "Trump's announcement" - can we just agree that what the sources actually say is very different from the arguments being made here to support a change? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, whether things change and to what extent is irrelevant. It wasn't Trump's proclamation. It was a POTUS proclamation. (As to the passport issue, based on Zivotivsky v Kerry, I imagine if one doesn't get Israel listed, they would have an easy recourse in the courts, considering SCOTUS ruled it's solely up to the POTUS to decide) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The thing about the Supreme Court leaving it to the Executive Branch is that it actually means you have zero recourse in the Courts. The State Department has said "no change in our policy" - this is quoted above, and the source is cited in one of my previous comments. There is no indication based on sources that "Trump's announcement" means everything you have said it means to justify its inclusion in the LEDE, and most editors seem to think it means very little at this early stage. I've posted 10 sources and several raise very serious problems with the proposed changes that would make the article misleading, if not factually inaccurate. We're entering into WP:BLUDGEON territory here with these comments.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

if you respond that's ok but if I do it's bludgeoning? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Dude, you can respond to whatever you want, but it becomes bludgeoning when you ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view which is what was starting to happen when you kept repeating "It's a POTUS proclamation" and said that you "imagine" there is now an "easy recourse" in the Courts to get "Jerusalem, Israel" added to passports, and that the lack of change in U.S. policy was irrelevant. All it shows me is that you have a set belief about what the U.S. recognition means i.e. that you think it means that there has been a change in policy that will be enforced by the Courts - that is not congruent with how the majority of sources are currently describing it. That is all I meant by it, a lot of us have written multiple comments in this thread, and I don't personally find it disruptive for editors to debate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's quite clear you have no idea how US policy works. Once POTUS proclaims it, that is it. Simple as that. As to what happens next, is not the issue. As far as the US is concerned, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. That is all. As to when the embassy will be moved, is not the concern. They have started the planning for it, but that will take a few years. You keep bringing in red herring but that still doesn't take away that the US policy has changed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, back when I was in law school POTUS proclamations meant zip until they were implemented by the various agencies of the Federal government, which is not happening here. As far as the U.S. is concerned Iraq is a democracy. You can believe that if you want to, but adding personal attacks to what is quickly deteriorating into a rant is not going to help persuade anyone here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe your lawschool didn't cover it, but there are many types of Presidential Proclamations. Many do indeed mean nothing, but in this case, a proclamation has the Constitutional power to change US policy, and indeed, it has already done so. I still don't get how you are still fighting that the US policy didn't change when it's clear as day, and RS that it has. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• No change because the current lede is still correct. The claim is still not widely recognized. Khestwol (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"PLO" term should be defined before it's referenced

In my opinion, the "PLO" term should be explained, in the "Capital of Palestine" section. The actual meaning only appears in the next section and in the page references. The first use of the acronym should be replaced by "Palestine Liberation Organization".

Israel's Capital Controversy

President Trump "formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy and setting in motion a plan to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the fiercely contested Holy City. The president cast his decision as a break with decades of failed policy on Jerusalem, which the United States, along with virtually every other nation in the world, has declined to recognize as the capital since Israel’s founding in 1948. That policy, he said, brought us “no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.” Recognizing Jerusalem, he added, was “a long overdue step to advance the peace process.” President Trump’s remarks were the most closely scrutinized of his presidency on the Middle East, where he has vowed to broker the “ultimate deal” between Israelis and Palestinians but has yet to find a breakthrough to end the conflict. He said he remained committed to brokering an agreement “that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanlaw (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

Israel is not the capital of Jerusalem. If one country recognizes it doesn't mean its official. The US is not incharge of the entire world and who to decide which city is the capital. Remove this as its a violation and not supported by facts. One country doesn't mean that Jerusalem is their capital. Remove this statement. 176.204.236.238 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Nihlus 10:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely you meant to say "JERUSALEM is not the capital of ISRAEL." RPSM (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"The move was widely criticized, except by Israel."

A few thoughts on this recent embellishment by CasualObserver'48 (which personally I would have just reversed if this was an unprotected page)

• Re "except" - The source does not support the idea that Israel's was the only supportive voice, even if it is the only supportive voice quoted.
• Passive tense - "Was widely criticised" is absolutely begging to be bunged with a "By Whom?" tag.
• Anyway, what's the big deal? Anything and everything to do with Israel gets widely criticized by much the same usual suspects (Arabs, the EU, the UN) including many other items details in this article. If this were a more specific section or even an independent article on Trumps decision, there might be more of a calling for comment such as this. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

His edit was factual and neutral. if you were able to edit the page you've already shown the tilt of your bias and your edits may may not be welcomed on Wikipedia. Whom else do you want criticize it before it is called "widely"?Israel?! Netanyahu?! You??!. The move was criticized by Arabs (22 countries); EU (28 countries) and United Nations according to Reuters and you are calling it to be removed until when Israel also rebuked it, right?? –Ammarpad (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, re "was criticised" - the least he could have done would have been to put in who was doing the criticising, supported by a source. And he still needs a source to support "except by" - i.e. the notion that Israel was the only supporter of the move. Without such a source, the neutral status of the line is rather undermined. With the existing source, a sentence along the lines of "The move was criticised by the UN and the leaders of EU and Arab countries, but supported by Israel" would have been acceptable, if you really must.

And no, I'm not approved to make edits to pages on the Middle East conflict (and I'm not interested in seeking that approval), but I'm as entitled as any other Wiki user to make comments and suggestions on talk pages such as this.62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to a more acceptable and factual statement, although I don't even know if that belongs in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I gave my proposed version above, but I'll go with yours.62.190.148.115 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's misleading to say "the 28 countries of the EU disagree with Trump". I live in the EU and most of the people in my country have no strong opinion on the issue. There are some who disagree with President's Trump's ruling, and others of us who agree. What matters is official ruling. If other countries want to do what America did and make a ruling about Jerusalem, then that will have legal standing. If my own Prime Minister makes a ruling about what Jerusalem is the capital of, then I will accept that as legally true. Grand Dizzy (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The move was indeed universally criticized, and this ought to be mentioned in any discussion of the move. In fact the move was as far as I have ascertained criticized by every member state of NATO (except a Trump-led US itself, although the criticism within the US is fierce, including among American Jews[2]). One of those NATO states has threatened to cut diplomatic relations with Israel over it[3] --Tataral (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

NATO state in question is currently led by notorious screaming anti-Zionist who would probably like to cut diplomatic relations with Israel anyway, when he's not busy dismantling democracy in his own country and being their own home-grown Trump-meets-Pat Buchanan.

American Jews in question are fringe elements of progressive wing with roots back to 1800s movement in German Jewry to disavow links to the ancient homeland. No more a representative sample than a fringe ultra orthodox cult for whom Israel is simply not frum enough.

And no, it's not universal. How about the Czech Republic for starters?2.24.71.58 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Turkey is a full member of NATO and thus an ally of the US, unlike Israel. In any event, almost all the other NATO member states, and certainly all the western European/traditional NATO member states, share Turkey's position on the status of Jerusalem, so this is primarily the NATO position on that issue. The Czech President isn't the real leader of the country, and Zeman is regarded as a clown much like Trump, so his views carry little weight. At times the government has been forced to ignore him. The link you posted is quite telling; he made his comments "before delegates attending the congress of the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy party." Essentially, the only ones who have supported Trump's declaration are the far right; that is certainly something we should point out.--Tataral (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

1) That's very sly and insinuating of you to phrase your sentence so that it can be potentially read as calling Israel a non-ally of the US rather than just a non-member of NATO.

2), Turkey earned its position as a NATO member and US ally because the modern Turkish republic was a secular and west-facing (if not always democratic) state. Its past friendship with Israel was part-and-parcel of this and also part-and-parcel of everything Erdrogan wishes to destroy about his country. Erdrogan is a hard religious right winger whose bedrock of support is in rural backward conservative areas of his country and is loathed by secular worldly city dwellers (sound familiar?) Kemel Ataturk would be turning in his grave.

3)Turkey is currently on extremely thin ice with the rest of NATO and Erdrogan's political behaviour is a big reason why. (Mind you, Turkey managed for several decades to continue a fierce rivalry with a fellow NATO member, its old enemy Greece)

4) As far as the Czech Republic goes, it's not just the President that has made statements recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital, how about the Chamber of Deputies declaring that "the Czech government should advocate a position respecting Jerusalem as the Israeli capital city"

5) As far as only far rightists supporting "Trump's position" - the main drive for implementing the embassy move came from Democrat senate minority leader Chuck Schumer at a time when Trump had actually been dragging his heels over the issue.2.24.71.58 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The comparison of the Union for Reform Judaism, which is the largest denomination by far of American Jews, to a fringe group really says all we need to know about you. If anyone speaks for American Jews, it's the Union for Reform Judaism. --Tataral (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's quite clear indeed that you used to work for the EC. You need to edit here without your bias clearly coming through. And tell me more about who speaks for US Jews, I'd love to hear that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

Please change "capital of Israel" to "capital of Palestine", as Trump has no authority to meddle with middle eastern affairs, so his "declaration" holds no validity 94.204.91.187 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm no fan of his, but he does have the right to decide what the country he's head of state of does or doesn't recognise. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's statement only represents the official opinion of US foreign relations in regards to Jerusalem under his term. He has every right to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs. He's not the first US President to do so. He's simply the first incompetent president of the United States to do so. The article List's Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine, while acknowledging the facts on the ground and multiple international positions on the matter. It couldn't be much more neutral. Your requested change ignores a number of things, such as that the Palestinians only claim East Jerusalem.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Since another editor answered the request without leaving an explanation, or marking as not done, all I can say is that the article does not currently state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, so it's an easy decline. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2017

Regarding citation #114, it seems this Wikipedia entry should be added with or as an addition to.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus%27s_edict

Perhaps after citation 114, a brief statement such as, "But compare with [the link above] wherein some scholars dispute the biblical narrative of Cyrus's ending of Babylonian exile blah blah blah

This edit request is in regards to the "Classical Antiquity" section. Luxdsg (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It is not clear what the change you have requested would actually accomplish or what sources exist for this change. Wikipedia articles are not generally used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, as this seems to request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Vanuatu

It has a Wikipedia entry so it deserves a wikilink. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Huldra (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)