Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Meaning of "Jerusalem"

The name "Jerusalem" simply means "City of Peace". I don't know why there is such an extensive discussion on this. --steveajg 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Etymologically, it kind-of does (whether it ever will in any other sense is moot). However, the first element of the name does not just mean city, and when it does it is nuanced. Then there's that lovely possibility of a dual ending. These little things make the simple city of peace claim a little wobbly, not untrue, mind. --Gareth Hughes 15:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

linguistically, the yeru- part of the name almost certainly means "city". -u- is a nominative case marker, preserved in the middle of a collocation, after case markers had dropped out elsewhere. (cf. the exactly parallel development in arabic "abu-".) none of the extensive discussion makes note of this obvious linguistic point.

the dual ending is almost certainly a later development. cf. hebrew "mitzrayim" (egypt) vs. the original arabic "miSr"; i assume this comes from the two kingdoms (upper and lower) of egypt. Original arabic? The Arabic name for Egypt came after the Hebrew name and is infact derived from it. Benwing 00:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to make the point that it is, as Benwing says, a dual ending and not a plural ending as stated in the article, so the explanation mentioned there does not make sense. Struman 12:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See an incomplete article on this at User talk:Zero0000/temp#Etymology of the name Jerusalem. --Zero 03:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a discussion on the aptness of this meaning?Jebus1 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the "Shalem" component of the name is probably derived from an old Canaanite deity's name. The "Yeru" component is unclear. It could mean "city of" in some ancient Semitic language (not in Hebrew, though, where the word is /`ir/ with Ayin), or it could mean "founded by". The resemblance between the name Shalem and the Hebrew word Shalom was probably the cause for the later popular etimology: "The City of Peace". drork 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yawn* we've been through this over and over. Shalim was an Ugaritic god so unlikely. Yeru doesn't mean founded unless one goes out of ones way to twist a verse in Job. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Inheritance of Peace" or "Complete Inheritance" Valley2city 16:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh

\\\\\Much of the discussion below could be avoided by noting that there is some question as to the legitimacy of Israel. If one accepts Israel as being legit, them there is a q of Jerusalem as a legitmate terrritory, let alone capital, thereof. Further anyone can say anyhing they want, like NYC is the capital of Israel, it certainly has claims upon the title, or Washington DC is the capital..., or Hollywood... but the more certain rules are by establishing a proper definition..., and authorities where the senses fail. Some say it's the capital because it once was, on the authotity of the Gaseous Invertrabrate War God Of the Bronze Age ( GIWGOBA ), that's good enough for many but not all. So J is a disputed capital of I, or I says J is the capital of..., or many Zionauts and fellow travellers say... etc is as far as one can go without sacrificing credibility to those who care about such things.////

To use a Middle Eastern expression, sheesh! All we need to say is:

• Israel regards Jerusalem as its capital, although hardly any other country recognizes it as such.
• The seat of the Israeli government is in Jerusalem.
• The X, Y, Z & Q embassies are in Jerusalem, reflecting official recognition by those countries that it is Israel's rightful capital.
• The other N embassies are in Tel Aviv, because these countries do not want to be seen as "recognizing" Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

We can also say:

• Two elements fuel the controversy.
• Many countries dispute Israel's claim to all of Jerusalem, regarding parts A, B & C as occupied territory. For these countries, to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's captial would be to legitimize Israel's claim on "occupied territory".
• Some countries or nationalistic movements regard Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Palestine -- not of Israel. --Uncle Ed 12:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object to the first point in this proposal. It suggests that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is merely the POV of Israel, and that the question is disputed. As I succesfully argued above, this is not a POV issue, but a matter of factual accuracy, which should not be compromised. Saying "Jerusalem is the capital" would also eliminate the need for the second point. Details of which countries base their embassies where are not important enough to get in to the first pargraph. There's much (much!) more to Jerusalem than a list of embassies. -- uriber 12:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know any other way of putting it. Unless you want the more cumbersome:

According to Israel and 4 other countries, Jerusulem is the capital of Israel. In an odd turn of events, Israel is the only country in the world whose capital is not recognized by the world community at large. This is largely because... --Uncle Ed 12:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except this is, in addition to being cumbersome, also false. You assume here that any country not basing its embassy in Jerusalem actually does not recognize it as capital - which is of course not true (see the US example). Anyway, as I said (many!) times before, the first paragraph should not focus on the diplomatic formal concept of "recognition" (mainly, because there is no such concept when it comes to capital - see Zero's comments), but rather on the factual status of Jerusalem - namely, it being capital.

Once again, there is no dispute here. No-one, throughout this entire discussion has claimed that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is false (i.e., that it is not the capital), or even provided evidence that anybody on earth believes that it is false. There is simply no dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel - and therefore this fact should be clearly noted in the first few sentences of the article, as it is for any other capital. Isuues of "recognition", disputes about "legitimacy", and visions about the future should all be explained later, after stating the undisputed facts. -- uriber 13:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed replies: Don't get me wrong, Uriber. I personally believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But some Arabs dispute this, particularly those calling themselves "Palestinians".

Please provide at least one quote of anybody (be that Palestinian or other) saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", with reasonable justification. (People saying "Jerusalem should not be the capital of Israel", "Jerusalem being capital of israel is illegitimate", etc. don't count, ofcourse) -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• The Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) discovered that Harper Collins' 2002 reprint of their "Mini Atlas of the World" states on pages 136/7 that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite the fact that the UN and the international community has never recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital. [1]

• The publishers have stated that it will add a footnote against Jerusalem where it appears in country listings, which will state "De facto capital. Disputed". [2]

This was brought up before (you did read the entire discussion before jumping into this, right?) Anyway - as I said when it it was first brought up, it proves nothing. Harper Colins' are commited to keeping everybody happy (and ultimately, to their sales figures) not to NPOV. -- uriber

This short article sounds neutral, but check it out and see for yourself: http://www.centerpeace.org/factsheets/fact-sheet-jerusalem.htm

From this article: "Jerusalem is [...] claimed as its capital by two peoples - Israelis and Palestinians." Is this even English? Anyway, it clearly deals with "claims", not with the current factual status of Jerusalem - so it is more-or-less irrelevant to the question at hand. -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Claims are entirely relevant to the discussion. It is not the place of Wikipedia to decide the factual status of Jerusalem, but the report the fact that one group claims X, one group claims Y, etc. That's exactly how Wikipedia:NPOV works. We can argue till we're blue in the face over whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is true fact, false fact, or opinion, but there should be no argument at all with the fact that "The government of Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital," and "Palestinians dispute the claim of Israel to Jerusalem." The fact that these people claim these things is indisputable and well-documented. Jdavidb 20:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and "sheesh" is not a Middle Eastern expression. To the best of my knowledge, it's an Eastern European Jewish expression.  :-) -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I provide enough baksheesh to the right party, can I make "sheesh" a Middle Eastern expression? Okay, you're obviously right about that. And I agree that Jerusalem is Israel's capital -- because I recognize any nation's right to designate any of its cities as its capital.

But did you know that a certain group (hint: starts with A) (a) disputes Israel's claim to Jerusalem (can't designate what you don't "have") and (b) has managed to get all but a handful of the world's nations to go along with them (clever devils, aren't they?).

None of them claim that Israel does not have Jerusalem. All they say is that Israel should not have Jerusalem - which is their POV and they are entitled to it. However the facts (as opposed to what should be) are not disputed - Jeusalem is Israel's capital. -- uriber 15:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, between you and me this dispute may sound as silly as the flat earth theory, but to be both accurate and neutral shouldn't we say something about the dispute? --Uncle Ed 15:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the dispute over the future of Jerusaelm is not silly. It is very serious. However, the dispute about the present status of Jerusalem (which is what we are concerned with here) simply does not exist. And I have no problem mentioning (and even discussing in depth) the disputes that do exist. But only after the facts are laid out. -- uriber 15:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like there are two issues here, which I conflated into one.

1. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel -- a matter of fact
2. Whether or not various nations recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel --Uncle Ed 19:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you got it backward. Whether or not various nations recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a fact. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital is an opinion. anthony (see warning) 21:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Ed: Exactly! That's what I'm trying to explain to people here for the last couple of months. By treating those questions separately, we can give clear and simple answers to both of them: Israel is the capital of israel, but most governments don't recognize it as such. Now that you got it, will you help me set this straight in the article? -- uriber 21:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, whether or not East Jerusalem can be considered a part of Israel is certainly disputed. As such, it is also disputable whether Jerusalem can be the "indivisible" capital of Israel... john 21:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I never suggested using the word "indivisible" in the article. So what's your point here? -- uriber 21:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the official position of Israel is that Jerusalem, not West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. No other country in the world recognizes East Jerusalem as being part of Israel. So Jerusalem (as opposed to West Jerusalem) can't be the capital of Israel unless we recognize East Jerusalem to be part of Israel. BTW, if you say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but most governments don't recognize it as such," then that means you're saying that those governments are wrong. How is that NPOV? john 23:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - I somehow missed this before.

I previously explained in length why saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does not imply that "all of Jerusalem is indisputably part of Israel". Go back to the archives, and read what I said.

"West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem" are basically historic concepts. None of them exists as a separate entity today, and therefore none of them can be capital of any nation.

If I would say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but most people think it is not" - than I would be saying that most people are wrong - which is obviously not NPOV. I explained previously in detail the difference between an individual (or a collective) holding a belief (or having a POV) on a subject, and, on the other hand, the formal concept of "diplomatic recognition" - which is unrelated, and does not imply any POV. Again - look in the archives if you want details. -- uriber 19:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I can certianly believe I missed something, and if this has been brought up, forgive me, I don't mean to butt into the discussion, but Israel declared jerusalem something like its "Eternal and undivided" capital (I think in 1950). As far as I know, theres nothign to stop Israel from declaring western jerusalem as it's capital, it's the inclusion of the rest of it, the occupied territories part - that problematic, and denied by other countires. Datepalm17

---

Capital

The problem here is that nobody has defined capital. The page given is a circular definition (capital is the seat of government, seat of goverment is the capital). Define seat of government. Bensaccount 23:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seat of government is the location of the government. - Wikipedia

Now the real question is where is Israel's government located. Bensaccount 23:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To quote the article: "All the branches of Israeli government (Presidential, Legislative, Judicial, and Administrative) are seated in Jerusalem". Martin 23:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, capital is not identical with seat of government. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, but the seat of government is The Hague. john 23:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. Go to capital or seat of government. Bensaccount 23:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

God you're obnoxious. john 23:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm objective. Bensaccount 23:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel every book on countries i read since i was five years old stated that!--Plato 01:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quite a few that I have read state the capital to be Tel Aviv. Ender 08:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Government

A government is an organization that has the power to make and enforce laws for a certain territory. - Wikipedia

---

Regarding Martin's compromise

I accepted Martin's suggestion ("under Israeli law") before. I deeply regret doing so - this is an awful solution, not much different than the one I was fighting against to begin with. However, I did accept it (what was I thinking?), and I feel it would be wrong of me to remove it now if it's put up again. However, this applies only to the exact phrasing as it was in this edit - including the fact that the capital issue was on the first paragraph. I regard myself free to actively object to any other formulation (even if only different by a comma), and to replace any such phrasing by one which I find to be more correct. -- uriber 23:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the capital issue into the first paragraph. Martin 23:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in why you so deeply regret accepting my compromise. From what you said, I thought your only issue with it was wordiness? What have I failed to understand? Martin 23:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For a much better answer than the one I gave you below (a few hours ago), please see my response to Slrubenstein's suggestion, further below -- uriber 13:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because the convoluted wording sends a strong message to the reader that Jerusalem is somehow not "really" the capital - the same way e.g. London is. Think - would you accept "London is the capital of the UK under British law, and functions as capital"? It sounds silly, and makes you look for some hidden message ("why don't they just say it's the capital, then?"). Since Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in exactly the same manner that London is the capital of the UK, I can't really be happy about and formulation which I wouldn't find acceptable for London. -- uriber 08:33, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, the suggested wording implies (perhaps not as strongly as other suggested formulations, but still) that Jerusalem being capital of Israel is a matter of POV. Throughout this entire discussion, nobody actually presented evidence that "Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel" is, in fact, disputed (e.g., a quote from someone saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel"). What's the point of successfully arguing, if you then have to give in and compromise? I have a natural tendency to try and compromise when I'm faced with someone with obvious good intentions (such as you). But looking at the end result later, I realized that compromising on this issue (to such a degree as I did) was wrong. Goodwill should not be allowed to supersede good arguments - which those opposing to "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (period)" have none of. -- uriber 09:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One more thing - Uriber, would you consider "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (IE, reverse the order), or would that be as unacceptable as the "According to Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" phrasing favoured by Wik which you disapprove of?

I'm afraid I won't accept it. Just like "accordnig to...", it puts the emphasis on a phrase which appears to be limiting the sense in which Jerusaelm is the capital, instead of on the main fact - that it is the capital. This might look like a silly distinction, but since the "capital under Israeli law" formulation is already at very edge of what I'm willing to accept (actually, several inches beyond that edge), I'm not willing to move any further away from what I think is the most correct formulation ("Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."), which is also NPOV. -- uriber 08:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another thought that occured to me was writing "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel". I'm not sure how well that would fly - probably not so well. Martin 23:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As you suspected - this is even worse. The article isn't about Israeli law. It's about Jerusalem. -- uriber 08:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all your responses. Martin 21:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Capital is a location of lawmaker issue. There is no law I am aware of that says thay Jerusalem is a capital (prove me wrong). So you would not say "under Israeli law, its the capital", but rather "As the location of the government, Jerusalem is the capital."Bensaccount 23:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) (minor semantics really)

I disagree that location of the government is the sole determining factor for being the capital, in all senses of that word. Martin 00:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. If you want to discuss what determines a capital go to capital. Currently it is just location. Bensaccount 02:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mote, eye, log, eye. Martin 21:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's absolutely not what it says. Note: It may consist of or be separate from the actual seat of government. Thus, Amsterdam. No one would contest that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. john 23:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is an Israeli law which says that Jerusalem is its capital. john 23:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does it say that the government cannot legally leave Jerusalem? Bensaccount 00:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I may be back later. Bensaccount 00:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From the article, there is a 1980 Israeli law claiming Jer. as Isr.'s "eternal and indivisible capital". Martin 00:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What a ridiculous law. Bensaccount 02:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More to the point, there's a UN Security Council resolution declaring the Israeli law null and void and instructing member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from Jerusalem. Virtually all countries embassies are in Tel Aviv for this reason Ender 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the phrasing where the disputed point about the capital is placed before the sentence on who actually controls the city. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital is trivia compared to which country exerts control over it. But in the interests of getting a stable version of the beginning text, I'll leave it unless someone else edits it first. anthony (see warning) 10:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony. Martin 21:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposal by Slrubenstein

May I propose the following introduction to the article?

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim, Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is located at (31°47'N, 35°13'E) and has a population of 630,000. It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled. Jerusalem consists of an Old City, itself divided into Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Armenian Quarters; a New City; and a surrounding district. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Great Britain controlled Palestine through a mandate of the League of Nations. From 1923 to 1948 Jerusalem was the capital of Palestine. When the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State, it recommended that Jerusalem be an international city, although both Jews and Arabs claimed it. After the declaration of a cease-fire in 1948, Jews controlled the New City and declared it their capital; Jordan occupied and annexed the Old City. During the 1967 War Israel occupied the Old City. In 1980 Israel declared a unified Jerusalem its capital, although in Resolution 478 the United Nations Security Council censured Israel’s act and declared it null and void. Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital, but most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

I have tried to follow the format used in Wikipedia for other cities, while calling attention to Jerusalem's contested situation. Slrubenstein

I don't think you will have much luck with this paragraph due to the ongoing argument over the bolded sentence. It still has not been decided on this page what determines that a city is a capital. Bensaccount 13:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here's my take at the paragraph attempting to fix the bolded sentence, which some regard as a problem (thanks, Uncle Ed, for your sheesh post which suggested this change):

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim, Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is located at (31°47'N, 35°13'E) and has a population of 630,000. It is the largest city in Israel, which regards the city as its capital, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled. Jerusalem consists of an Old City, itself divided into Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Armenian Quarters; a New City; and a surrounding district. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Great Britain controlled Palestine through a mandate of the League of Nations. From 1923 to 1948 Jerusalem was the capital of Palestine. When the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State, it recommended that Jerusalem be an international city, although both Jews and Arabs claimed it. After the declaration of a cease-fire in 1948, Jews controlled the New City and declared it their capital; Jordan occupied and annexed the Old City. During the 1967 War Israel occupied the Old City. In 1980 Israel declared a unified Jerusalem its capital, although in Resolution 478 the United Nations Security Council censured Israel’s act and declared it null and void. Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital, but most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

Meanwhile, let me again say that it is not for Wikipedia to decide what is and is not a capital, but merely to report the claims of various groups. Jdavidb 20:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've looked over the talk page and earlier versions of the article and see no explanation of why Jerusalem is not the official capital of Israel. What is your definition of "capital?" Do you propose changing the articles on Rome and Paris? Slrubenstein

You underestimate the importance of knowing what a capital is before writing about one. I have searched on google and I can't find any useful definitions of capital. The wikipedia definition is actually the best out there. (Britannica and Encarta have no page for capital). OneLook produces hundreds of dictionary entries that seem to all define capital vaguely as the "seat of government".

Wikipedia says that a capital is the seat of government but sometimes the seat of government is seperate from the capital. (huh?). Bensaccount 13:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, while I'm sure you mean well, I do not think that seeking a compromise solution is the correct way to go in this case (although I have cooperated with such efforts before - only to regret it later). Before we decide on exact phrasing, etc., we have to answer one question: Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel? This might have three different answers:

1. Yes
2. No
3. The matter is disputed, i.e. some people believe it is the capital, while others believe it is not the capital.

If we reach the conclusion that the correct answer is 3, then we should seek some formulation stating all POVs on the matter, or concentrate on laying down the very basic facts, avoiding the question altogether. This is where compromises might be useful. If, however, we reach the conclusion that the correct answer is 1 (as I believe is the ultimate outcome of the discussion going on here for the last several months), there should be no further objection to simply saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (while of course later describing disputes regarding sovereignty, diplomatic status, etc.) -- uriber 13:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Geez Uriber. Do you really think that everybody on earth believes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Well, let's end this argument here and now. I DO NOT BELIEVE JERUSALEM IS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL. There. Now I have proven that teh correct and logical answer is 3. I don't want you throwing arguments at me about why it really IS the capital, because you aren't going to change my opinion. The fact of the matter is, NOT EVERYBODY BELIEVES JERUSALEM TO BE THE CAPITAL OF THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL. If you really must say it IS the capital of Israel, we should say it is the capital of Palestine as well because Palestinians lay similar claims to the city as their capital. Hell, we even have an article regarding why some people think Kyoto is the capital of Japan instead of Tokyo, even though there are far fewer people who think that than people who believe Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. And, as mentioned earlier, seat of government is NOT the sole determinant of a nation's capital, eg The Hague vs. Amsterdam in the Netherlands, or cases where there is more than one seat of gov't such as South Africa (I believe Durban is the location of the judicial branch, Johannesburg is the location of the... oh crap, nevermind)... so HAH! - Node

But urbier, that's not correct. Wikipedia editors are not to concern themselves with deciding the facts of the matter, but only reporting the various views. Wikipedia does not need to decide if Jerusalem is or is not the capital; only what people's views are. So Wikipedia should report:

1. Some people (group A) believe Jerusalem is the capital
2. Why group A believes Jerusalem is the capital
3. Some people (group B) believe Jerusalem is not the capital
4. Why group B believes Jerusalem is not the capital
5. Why group B rejects group A's reason for believing Jerusalem is the capital
6. Why group A rejects group B's reason for believing Jerusalem is the capital
7. Group C's beliefs, reasons, etc. as above, if applicable, etc.
8. The fact that many Wikipedians are fed up with the whole argument. :)

There is no need to answer the question "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel," and, in fact, answering the question is irrelevant because you can't report it in the article. See Wikipedia:NPOV Jdavidb 20:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a capital is. Bensaccount 14:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally I believe "1," although my understanding of the UN resolutions is that the legal issues is not whether or not Jerusalem is the capital, but rather, what are the territorial boundaries of the Israeli city, "Jerusalem?" (in other words, the New city can be Israel's capital, but Israel has no right to annex the Old City). In any event, since many people dispute Israel's capital, an NPOV article must acknowledge what you have as "3." And this is exactly what I did in the part of my paragraph that Bensaccount bolded. Jerusalem is the capital; its status is unsettled -- these are both facts. So I do not see the problem, yet. Can you and Besnaccount be clearer? Slrubenstein

I don't think you know what a capital is. Bensaccount 14:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think you know what a capital is. But that is neither here nor there. This is an article on Jerusalem. I went to the Jerusalme webpage and it describes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I went to the Israel webpage and it says that it's capital is Jerusalem. I went to the webpages of Rome and Paris and London, and they all identify these cities as "capitals," so I know that Wikipedia articles are concerned with identifying "capitals." That is ALL that I need to know to write this encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should check the various community portal pages on what Wikipedia is and is not. This is not a forum for personal essays or primary research; it is simply not appropriate to depate political or philosophical issues here. Slrubenstein

In other words you are telling me to get lost because you want to fight with Uriber about something you both know nothing about. Bensaccount 14:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"In other words?" No, stick to the words I use -- I didn't say "get lost." I said that this is an article on Jerusalem, and should conform as best possible to other Wikipedia articles on cities. Wikipedia always mentions in the first paragraph when a city is a capital city. Jerusalem is Israel's capital city, so we must mention that. Since there are disputes concerning the status of Jerusalem, we should also mention that. You are concerned with "what a capital is." If you are concerned with this, great! Do some research on different kinds of capitals, and the legal traditions concerning the designation of capitals, and work on the article "capital!" Don't "get lost," I encourage you to do the serious research Wikipedia needs. But if you are interested in learning more about the idea of "capital," go work on the appropriate article!Slrubenstein

I dont care what a capital is. You need to, because you are arguing about it. Bensaccount 14:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean when you say "many people dispute Israel's capital". Does it mean "many people believe that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital (excluding people who believe this as a result of simple ignorance or misinformation)"? Had it been so, I would have agreed that the correct answer is "3", and that there is a NPOV issue. However, I do not think that this is what you mean. What you mean is that many people think something like "Israel has no right to have Jerusalem as its capital". That's a fair statement 9false, but fair) - however, it has nothing to do with the question I presented - and so it leaves that question undisputedly answered "Yes". And the fact that the UN resolution deals with territorial boundaries, not the question of capital, just goes to strenghthen my point about the capital issue being undisputed. -- uriber 13:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say the answer is 2. If the vast majority of the countries in the world don't recognize the city as the capital, then it's not the capital. anthony (see warning) 01:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How can you write about a capital if you havent defined what a capital is? Bensaccount 13:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Bensaccount -- interesting theoretical question, worth considering on some other page (where you can consider Wittgenstein and other philosophers of language). The fact remeans, people do talk about words without defining them, and manage to communicate quite effectively. If you do not understand how, take a philosophy or linguistics course.

You may use words without defining them but you definately do not communicate effectively. In fact you do not communicate at all. Bensaccount 14:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When I see you raising this point on the pages for Rome, Paris, London, etc., I will take you seriously.

For those pages the capital definition which I currently have created is sufficient. (see Seat of government). You cant argue that the meaning of words is not necessary for their use. Its absurd. Bensaccount 14:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Uriber, I understand your point and that you are trying to be systematic and constructive. nevertheless, I think you are going off on an unnecessary and onconstructive tangent. In my proposal, I wrote "It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled." Is this in your view a false statement? Slrubenstein

It is not a false statement. However, it is an incomplete one (because it only emphesizes Jerusalem's official status as capital, pushing off the very important fact that it is also the capital in practice to the very end of a very long introduction). I also believe that the factual correctness of information presented is not the only criterion by which a text should be judged, and that the manner in which this information is presented is important as well. If you systematically avoid saying "Jerusalem is the capital" (which is the standard wording on articles about other capitals), then at least some readers will get the impression that in some way, Jerusalem is not the capital (even if this is not explicitly said anywhere). -- uriber 14:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks -- this is a reasonable response. Does this mean that you would accept the paragraph I proposed, if I delete "official?" Slrubenstein

Yes, I would happily accept it. I have some aesthetic reservations regarding having so detailed historic information in what is supposed to be an introduction paragraph - but this is a matter of style, not something I'd go to war over. -- uriber 15:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Uriber, you dont have to answer Slurbenstein because he doesnt know how to communicate. Bensaccount 14:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You will have to fogive me for respectfully disagreeing with you, and answering Slurbenstein in spite of your giving me permission not to do so. -- uriber 14:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Slrub: "official" is ok, but I think it's a little vague. I prefer "under Israeli law", which is more precise. Also, where you write "Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital" - in this sentence, I don't believe the qualifier "under Israeli law" is required. I prefer the current formulation, all in all.

To Uriber: I think you're missing an option to the question "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?" My answer would be "It depends what you mean by that". It is the capital under Israeli law. It is also the capital in practice. It may or may not be the capital under international law (I don't think we ever got a firm answer on that). It's not the internationally recognised capital. It's disputed whether Jerusalem is possessed by Israel, as "capital of Israel" implies by use of the possessive tense. So there are many layers here, and it's not a simple yes or no answer.

By way of contrast, London is the capital of the UK under international law, is internationally recognised as such, and everyone agrees that the UK possesses London. So, for London it's much simpler, and thus "London is the capital of the UK" is trickier. Martin 21:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I moved around some of the sections, so that new readers will have a more pleasant -- and less jarring -- experience. If they want to use the Table of Contents link to skip down to the juicy, er, controversial part, they are free to do so.

Also, I did a word count, and the big "history of Jerusalem" section is roughly 50% of the article. Anybody want to move that to History of Jerusalem? --Uncle Ed 13:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the "rearrangement" is completely unacceptable. Mentioning that Jerusalem is capital under israeli law, etc. in the introduction paragraph was an important part the agreement I reached with Martin. -- uriber 14:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - that Jer. is (in many senses) the capital of Isr. is worthy of an early mention. Martin 21:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Summary

Uriber wants to write one thing about Jerusalem as capital. Slurbenstein wants to write another thing about Jerusalem as capital.

I find it interesting to see how these kinds of conflicts get resolved which is why I am here.

There are several pathways that are possible if progress is to be made:

1. One person steps down for no reason.
2. A vote is held
3. One of you proves your point of view by presenting your argument based on the definition of capital.

In my mind the only fair way is option 3. Bensaccount 15:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Example for option 3:

When King Solomon built the Temple on Mount Moriah, Jerusalem was sanctified and became the international religious center of the Jewish people. Solomon also built his palace, the city was fortified, treasure houses were built, as were markets and palaces for the king's wives. It was largely due to the many wonderful buildings that Jerusalem became one of the world's most beautiful cities during this period. Furthermore, economic prosperity during Solomon's reign consolidated Jerusalem's position as an important city, the capital of Israel in the eyes of many nations.

(Moving foreward by trying to define what makes a capital). Bensaccount 15:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not commit myself to that definition of capital by the way. Bensaccount 15:07, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your account above does not explain why Solomon built his temple on Mt. Moriah. Also, why is your account a better explanation of why Jerusalme is Israel's capital, than the fact that the Website for Israel names Jerusalem its capital? By the way, if it isn't clear to you, when the article says Jerusalem is Israel's capital it means the modern state of Israel, not the Ancient Kingdom of Israel! Slrubenstein

Again, this is an attempt to determine what makes a capital. So when you ask the question "why is your account a better explanation of why Jerusalme is Israel's capital, than the fact that the Website for Israel names Jerusalem its capital?" That is exactly the point im making, (what determines a capital).Bensaccount 17:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A capital is a center of important activity. In states, the most important activity is governance. However, in some states (e.g. some kingdoms) the "capital" is wherever the King's court is, and the king's court moves from palace to palace. In many states, especially republics, the political capital is fixed. Since law is a function of governance, usually only the political capital is official (this is the case with Jerusalem) -- the economic capital is evident (the city with the largest port, manufacturing, or financial sectors). Some countries have two capitals -- political and economic. In some states the political capital is divided (the representative branch is seated in one city, the executive branch in another (In Israel, all branches of government are seated in Jerusalem). In societies with official religions there can be a religious capital as well, although in many states the religious, economic and political capital are the same. So it varies from state to state and time to time. Slrubenstein

Well anyways it seems that it has been agreed upon that Jerusalem is the capital (Its too bad that the only result from all this discussion that points towards towards this conclusion, is what you just said, but I guess explaining after resolution is better than resolving and never explaining why. Just dont tell me it was never an issue.). If this issue rearises that last point you made will be the only outcome from this discussion that helps, since the still hasn't been formally defined in the article. Bensaccount 17:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, it has not been agreed upon. We cannot let the article become the basis for someone to say, "According to Wikipedia, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Because that would mean we were taking sides in a dispute.

I'm deeply saddened that you are still holding this view. You did not respond to my request to provide some evidence that such a dispute exists. I for one very much hope that the article will become the basis for someone to say, "According to Wikipedia, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Because that would mean that that someone had learned something from Wikipedia - something that is not disputed, but that a surprising number of people do not know. -- uriber 18:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm on the same side. But as an editor I have to acknowledge that there is a dispute. Don't try to sweep it under the rug. It makes the rug lumpy, and eventually it will start to rot and make a big stink. --Uncle Ed 17:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Ed, what do you think of the version I proposed above? You didn't comment on it (or haven't, yet).Slrubenstein By the way, Ed, even in jest don't say "crazy Arabs and their sick puppy friends." It's a very unconstructive attitude. Also, it is my sense that the only Arabs who do not recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel are those who do not recognize the State of Israel. The really divisive issues for many Arabs, including those who accept the existence of Israel, is not whether or not Jerusalem is the capital but rather Israel's unlawful annexation of East Jerusalem. Slrubenstein

I took back that crack. Sorry.

I like the phrasing of It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled better than It is the capital of Israel. --Uncle Ed 18:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

largest city [...] in Israel? That's even worse! Now Wikipedia would REALLY endorse the view that the whole of Jerusalem is part of and/or belongs to Israel! -- a sick puppy friend AKA Dissident

Well, I thought that the context made your point clear. But how about "Including areas occupied by Israel, it is ...?" Slrubenstein

Take a look at the third paragraph. -- Dissident 19:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Talk)

Okay, but every other article on a major city has the population in the first paragraph. This seems reasonable, and in this case relative uniformity of style in an encyclopedia makes sense. Slrubenstein

Jerusalem as capital of Israel

Is it disputed that Jerusalem is the capital of israel? Its hard to tell (despite the endless discussion that seems to be about it).Bensaccount 20:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Based on what has currently been said (and what is given in Wikipedia), the following questions define whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

1. Is Jerusalem the city or town that contains the government of Israel?
2. Is Jerusalem a center of important activity in Israel?

Bensaccount 21:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Based on what has been said so far,

1. Jerusalem does contain the government of Israel.
2. Jerusalem is a center of important activity.

Therefore the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. Bensaccount 21:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any faith in Wikipedia as a source on the matter. Anyone can edit it. Madness. Martin 21:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you dont have any faith in Wikipedia why are you here? Bensaccount 21:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because it won't always be this abysmal. Martin 21:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I dont see what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that some other source is used to define capital (politics) and this page be based on that? Wouldn't it make more sense to base it on something that is in Wikipedia? Bensaccount 21:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No one disputes that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel. What is in question is whether it is its de jure capital; by Israeli law, of course, it is, but whether it is by international law is highly questionable. In particular, East Jerusalem has never formally been annexed by Israel (according to Christians for Israel: http://www.c4israel.org/articles/english/e-c-00-3-kort-judicialjerus.htm ), and thus remains not a part of Israel by international law (even independent of any questions about the legality of such an annexation.) This means that de jure, at most, West Jerusalem can be described as the capital; in practice, most nations' legal position is that Israel's de jure capital is still Tel Aviv. Of course, as Bensaccount suggests, this throws into question which factor should be taken as primary in defining "capital"... - Mustafaa 21:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa, nice to see someone new here. I'm afraid you are presenting the information from the article you provided in a somewhat misleading way. It is true that Israel does not officially use the term "annexation" for describing the change in the status of East Jerusalem in 1968 - because you can only "annex" something which formerly lawfully belonged to a different country - and Israel never recognized any foreign sovereignty over any part of what used to be the British Mandate on Palestine. So officially what Israel did was "applying the It's laws, jurisdiction and administration". However, by doing so, Israel brought it to the same official status of the rest of Israeli territory (including West Jerusalem). So the difference in terminology has to do only with the previous status of East Jerusalem (before the "annexation" / "applying of jurisdiction and administration") - not with its status afterwards. So De jure, all of Jerusalem can be described as the capital. -- uriber 22:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"De jure" depends on who has stated the law. Bensaccount 22:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Finally some progress.

Jerusalem contains the Israeli government and is a center of activity in Israel. Israeli law states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but Jerusalem is not stated as the capital of Israel by international law. Bensaccount 22:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that International Law deals with the question of which city is capital of what country. Please provide some reference to prove that it does. -- uriber 22:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Uriber. Please tell us an example of a city that is "stated by international law" to be the capital of any country. --Zero 22:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not here to research. If noone can state for sure how international law deals with Jerusalem as capital:

Jerusalem contains the Israeli government and is a center of activity in Israel. Israeli law states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Bensaccount 22:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I can't seem to find any references for international law affecting capitals per se; my assumption was that if the territory in question is not legally part of Israel, it cannot therefore legally be its capital, but I don't actually know of any legal principle explicitly preventing a capital from being, indeed, entirely outside the country of which it is the capital if it so desires - anomalous as that would be. That's not to say no such principle exists: IANAL... Unless someone does know the details of international law on that, I'm fine with the current compromise.Mustafaa 23:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Ben: well that's what the intro already says:

# Jer. is capital under Isr. law.

# Jer. is de facto capital.

Seems you're just rephrasing what we already have? However, what we already have is a somewhat fragile consensus, so I don't think it should be replaced without agreement (IE, I agree with Uriber again).

I realize thats what it says. It said that before it was decided why it should say that. I just filled in the reasoning. Bensaccount 00:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the point about international law and the position of the UN is important enough that we perhaps shouldn't say "Jer. is the capital", but not so important that it needs to be in the intro.

Personally, I have decided I would be willing to accept "Jerusalem is the Israeli capital (but see note)". I think "Israeli" (an adjective) is much better than "Israel's" (possessive tense). However, I can't speak for Anthony or Wik on this. Martin 23:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about "Israel made Jerusalem its capital, but..."? -- Dissident 23:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that has the possessive, which I dislike unattributed in this case ("its"). Also, I doubt that that will satisfy Uriber - it only deals with the de jure bit, not the de facto bit (both are worth mentioning, IMO). Martin 23:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital too?AndyL 00:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Change by Wik

Wik changed "under Israel's law" to "claimed by Israel". This is a step in the wrong direction, making the statement less clear. (Claim means demand capitals arent defined by demands). Bensaccount 01:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And yet, Wik is so pro-government when it comes to the Indonesian (Islamic) occupation of West Papua (Christian), he even disputes the known English name is West Papua and moved the article to Papua (Indonesian province) where it would be so easy to find (not), or confused with Papua the Island instead; not to mention how he keeps replacing the West Papuan Genocide with a re-direct. A new meaning to the term NPOV I suspect. ;-)Daeron 11:32, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Testimonials

Not bad, compare with [[3]]. Bensaccount 00:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uriber's version of 09:03, 7 Apr 2004 is an excellent compromise and has my support. --Zero 09:17, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can also accept the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law", but just barely. Consider this to be an extremely hard-fought compromise. -- Dissident 09:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You might compare this formulation to

• China considers Taiwan a breakaway province, not a seperate country.

Even thought the ROC has been holding its own national elections for more years than I can count! --Uncle Ed 12:24, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, China may consider them to be provincial elections instead. :-) -- Dissident 18:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians and Jerusalem as capital

Do Palestinians really "aspire" that Jerusalem become their capital? Bensaccount 16:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Claim" really is more accurate AndyL

I note that different approaches seems to have been taken in other controversial cases: Laayoune is described as the "unofficial capital" of Western Sahara, Jaffna as the "cultural capital" of Sri Lankan Tamils, Taipei as the "provisional capital" of Taiwan, and "The capital of Somaliland is Hargeisa". Western Sahara strikes me as the nearest parallel, as Laayoune has been under Moroccan control and annexed by Morocco (under Moroccan law, at any rate) ever since Spain left. But "unofficial capital" doesn't have the right ring to it, to my ears; if anything, it's more the official capital (as enshrined in PLO declarations, etc.) than the unofficial one. Mustafaa 18:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How did West Germany describe Berlin before unification? Bonn was the capital of West Germany but Berlin was always considered the "real" capital but I foget the language that was used/AndyL

Was it "titular capital"? That sounds familiar... - Mustafaa 19:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "also" in this sentence is incorrect. Saying also requires similarity.Bensaccount 17:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Number of countries which dispute the sovereignty

Wik wrote, in an edit summary:

most countries dispute Israeli sovereignty over either the entire or the eastern part of the city

Please list (or at least count) these countries, and supply a source. --Uncle Ed 18:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See List of countries, minus Costa Rica and El Salvador. --Wik 18:13, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Do you think US and UK dispute Israeli de jure sovereignty over Jerusalem? Also, there's a difference between (a) "hasn't made a statement in support of" and (b) "has made a statement disputing". --Uncle Ed 18:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course they do, otherwise they would have their embassies there. --Wik 18:42, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that's the reason, considering the close alliance between the three nations. The reason, at least I think, is that Jerusalem is volatile enough, and many Palestinians would consider a U.S embassy there a serious affront. I mean, not like the U.S. cares what Palestinians think or say, but I guess it's just a fear of controversy and possible violence. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The UK's position is quite clear, it does not consider Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Foreign Office article on Israel --Ptclark 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A newspaper article

A dispute over the future of Jerusalem is at the heart of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

Divided by barbed wire into Israeli and Jordanian rule in 1948, it was reunited under Israeli sovereignty as a result of the 1967 Six-Day war. Israel claims the entire city of Jerusalem as its eternal, indivisible capital. The Palestinians want at least the eastern part of the city to become the capital of a future state. Most countries of the world have never recognized Israel's right to Jerusalem. More than a dozen withdrew their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest in 1980 when Israel enshrined its claim in law. Only three Latin American countries now have their embassies here - Costa Rica, Bolivia and El Salvador. [4]

Just to make clear that West Jerusalem is almost equally disputed, I may note that even before the 1980 decision, only thirteen countries had their embassies in Jerusalem: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela. All of them moved to Tel Aviv after the UN Security Council resolution, although Costa Rica and El Salvador moved back to Jerusalem in 1984. --Wik 18:18, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

All of them, eh? What about Bolivia? According to the cns news article Bolivia currently has its embassy there. But you said "all of them" moved to Tel Aviv. Did you mean "all but Bolivia" or what?

The article is mistaken. Bolivia's embassy now is at Mevaseret Zion, which is a suburb of Jerusalem but outside the city limits. --Wik 18:40, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Why this issue is so hard

Each side wants to justify its own aspirations. Israel wants sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem. Various groups of Arabs want:

1. sovereignty over PART of Jerusalem
2. sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem

One may suppose that to concede (or "recognize") Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem would hurt Arabs' chances of getting ahold of it themselves. Refusing to recognize Israel's claim to the city is part of a public relations campaign aimed at getting other countries to pressure Israel into ceding control of it. (I think this strategy used to be called "land for peace", although I haven't looked at that article for a while.) --Uncle Ed 18:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are only about 20 Arab countries out there - a drop in the bucket compared to the 200 or so that don't recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. - Mustafaa 18:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is another quote about the sovereigty of Jerusalem. From the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE):

Even Jerusalem, the city Israel claims as its capital, remains an area of dispute. Predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since independence in 1948; Israel captured mostly Arab East Jerusalem in 1967. Israel has since claimed the entire city as its capital. However, the United Nations does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. [5]

Nobody's posted a comment here in two millenia, er, weeks! Does that mean the "capital" issue has been settled to everyone's satisfaction? --Uncle Ed 19:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The way this issue has been "settled" is completely unacceptable, and I'm anything but satisfied with it. My deep disappointment at this result, and the process that led to it, is the reason I've stopped making edits to Wikipedia for the last couple of weeks, and why I probably won't be coming back any time soon. -- uriber 21:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I inserted the NPOV note. As I said earlier, I consider this case a litmus test for WP. See what half-a-dozen of other encyclopedias say in the first phrase. Not a single compromise was acceptable here. So let's pick one option out of two: WP is either biased or neutral. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to vs Under

I prefer "Under Israeli law" to "According to Israeli law", as it is shorter, and makes more sense (laws have jurisdictions, hence "under", while people have opinions, hence "according to"). So I've gone back to that wording. Martin 21:41, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

"Under" is not restrictive enough. It suggests that Israeli law is all that is necessary to make it capital. "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Israeli law makes it so." On the other hand, "according to" makes it clear that it is just one view (according to Israeli law, it is the capital; according to others, it isn't). --Wik 14:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

OK - I can understand that, even if I'm not convinced myself. Thanks for explaining. Martin

I am really not convinced. We're back a step. Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel from Israel's point of view, but since Israel controls Jerusalem it is UNDER Israeli law a capital. The next sentence - about the disputes shows the other points of view. If nobody replies to my claim I am going to change the "according to" back to "Under".

---

FYI: British official position on the status of Jerusalem

Occupied

Talk:Israel#Occupation is about whether the current situation should be described as "occupation", not the situation in 1948 and 1967. "occupied" is a good word choice. "gained control" is a clumsy alternative, in context. Martin 20:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Psalms

I've seen the translation of the Psalms under Importance of Jerusalem to Jews and Judaism change a number of times. I feel that the most recent, rather large change has been for the worse. Can we agree that the general meaning of the Psalm is more important than the literal translation, and that denoting what individual words are added by the translator to achieve the proper meaning is unimportant? If nobody objects, I'd like to change it back to before User:209.135.35.83 modified it. I see what they're trying to do, but I don't feel that they've added anything and the old version flows better.

I don't mind what translation is quoted, but it should be a published (and named) one, not one off the top of somebody's head. I agree that "cunning" has changed its meaning in modern English, but I don't think that's a major argument against the King James Version. In the original, the KJV does indicate words not present in the original, with italics; perhaps we could add those? - Mustafaa 18:33, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the King James and then saying it's the King James? It's prettier. john 19:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Good call on the using a published version. Looks good. Now do we need to get God's permission to use that text, or what? --Caliper 20:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Does you hand have cunning? Neither does mine (21st century). Words change meaning over centuries. The King James Version is near and dear to many; its what the Bible is suppposed to sound like....unfortunately meanings of many of the words using the KJV have changed. cunning has negative connotations that are not in the original...does it take cunning to play the piano...playing piano (that skill) or whatever skills or movements one has (typing?) are the meaning of the verse. There are other significant concerns and issues regarding the KJV that are either well known or easily accessible to one fluent in the original langagues. I imagine (certainly hope...well looks like that is missing from KJV page) that they are throughly discussed in a page on the KJV at wikipedia

The User:209.135.35.83 version is The Metsudah Tehillim copyright 1997, KTAV publishing....perhaps not the best, but it is a nice bilingual version that I keep at hand.

United States position

I've clarified the section on the US position. Since the US Constitution grants only the President the power to make foreign policy it's misleading for us to write that US law makes Jerusalem the capital of Israel - no part of an act which is contrary to the US Constitution is US law. If someone can think of a short and non-misleading piece to go at the start of the current status section, that would be good - nothing succinct enough and still not misleading occurred to me. Jamesday 23:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Where does it grant the president exclusive power to make foreign policy? - Nat Krause 04:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. ? john k 04:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, not that it is worthwhile for us to debate this much, but I don't see how this says anything about foreign policy that it doesn't also say about domestic policy. - Nat Krause 06:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that that line is just a blanket statement so that when required, the President can respond to issues that don't have time to pass through congress and the senate. I suppose that insofar as there is no law concerning how the United States feels about Israel, this may be considered the president's perogative, but I don't think it says that anywhere specific. --Caliper 04:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the point is that there is a law, but that it has not been put into effect because the executive branch says it's unconstitutional. john k 05:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused by this line:

The United States Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed by Congress in 1995, states...

Was this bill signed into law by President Clinton? An act of Congress does not become law without presidential approval. Funnyhat 01:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

View of Jerusalem

why does it say in the wikitext not to change this to a thumbnail in the imagesyntax? It will look much better. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:35, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

---

I consider the world to be given to ME by GOD, So get out of my world. The Rastafarians consider themselves to be the true jews and white people evil, so Jerrytown belongs to them, but then the Palestinians consider it Palestinian. Some say opinions are like 'a' holes, everyones got one, but one should avoid taking opinion, especially possesive (a hole), opinions as truth.

City of David

This article states that there is archeological confirmation of the biblical story of King David. But the article on King David states:

>Biblical minimalists hold that David and his united kingdom never existed, and that the stories told about his life were made up much later by Jewish nationalists. Others consider him a real historical figure, but like King Arthur, consider most of the traditions relating to him to have more myth than substance.

>The details of David's life given in this article come from the Hebrew Bible and are not corroborated by other historical documents. However, an ancient inscription found at Tel Dan is generally considered to refer to a king of the "House of David", providing indirect evidence that David did exist as a historical king.

--Sentience 00:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem in Christianity?

The article has a brief section on Jerusalem in Islam (and now, after an afternoon at the library, Mandaeanism), and a huge section on Jerusalem in Judaism; shouldn't somebody more knowledgeable about it than me add a section on Jerusalem in Christianity? It does have a certain religious importance to Christians, right? ;) - Mustafaa 23:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For one thing, most of the Torah, Tanakh, and Psalms section is also applicable to Christianity; possibly the section headings should reflect that - Mustafaa 17:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the following replacement text:

Jerusalem in Torah and Tanakh / Old Testament

Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Torah and Tanakh, or Old Testament, a text sacred to both Judaism and Christianity. In Judaism it is considered the Written Law, the basis for the Oral Law (Mishnah, Talmud and Shulkhan Arukh) studied, practiced and treasured by Jews and Judaism for three millennia. (List of Jewish Prayers and Blessings). In Christianity, it is considered as the account of God's relationship with His chosen people - the original covenant - and the essential prelude to the events narrated in the New Testament, including both universal commandments (eg the Ten Commandments) and obsolete or Judaism-specific ones.

For example, the book of Psalms, which has been frequently recited and memorized by Jews and Christians for centuries, says: (etc.)

Any thoughts, objections (since this is a controversial article after all)? - Mustafaa 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edward Said was NOT born in Jerusalem

See, for example, http://www.meforum.org/article/191, (full article mirrored at http://members.tripod.com/arabterrorism/FAQ/said.html). And at least try to come to talk and see if we'll vet your propagandistic lies before changing the article. Thanks! - Loweeel 15:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Edward Said article says that he was born in Jerusalem. I've left a note on that talk page for evidence of this, and have always thought it to be true. The consensus should be reached on that talk page rather than here. I reverted the change because it didn't make sense to contradict Wikipedia: either both articles should say he was born in Jerusalem, or both should say that he was born in Cairo. Gareth Hughes 16:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try looking at the talk section on his page (right above the section where you posted), as well as the articles I posted here. - Loweeel 16:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Er, yes. Even the obviously propagandistic article Loweeel links to states that "I discovered many interesting points: that Said was in fact "born in Jerusalem," but only because his parents feared hygienic conditions in Cairo hospitals after their previously born son died of an infection within days of his delivery." So this is certainly settled. - Mustafaa 08:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yerushalyim or al Quds first?

The article currently has the Arabic name (al Quds) first, then the Hebrew name (Yerushalayim). Since the Hebrew name is older, and is the origin of the English name Jerusalem, wouldn't it make sense for the Hebrew name to go first? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you: the Hebrew name should come first, followed by the Arabic name. --Gareth Hughes 21:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The person who made that edit said he was doing it because of alphabetical order. There was a similar edit on the Golan Heights article where you put the category "Geography of Israel" ahead of "Geography of Syria" because of alphabetical order as well. We shouldn't have a double standard here, either every thing is in alphabetical order or there's another way.Yuber 01:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitely Kuratowski's Ghost 22:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, the geography categories are not subject to these philological considerations and respective historicity. Drawing such linear parallels as standard of a measurement for npov, is likely to result in an awkward product, with a superimposed neutrality, leading and leaning towards inaccuracies. El_C 02:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. With the current claims and controversy over the city, alphabetization is an unassailable neutral methodology. --AladdinSE 15:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Historical age of the terms, and root of the English word, are also unassailably neutral. The consensus is against your unilateral change, please respect it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can appreciate your point, ASE, but I think, ultimately, it's a poor methodological approach: the risk of adhering to arbitrary models (such as alphabetization) is a pandora's box which would harm the quality of the final product (even though in terms of inter-editorial conflict and the rivalry of worldviews it can be seen as possessing great benefit). And, of course, this isn't to say there isn't a role for it to play when philological considerations are not an issue (such as the geography categories Yuber mentioned). El_C 03:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is all moot. The article's name Jerusalem comes first, and Names of Jerusalem is in chronological order of names (and, in each section, in chronological order of languages adopting a form of that name). Maybe it's better just to replace the names with a link to Names of Jerusalem, which was written with all this in consideration, along with comments. With a topic this complex with no simple answers, it seems like a wise move. - Gilgamesh 05:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, EL C, you lost me. Most of that was quite over my head. Once again, please, in language a mere mortal can comprehend :-) Alphabetization is an excellent standard in most cases and is especially significant in, as you say, inter-editorial conflict. Jayjg: Please stop claiming consensus in edit summaries. As you can plainly see there is division of oppinon and the matter remains under discussion. Gilgamesh: The Names of Jerusalem article is already named and linked in the article, it's important and appropriate. However mentioning different language spellings of names in intro sections is pretty standard in Wikipedia, I think they ought to stay. --AladdinSE 21:46, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The article is titled "Jerusalem" the name by which the city is known in English. The name comes from Hebrew so the Hebrew forms come first. The name of the city in most languages is a form of the word "Jerusalem". It is questionable if the anomalous Arabic name Al-Quds should even appear in the list let alone be first. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok that is just pure bias shining through clearly in your comment. The city is disputed between Arabs and Jews. Moreover Arab East Jerusalem is considered internatioally, and without exception, as occupied territory where Israeli annexation has been utterly rejected. Alphabetical listings are a good idea in any case, and in cases where there is dispute and controversy it is essential. --AladdinSE 00:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

The city is known as "Jerusalem" in English, this name comes from the Hebrew which is the main reason for listing the Hebrew name and its pronunciations. Putting Al-Quds first and then the Hebrew does not make any sense, because it isn't even a form of the name "Jerusalem" let alone the origin of the name. Al-Quds is mentioned only because of the significant Arabic speaking population who use this name which is unrelated to the name Jerusalem. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are now beginning to repeat ourselves. Putting the Arabic first makes perfect sense because it is alphabetical, which is especially important in a disputed setting. Your points about the root of the word is better suited for inclusion in the Names of Jerusalem article. --AladdinSE 08:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if we can clean this up a little:

Summary: For Jerusalem, Yerushalayim, al-Quds:

• Historical order
• Etymological consistancy
• Ruling Government's self-identified name

For Jerusalem, al-Quds, Yerushalayim

• Alphabetical

Aladdin, I understand why you argue that the name is controversial, which may be a reason to reject the third arugment above. Nevertheless, what are your objections to the first two arguments? Do you really think that the neutrality of the alphabet is better than the neutrality of the etymology, or of the historical names? Mikeage 04:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: "We were here first" is not a valid encyclopedic classification. Listing the Arabic and Hebrew spellings in alphabetical order does not alter the history of the city, which is clearly laid out in the article. It is not etymologically inconsistent to use alphabetical listing. It would be etymologically inconsistent if the Hebrew spelling/script was omitted. --AladdinSE 12:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add to Mikeage's list for for "Yerushalayim, al-Quds":

• The name used by the majority of the city's population.

I think this is really the deciding factor here. The "native" names (those given in parenthesis after the English name of cities) should reflect the name of the city used by those living in it. If there is more than one such name, the name used by the majority should prevail. Political claims should have nothing to do with it. Cf. Shefa-Amr, where the Arabic name comes before the Hebrew one, despite the undisputed Israeli sovereignty. -- uriber 16:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that the legality of East and West Jerusalem as one jurisdiction is universally rejected by the UN and every nation in the world as illegal and null & void. The same universal consensus considers all Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem to be illegal, just as settlement in any territory captured in 1967 is considered illegal. Shefa-Amr is an excellent example of how alphabetical order is neutral and encyclopedic. --AladdinSE 05:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wish you would actually address my argument instead of getting into the question of "legality of East and West Jerusalem as one jurisdiction", which is completely irrelevant here. If you'd follow the history of the Shefa-Amr article, you'll see that it has nothing to do with alphabetical ordering. Also, you are clearly in the minority here, and I wish you'd respect consensus and stop reverting the article. -- uriber 09:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical order seems to be the rule of thumb around here (but maybe I'm wrong?), is there a policy page that formally says so (or not)--198 05:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the "alphabetical logic", the order in almost all the disputed places will have to be changed into Arabic first. I think we should be consistent. The historical order seems the most logical for historical articles. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ahh so where would this article fit? Alpha or Historical?--198 06:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, this is an article about a city of Jerusalem and its history. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually no, this is an article about the city of Jerusalem, the title says nothing about the history, nor in fact, about its transportation or infrastructure etc. The article is overlong, and it may be advisable to start creating some sub articles along those lines to reduce this article to code. The point is, history of the city is not the primary emphasis, and cannot be used to overrule a neutral alphabetical order of other-language scripts. Even if history was the emphasis, like in a proposed "History of Jerusalem" article (which currently re-directs to this Jerusalem article), alphabetical order would still be the prime neutral method of listing the non-English scripts and spellings of the name. Alphabetical is a good idea as a standard, it is essential in a disputed setting. --AladdinSE 08:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

This article and this city is all about history. "Alphabetical is a good idea as a standard, it is essential in a disputed setting." - as long as Islamic supersessionism comes out first. If we apply the principle of consistency throughout the WP (and I think we should be consistent), this new "standard" will change the order in almost all the disputes into Arabic first, except where preceded by Amharic. There is no dispute that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and only the 3rd in Islam. Why don't we go by that criteria? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You show your clear bias in this case, and illustrate better than I could have done why a neutral alphabetical order is essential. It's not about "holiest in Judaism" and "only third holiest in Islam." What about Christian Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem?? They don't matter at all to you I suppose. Religious connections and levels of holiness are all extremely subjective and divisive. You cannot determine an order of listing on that basis. --AladdinSE 22:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is it corect that Arabic word "Quds" comes from Hebrew "Qodesh"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You would have to ask a linguist. --AladdinSE 09:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there too much or enough real fight over Al-Quds-Jeruzalem-Yerushalyim in this world? Since 2003, I now and then follow this page, and the fight seems never ending. In many cases, as this Jeruzalem fight, it's about futile issues. Can't we just agree on things here? I think btw: alphabetical order seems fine to me.. and then I mean: alphabetical order of the name.. not the language's name or any other concept to make it more complex. Let's stick to the K.I.S.S principle people! --Ameer 11:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Being that this is the English version Wikipedia, it makes most sense in my view to first give the name from which the English name, Jerusalem, is most closely derived. That would be "Yerushalayim". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The sovereignty of this city is hotly disputed, with the entire world declaring that half of it is occupied, and that post-1967 Jewish settlement in that half is illegal. The neutral way of listing the non-English scripts is alphabetical. There is no reason not to include an etymological note about how the English name came into use, however. If that is your concern, insert one. --AladdinSE 22:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical is not "neutral"; rather, it is "abitrary" (and silly). There is a significant difference between the two; it does not escape notice that your version of "neutrality" would inevitably put the Arabic name of every single Israeli city first. As for Jerusalem, Yerushalayim is by far the older name, the one which the English name is based on, and the name preferred by a large majority of its inhabitants. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, listen to yourself, must every article become a soapbox? You make a statement that "the entire world" declares thus and such and then you really believe you are being reasonable and working toward consensus and neutral language in these articles? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't give a fig whether the order is alphabetical or historical, but I urge all concerned in this silly revert war to avoid reverting to Kuratowski's Ghost's unquestionaly non-neutral phrasing "(Modern Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim, Biblical and trad. Sephardi Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַםִ, known in Arabic as القدس al-Quds". - Mustafaa 23:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. That version is non-neutral; I hadn't noticed the change. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh please, there is nothing non-neutral about it, it makes more sense than listing al-Quds with Modern, Tiberian and Sephardi Hebrew forms of the word Jerusalem as if it too were a form of the word. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Tiberian etc. nonsense has been removed as well. An un-named editor went on a spree a few months ago, trying to insert the reconstructed "Tiberian" form of Hebrew into dozens of articles. At the time the battle to stop it wasn't worth it, but it is now slowly being cleaned up. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask about the other Hebrew scripts and their relevance and why they were being deleted etc, but that has just been answered. Now some quick responses, although we are now definitely repeating ourselves. "Majority of the inhabitants" does not apply in this case. Israeli sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem is not recognized, and Israeli settlement there after 1967 is illegal. To claim alphabetical order as silly is ridiculous, considering how widely it is used in all manner of listings. MPerel: Please note that this is a TALK section and no "soapbox" language has been inserted intot he the article, at least, not by me. Can you deny the fact that every nation in the word refuses to recognize Israeli occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem? Do you deny that the UN has repeatedly declared Israeli settlement in all post 1967 territories as illegal? What exactly is false and outrageous about those facts?

The last time we had a situation like this there was a flood and only the one guy in a boat with the minority position survived ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 10:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are central to rebut the reasoning that "majority of the inhabitants" use such and such name. If Jordan invaded and annexed Tel Aviv tomorrow, and moved 500,000 Arabs there and started calling the city "Arabpolis" or something, that doesn't mean it would stand and be accepted. Kuratowski's Ghost: Regarding your edit summary "I can keep this up all of eternity" First, I'm pretty sure you are as mortal as the rest of us. Second, it's terribly counterproductive to turn this into a personal contest of wills. How about you assume I'm reverting as a matter of considered oppinon and I'll do the same for you. --AladdinSE 09:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

There are Ethiopian Jews in Jerusalem, since majority is secondary to alphabetic order I would like to see the Amharic name up there as well listed before Arabic. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Jordan invaded and annexed Tel Aviv tomorrow, and moved 500,000 Arabs there and started calling the city "Arabpolis", Wikipedia would probably list the city under this name. Here are are a few precedences:

• Kaliningrad - invaded and annexed by the Soviet Union, and settled by Russians. "Königsberg" isn't even mentioned in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article.
• Nablus - named thus after invaded and settled by Romans, then Arabs. Original Hebrew name only mentioned after Arab name.
• Ho Chi Minh City - invaded and annexed by North Vietnam. Wikipedia uses the new name as the article title.

-- uriber 13:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One would guess that if Jordan invaded and annexed Tel Aviv tomorrow, and moved 500,000 Arabs there, they would probably start calling the city "Jaffa". Just a guess. The use of Nablus as an example is incredibly dubious - Nablus is not disputed, and has been called that for millennia now. At any rate, the situation with East Jerusalem is not the same as that with these other cities, because half of it is considered by every other country in the world to be technically part of a potential Palestinian state (or however you want to describe it), and its (legitimate) inhabitants call it Al-Quds. Another difference is that "Kaliningrad," "Nablus," and "Ho Chi Minh City" are all the English names of these cities. Neither Yerushalyim nor al Quds is. Personally, I'd say that Yerushalyim should probably be mentioned first, because it is the basis of the English name, and because there are, at present, more Hebrew-speaking inhabitants than Arabic-speaking ones, but, quite honestly, it really doesn't matter very much. What is unacceptable is Kuratowski's Ghost's attempt to treat the Arabic name as different in kind from the Hebrew name. john k 14:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So by Wikipedia's policy of non-bias I should've pretended that "Al-Quds" is really a form of the word "Jerusalem" along with the English form and Modern, Sephardi and Tiberian Hebrew forms even though in reality it isn't. If the legs are too long for the bed cut them off, if they're too short stretch them using a rack, as long as they are made to fit the bed :P Kuratowski's Ghost 15:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in agreement regarding the issue currently being discussed here (Yerushalayim or Al-Quds first). Given that, I'll spare you my rebuttal regarding Kaliningrad etc. -- uriber 15:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Due to personal circumstances, I was involuntarily called away from wikipedia and virtually all my other hobbies and interests at the end of April 2005, and was forced to abandon this Talk discussion virtually in mid sentence. Instead of inviting many groans and grumbles by returning the alphabetical listing to the article, I think a very splendid compromise would be to insert an etymological note on the Hebrew origins of the English name "Jerusalem" either into the introduction or the "Name" section. Specifically that Jerusalem is a derivative of Yerushalyim. I really do think that most people take it for granted that alphabetical listings are common and proper and I am concerned that when they see Hebrew listed first without a note on etymology, then it smacks of POV. Does anyone feel up to inserting a brief sentence or two to this effect? If it were left up to me I would only manage a very monotonous "Jerusalem" comes from the Hebrew original, "Yerushalyim." --AladdinSE 08:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Magharba quarter / slum

The article originally mentioned the slum near the Western Wall that was demolished. The current wording of the article (by an anonymous editor 64.81.54.23 who has been consistently editing the article to downplay mention of Jewish sentiments towards Jerusalem) creates the false impression that this Magharba quarter was somehow an historically important area that Israelis destroyed without any regard. When I added in that the area was dilapidated this was reverted on the grounds that it doesn't jibe with descriptions of the quarter. How does "dilapidated" not jibe with the common description of the area as a "slum"? Kuratowski's Ghost 01:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Magharba quarter was, indeed, a historically important area. See Nur Masalha's description: "Its inhabitants, about 1,000 persons, were the beneficiaries of an ancient and important Islamic Waqf foundation originally established in 1193 by al-Malik al-Afdal, the son of Salah al-Din. Its obliteration in June 1967 also resulted in the destruction of several historic religious sites (including two mosques, two zawiyas and a great number of Waqf residences) which the quarter contained." The allegedly common description of the area as a slum appears to be exclusively used by Israelis in attempting to justify its destruction. - Mustafaa 20:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this is subjective, most of the old city still looks like a slum to people from my part of the world :) but perhaps the article should note both points of view. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so. - Mustafaa 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vague phrases

"The lives of some of the foremost rabbis (scholars and leaders) in the history of Judaism are intertwined with the gradual rebuilding of Jerusalem following its desolation at the hands of the Roman Empire." What exactly does this mean? I thought Jews weren't allowed back into the city until the 5th century, by which time it had long since been rebuilt. Perhaps a concrete example could be substituted. - Mustafaa 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means either, but I'm pretty sure Jews were living there again by the 4th century. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If so, Jerusalem#First_millennium should be edited accordingly... - Mustafaa 05:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going on memory here, but I think they returned unofficially in the 4th century, and legally by the 5th. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other Arabic name

Is Darussalaam can be regarded as an Arabic cognate of the Hebrew Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) as it means the same. Is this Arabic /d/ a reflect of the Hebrew /y/? Thanks! Meursault2004 20:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

How the state of isreal was formed?

I read the article and found the history part of Jerusalem very interesting. However, I felt there is something missing. I could not find anything about the history of the state of Isreal. The section simply ends at the british conquest in 1917. But later on in the article picks up again with the history overveiw of the UN resolotion in 1947 and the palestenians-Israely conflict in 1948. I would like to know more about the period in between!

"Jerusalem of Gold" (Yerushalayim shel zahav)

"written in celebration": Wikipedia's article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerushalayim_Shel_Zahav%2C_%28song%29_%28Jerusalem_of_Gold%29 and other sources indicate it was originally performed some weeks before the 1967 War. Michael

My first time here, please excuse any mistakes or problems... Part of the song is a lament

for Jerusalem as it is under Jordanian rule - "the market square is empty" etc., and more was

added later after the 6-day war. This much is pretty much general knowledge here and can be

seen to some extent from the lyrics.

Rachel/Athaclena --192.115.26.123 09:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of the Christians in Jerusalem were UN officials???!!

the article stated that: Christian access to the Western Wall and the Temple Mount was allowed in many cases, but this was seldom in use, as most of the Christians in Jerusalem were UN officials running between the divided parts

This is not true, christians have always been residents of jerusalem and they have their own qurter too, Arab christians and arminians had and still make a significant portion of the residents of the old city in jerusalem, before and after 1948 and 1967 wars !! and claiming that (olmost) only UN officials were visiting the christian holy sites is so untrue! since the UN officials number couldnt exceed a couple of hundreds MAX , and nothing was mentioned about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest place for christians in this very paragraph !! This paragraph gives the impression that there are no christians in jerusalem or at least "very very very few"--Mayz 20:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes you make a good point. But I think what the author meant was West Jerusalem. I think these people you mention all lived in East Jerusalem (correct me if I am wrong). Meursault2004 07:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The majority of Arab Christians lived in East Jerusalem but quite a number lived in West Jerusalem too. There were also non-Arab Christians like Armenians. The claim that they were outnumbered by UN officials is ridiculous. --Zero 09:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In that case let's modify this sentence. Meursault2004 09:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it. We need a justification for even the first part. Since Christians don't have an extraordinary interest in the Western Wall or the Temple Mount, it is unclear why the issue is worth mentioning. --Zero 09:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The name "Jerusalem"

"According to the Book of Samuel it was given the name "Jerusalem" (Hebrew Yerushaláyim) by King David" -- Where in the Book of Samuel is this? I can only find the place where King David called it the "City of David". By the way, the "name" section is about to get replaced by something closer to encyclopedic standards. --Zero 08:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't find it either, seems that it is only in commentary on Samuel not in Samuel itself, so it should go or be changed to say that according to the book of Samuel he called it the City of David".

Do you know of anywhere in the Bible itself where a meaning or origin of the name "Jerusalem" is given? I know there are plenty of such places in later literature. --Zero 12:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The apostle Paul shows that “Peace” is the true meaning of the latter half of the name. (Hebrews 7:2) NWT: "2 and to whom Abraham apportioned a tenth from all things, is first of all, by translation, “King of Righteousness,” and is then also king of Sa´lem, that is, “King of Peace.”" Further, the Hebrew spelling of this latter half suggests a dual form, hence “Twofold Peace.” In Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) texts the city was called Urusalim (or Ur-sa-li-im-mu). On this basis some scholars give the meaning of the name as “City of Peace.” But the Hebrew form, which logically ought to govern, apparently means “Possession (Foundation) of Twofold Peace.” --Family Guy Guy How do I enter comments without having to manually edit???

(a) The apostle Paul was not an authority on ancient names that preceeded him by more than 1400 years. (b) Since at least the "Salem" part of the name predated the Hebrew language, and also predated Jewish control of the city, it is certainly not "logical" to favor Hebrew interpretations, especially if these interpretations are highly speculative as these are. --Zero 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "something closer to encyclopedic standards" be careful of outdated views and shoddy 19th century / early 20th century scholarship like the idea that it is named after an unattested Canaanite god of peace etc. or that the uru salim of the Amarna letters is the origin when in fact Uru does not match Jeru- phontically. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I spent most of a day reading research monographs and archaeology journals on these subjects, so I know what the scholarly consensus is. Shalem is very well attested as a deity in multiple ancient sources and I didn't find a single dissent from that opinion. Furthermore, the identification of Urusalim in the Amarna letters with Jerusalem is generally accepted as fact (again, I didn't find a single dissenter though there is an opinion that it wasn't really a city then). I can provide copious modern references. --Zero 12:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No one is denying that Urusalim is Jerusalem, the article says as much. The denial is that the "Jeru-" of the name "Jerusalem" comes from Uru in Urusalim. Shalim is attested as a divine personfication of sunset/dusk, not as a god of peace worshipped in Jerusalem who gave his name to the city as one finds in online factoids. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization (Again)

I attempted a reorganization of the history section, as the history of Jerusalem was scattered in different areas, and was a cause of complaint (see some of the comments above). I tried to be uncontroversial and made no real xhanges to the text. We still need to add to the history of the Mandate period, though. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I added the Mandate period and finished the history section -- no reverts, and a good edit from Mustafaa, so I am happy. I have also reorganized the rest (nothing was cut!). The idea was to make the headings sensical. I reorganized the religious importance of Jerusalem section, so it is now in order of the chronology of the religions (except Mandeanism, which I think should be trimmed, it is almost as long as the Islam entry!), this is because each section references the previous religions. I also added some short summaries to the demography and places section. I think it flows a lot better now, but am open to comments. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The religion section is definitely problematic. I suspect the "Rabbis and Jerusalem" needs looking over by someone better versed in the subject than I am, and I know the Jerusalem in Islam section needs expansion. However, I think the Mandaean section is worth keeping in full (though of course I would, having written it); it offers an interesting counterpoint to the other three, and Mandaeanism is, as far as I know, the only other religion of any significant age that gives Jerusalem a special role. - Mustafaa 02:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's fine on the Mandaeans, though perhaps you could cut out some scriptural references to the Ginza Rba? It seems unlikely that people will need to look up the details, and the article has a lot of scriptural references already (and is pretty long!). I agree that the "Rabbis and Jerusalem" section is incoherent. I'll let the article sit for a couple of days, and, if no one else does, I will take a crack at it. I am afraid of making any substantive changes to the text until I know everyone is comfortable with the reorganization. It would also be great if someone helped organize the Christianity section; its written clearly, and chronologically, but it feels jumpy and makes it difficult to understand the present significance, as opposed to the history, of Jerusalem to Christians. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll consider ways of improving the Jerusalem in Islam section as well - [6] will be useful there. - Mustafaa 22:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And a question - some sources I have read indicate that Jerusalem began to decline in importance during the Abbasid dynasty, not after the crusades, as in this example. The argument goes that after the earthquake of 747, except for the Al Alqsa mosque, the city was never fully repaired and power shifted to Baghdad, though Jerusalem remained a pilgrim destination, it was also a backwater. I know there are quotes from Muslim travelers talking about Jerusalem during the Abbasid reign, but was wondering if you had any further information on what the status was during this period. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly power shifted to Baghdad from Damascus; however, "backwater" implies more than just a lowered political importance, and the three geographers mentioned in that section describe a proud and flourishing Abbasid town. Immediately before the crusades, under the Seljuks, Jerusalem became a particular centre for intellectual/theological activity, with Al-Ghazali writing his greatest work there, and Ibn Arabi studying there, among a number of other notable figures. - Mustafaa 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When Jerusalem first got a Muslim majority. Earlier I inserted "8-9th centuries" but since I cannot currently recall where I read that I changed it to the more conservative "by the time of the Crusades". The latter is well attested by the eye-witness accounts of the Crusaders (there were many more Muslims than Jews to be slaughtered). If my single remaining memory neuron is correct, this is also clear from Jewish letters in the Cairo Geniza. --Zero 05:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Capital

Jhon Den Hauge is the capital of the Netherlands even though that the main center is Amsterdam.

Etymology of the name

Ramalite, where did you get that stuff? It is nothing more than wild speculation based on religious wishful thinking and the scientific evidence does not support it. At least the "shalem" part of the name predates the Hebrew presence, so deriving it from Hebrew is very doubtful. Moreover, there is good evidence (eg from the Aramaic) that the original pronunciation was Yerushalem not Yerushalayim, so the source of the ending -ayim has to be sought in the development over time rather than in the origins. The academic literature is almost unanimous in deriving '"shalem" from the Canaanite god of that name, and there are two main theories about "yeru". However, most experts would admit that the origin is not proven beyond doubt. --Zero 12:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

My source for part of what I added is here. I heard Rabbi Landau speak a few years ago and was impressed by what I thought was a unique definition. Although Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek, and being welcomed/blessed by him is documented, I'm not sure where Landau got the part about Yireh, but I assumed it is the Midrash, and thus not his OR (and definitely not mine) which is why I thought to include it here. If Landau is actually just speculating, then I guess people can deal with my entry in whatever way they like; I won't mind (terribly:) ) Ramallite ^(talk) 19:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What it says in the article is fairly well known commentary on the passage in Genesis. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

But we can say with confidence that the English word Jerusalem is a derivative of the Hebrew Yerushalayim, yes? This of course does not prejudice the debate about the origins of Yerushalayim, it only talks of how the English word was derived. --AladdinSE 13:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

We can say that the English word comes from the Hebrew word, certainly, but not necessarily from the form Yerushalayim. More likely through the Christian tradition which goes back to before the form Yerushalayim was adopted. I was just reading George Adam Smith's enormous old book on Jerusalem, almost 100 years old, and he says this: "The English spelling of the name Jerusalem--which is common to many modern languages--was derived from the Authorised Version of 1611 AD, through the Vulgate, from the Greek Ierousalem, and approximates to what was in all probability the earlier pronunciation in Hebrew, Yerushalem." As far as I know, that is still the going opinion on the English form. Smith's chapter on the name can be read here (PDF). Of course it is very dated. One thing that has changed in the last 97 years is that the status of Shalem (in whatever spelling) as a deity is now well established. Not just as a "personification" of something as our article meekly says, but as a deity that sacrifices were made to. --Zero 13:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you give a reference for this? Kuratowski's Ghost 14:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Shalem appears on Ugarit offering lists (lists of deities to whom offerings were made). --Zero 14:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
(1) Gray, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 8, No.2 (1949), p74: "Both [Shahar and Shalem] appear, however, in offering lists from Ras Shamra [Ugarit] as deities, though again there is no indication of their nature."; (2) Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit (1998), footnote p324: Shalem appears on pantheon lists and sacrificial lists. Ditto p325: Shalem was the god of the dusk or the god of the evening star; "opinion varies on this". More comments below. --Zero 10:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Aah ok, but there is still no evidence of worhip of Shalim in Jerusalem. By "personification" in the article I meant divine personification, will clarify. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Smith quote seems like just the sort of brief explanation into the origins of the English pronunciation/name, which I believe is necessary to avoid the appearance that Hebrew is being given undue precedence over Arabic in the list of scripts. Such a note on Etymology of "Jerusalem" in the into or the Origin section would satisfy the earlier qualms about neutral listing. --AladdinSE 08:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I propose to reorganize the etymology section in this order: (a) the historical evidence and the opinion of scientific scholars, (b) traditional views and the opinions of religious scholars, (c) the English name. Since I have rediscovered my notes about (a), I volunteer to write the first draft of that. --Zero 11:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem with this unless "scientific scholars" is a euphemism for religiously atheistic modernist or post-modernist idealogues ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 13:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You can see it taking shape at User talk:Zero0000/temp. It isn't finished yet as I'm waiting for my library to find a couple of sources that seem important. --Zero 16:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Map

Hi, it would be cool if someone could load up a map, where one can see what "Jerusalem" means for Arabs or Israelis - ergo: where are the boarders (pre and post Jerusalem Law), which nationalities live where, where is the fence/wall... I unfortunately wouldn't know where to find sources. Thanks--128.139.226.36 11:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa_Mosque

The article states that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur'an. But it is important to the topic to say that Al-Aqsa Mosque (which is the heart of Jerusalem) is mentioned in the Qur'an in (17:1) as the beginning point in the Isra and Miraj journey by the Prophet Mohammad.Hamadamas 19:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The "farthest Mosque" (al-masjid al-Aqsa) is what is mentioned in verse (17:1) of the Qur'an:

Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless (Yusuf Ali's translation)

This is interpreted to mean Jerusalem, but the city is not mentioned by name, and the original Al Aqsa mosque was not built until 710 in any case. All of this is explained in the article, under the Jerusalem and Islam section of the article. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned there, yes. But to say that Jerusalem is not in the Qur'an needs further clarification. Because saying this suggests a lesser importance to Jerusalem in Islam. Whereas it is evident that the place where Mohammad (pbuh) went to is Jerusalem and no other city.Hamadamas 20:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The article states: "Although the Qur'an does not mention the name "Jerusalem", the hadith specify that it was from Jerusalem that Muhammad ascended to heaven in the Night Journey, or Isra and Miraj." This is accurate, and does not seem to underemphasize the role of Jerusalem in Islam, nor does it say anything about the claim being inaccurate. Besides, there is a large section Jerusalem#Jerusalem in Islam all about the role it plays in Islam, the other sentence is simply in the history section. What would your proposed language be? Saying that Jerusalem is mentioned by name (as your edit did) is inaccurate. Goodoldpolonius2 20:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Please.. My edit did not say that Jerusalem was mentioned by name. It only said that Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa is in Jerusalem. I beleive this as a fact. don't you?Hamadamas 20:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Jerusalem is also mentioned in other places in the Qur'an, also not by name, but it is known as a fact that Jerusalem is the subject of speech. Like when mentioning Solomon and "The Holy Land". Hamadamas 20:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hamadamas, the issue I had with your change was the link to Al-Aqsa Mosque, the physcial place first constructed in 710. The mosque was built after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, it was not pre-existing. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A small deviation from the subject, but do you think it is worth noting that Jerusalem is also not mentioned in the Torah?--Doron 08:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The city of Salem mentioned once in Bereshit is usually (but not by all scholars) identified with Jerusalem. I think that's the only mention, and it would be fine to say that. --Zero 12:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is only true of you use Torah in the narrow sense of the Pentateuch, if you use Torah with its typical meaning in Judaism of the entire Tanakh and Talmud then Jerusalem is mentioned thousands of times. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

So one can say that Jerusalem is not mentioned by its name in neither the Koran nor the Torah, but they contain references to places associated with Jerusalem, and it is mentioned by its name in other religious texts of Judaism and Islam. Correct?--Doron 12:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Misleading. Its not mentioned as "Jerusalem" in the Chumash because it wasn't called Jerusalem at that time covered by the narrative, it is directly mentioned as Salem. In the Torah as a whole (Written Torah = Tanakh +Oral Torah = Talmud) it is mentioned thousands of times. It is not mentioned directly in the Koran and the Hadith has substantially less references than the Torah. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Misleading? Where is it supposed to lead? You admit (I assume) that what I say is correct, so what's the problem? What's the point you're trying to make?--Doron 17:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on era

Let's not talk about it; let's simply vote. We know the whys and wherefors, and we know that MoS does not say anything definite about this yet. Let the consensus here be binding until MoS has a guideline. The question: should this article use BC/AD or BCE/CE?

• BCE/CE --Gareth Hughes 19:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• BCE/CE 6SJ7 17:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• BCE/CE --Briangotts (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

jguk has already conceded that changing the article to BC/AD was an error, so the war appears to be over. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I had to vote, and I don't since I'm a day late and a dollar short, I would vote for BC/AD, simply because it's the generally-used terminology, and Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, even the Jerusalem article.Tommstein 22:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Year of Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem

Didn't the Babylonians destroy Jerusalem in 587 BC, instead of 586? Nebuchadrezzar's 18th regnal year went from 587 to 586, if I remember correctly, and Babylonian years started around March or so. Thus, if Jerusalem was destroyed in October of his 18th regnal year, it would have still been 587. October 586 would have been in his 19th regnal year. Or am I just wrong about something?Tommstein 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I think you are wrong about it being October. It was in the tenth day of the tenth month, according to Kings. That is, the tenth month of the Jewish/Babylonian calendar, not the tenth month of our calendar. That is to say, Tevet/Tebetu. This would be either December 587 or January 586. But I'm not sure if that's all that is going on. john k 04:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Added point - this is going based on the dates in the Book of Kings. But Jeremiah gives a different date - he says the tenth day of the fifth month in Nebuchadrezzar's 19th year. The previous date - the 10th day of the 10th month, is given by Jeremiah as the beginning of the siege. The tenth day of the 5th month of Nebuchadrezzar's 19th year is quite clearly in 586 BC. Jeremiah's account is also considerably more detailed, and generally considered to be early - it gives the more accurate "Nebuchadrezzar" rather than the less accurate "Nebuchadnezzar." john k 04:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about those months? 2 Kings 25:1 gives day 10 of month 10 of year 9 of someone's reign (presumably Zedekiah's, since otherwise that was one long fricking siege) for the beginning of the siege, and 25:2, 3 have the siege ending on day 9, month 4, year 11 of Zedekiah. 25:8 has the whole joint being burned down on day 7, month 5, year 19 of Nebuchadrezzar (we'll assume the accession year was counted as year 1, because otherwise we have a whole different problem). 25:25 talks about more stuff going down in month 7.

Jeremiah says pretty much the same thing. Jeremiah 39:1 says that in month 10, year 9 of Zedekiah, the siege started. 39:2 says that on day 9, month 4, year 11 of Zedekiah, the city was breached. 41:1 talks about Gedaliah getting whacked in month 7. Jeremiah 52 seems to say about the same thing.

Jewish years started in March-April too. So regardless of whose calendar was being used, month 4 was something like June-July (not October, which I ignorantly said previously). The only question is which regnal year of Nebuchadrezzar this all went down during. The number I generally remember reading is his 18th regnal year. If the Jews didn't use the accession year system, and I don't think they did, his 19th year to a Jew would have been his 18th regnal year to everyone else. So I'm thinking it was during June-July or so of 587. Of course, the Jews that said it was his 19th year could have possibly been taking into account accession and regnal years, but I'm not sure how we can know for sure either way; if they meant his 19th regnal year, then obviously that would be 586. I haven't looked elsewhere in the Bible though to see if anyone said it was during his 18th year.Tommstein 09:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha - I was confused about all the dates. I still think that if they say "19th year of Nebuchadrezzar", they are basically saying, well, year 19 of Nebuchadrezzar, as understood by the Babylonians - why would the Jews use their own dating methods for a foreign king? At any rate, I've seen both years used, probably on this basis. john k 18:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Upon doing a little further research, it turns out that Jeremiah 52:29 talks about Nebuchadrezzar taking captives in his 18th year. Earlier in that chapter, at 52:12, it talks about the joint getting burned down in the 19th year. 52:4-6 talks about the siege going from Zedekiah's 9th to 11th year. It would thus seem that either 1) that chapter of Jeremiah contradicts itself blatantly, 2) the 19th year is from a non-accession system, while the 18th year is from the accession system, or 3) Nebuchadrezzar somehow took captives during that middle, full year of the siege, and Jeremiah then neglects to mention him taking captives once he actually captured the city. I don't know which option to favor, not that my opinion would make a difference. Option 2 seems hard to get comfortable with, considering that it's the same exact fricking chapter, although the latter part could have been composed later, once the author was more accustomed to 'the Babylonian way.' Option 3 seems difficult to accept too. Which would leave option 1, but that would be a whopper of a contradiction, which was for some reason never fixed or anything. Option 2 is the most popular one among those that study the Bible (heck, I just made the other two options up myself), but it's impossible to say for sure which of these scenarios is the correct one.

I think there's other stuff that can help with this, relating to Amel-Marduk releasing Jehoiachin or whoever it was from prison, but that's for later/another day/never.Tommstein 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, some scholars have definitely given 586 BC as the date - Thiele and Galil, for instance, both do, according to our Kingdom of Judah article (Albright gives 587 BC). For the purposes of this article, we ought to just give 587/6 BC as the date. Beyond that, I really would be interested in figuring out what arguments scholars have made on this issue. I don't think there are any Babylonian records which would clarify the issue. john k 15:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I came here sure that it was 587, based on thinking that it was known to have occurred during Nebuchadrezzar's 18 regnal year, but now, I don't know. If only we could find the Babylonian Chronicle for those years.... I'm gonna change this on another page where I said it was 587 too.Tommstein 08:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just read Galil's discussion of this subject in his The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Basically, everyone knows that Jerusalem fell the first time, and Jehoiachin was deposed, on 2 Adar of Nebuchadrezzar's year 7. This would be March 16, 597. It also appears that all scholars believe that Judah at this point used post-dating (that is, accession year followed by year 1), rather than ante-dating. (Given that the Babylonians also used post-dating, this would argue against your theory that the discrepancy is due to the author of Kings using an ante-dating scheme for Nebuchadrezzar's reign) According to Galil, prior to him, scholars were divided on when the new year began for the Judaeans. Those who thought it began 1 Nisan had Zedekiah's accession year as just the month before the new year, and his year 1 as the year beginning 1 Nisan 597. This makes his 11th year the one beginning on 1 Nisan 587, so Jerusalem is destroyed in 587. To get around the problem of this being in Nebuchadrezzar's year 18, rather than 19, they say that Nebuchadrezzar had a different count in the west, beginning in 606 BC rather than 605. Those who said that the new year began on 1 Tishri have Zedekiah's year 1 begin only on 1 Tishri 597. This makes Zedekiah's year 11 begin in fall 587, and the end of the siege in 586. This fits with year 19 of Nebuchadrezzar, but I think it screws around with Jehoiakim's dates, since it forces us to make his reign one year longer (I think). Galil proposes, instead, that the new year began on 1 Nisan, but that the Judaean and Babylonian calendars were, in 597 BC, separated by about a month, so that 2 Adar in the Babylonian calendar was actually 2 Nisan in the Judaean calendar. This means that Zedekiah's year 1 doesn't begin until 1 Nisan 596 BC. His year 11 is then the year beginning 1 Nisan 586 BC, and temple is destroyed in Ab of 586 BC. john k 16:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have time to research this very much at this time (as the length of time it took me just to write this response attests to). But from considering that in far less depth than it deserves, the obvious question that comes to mind is, how do they explain the reference to this happening in Nebuchadrezzar's 18th year at Jeremiah 52:29, a mistake in the Bible?Tommstein 08:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

To Ramallite

Don't lecture me. 6SJ7 03:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL :) Ramallite ^(talk) 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Born in Jerusalem

To shorten this long article without affecting its quality, I'm thinking of moving this list into either a List of people born in Jerusalem or Category:Born in Jerusalem. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd favor a category, but a list would be ok too. --Zero 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am against moving the list. This article is too politicized. It should have more content as this. I suggest keeping the names in the article reorganizing it in two columns. I favor the category. gidonb 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro section

I have again edited the last sentence of the first paragraph (the one about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, which it is) to acknowledge that there is a dispute about Israel's right to have its capital there, while removing the irrelevant information about what other countries recognize or don't recognize. I have also deleted the sentence about the "law" supposedly passed to declare Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state. Reading the article cited as a source reveals several discrepancies with the sentence that was in the article. Once it is corrected, a place could be found for it lower down in the article. A fact that is this trivial does not belong in the introduction. 6SJ7 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"sacred fire of jerusalem"

Anyone ever heard of the "sacred fire of jerusalem"?

http://www.mosnews.com/interview/2005/12/06/kgbchief.shtml

The Holy Fire is believed by Orthodox Christians to be a miracle that occurs every year at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Holy Saturday, the day preceding Orthodox Easter.

Split to History of Jerusalem

I am requesting that the History section have its own page. The current Jerusalem page is over 70kb long; moving the History section to its own page would cut down on the size of this article. joturner 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Give it a short lead in the Jerusalem article, and split it off. Tomer^talk 10:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, the section has been spun off to History of Jerusalem (whence it appears much of the content actually was at one point)... Please touch up my "intro".  :-) Tomer^talk 06:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Split to Jerusalem in Religion

Given that the article is twice the recommended upward article size, I'm recommending that this section also be spun off. The Jerusalem article has sufficient potential for growth on its own, and both the History of Jerusalem and my proposed Jerusalem in Religion splits have the potential to grow to 32k themselves... Given the size of both of the current proposed "split-off" sections vis-à-vis the size of the present article without both of them, I think this additional split proposal will give all 3 articles the ability to grow for some time without much editorial conflict or repetition. Gedächte? Tomer^talk 10:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, definitely a good idea. Palmiro | Talk 14:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but call it Religious significance of Jerusalem to parallel similar titles. JFW | T@lk 14:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, the section has been spun off to Religious significance of Jerusalem ... Please touch up my "intro".  :-) Tomer^talk 06:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

BBC website - Status of the City

The BBC website is more impartial than the other 3 in the section 'Status of the city'. It is relevant and was removed without reason by User:Rich Farmbrough. If any websites should be removed from this section, the 3 'biased' ones should go, not this one. Discuss. MP (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem (capital or not)

I've removed the sentence which people seem to be fighting over. The issue is discussed in more detail in the article. MP (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I never read the archived talks specifically about this topic! - Will revert back. MP (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of reading through all the discussions, it would really help if someone who has been discussing this 'Jerusalem is Israel's capital' issue for a while could update me on the situation. Thanks. MP (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam, can you please write your comments more coherently; you wrote on my talk page, "no not better as I think that there was a time in which it was not it's capital but it has always wanted it to be and it is" I don't agree with the last 3 words of that quote (and neither do many nations), so what you said there is incorrect. If Israel says that Jerusalem is it's capital, that don't make it so, as many countries don't recognise the occupation of East Jerusalem as illegal. It's ambiguous. MP (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now changed the last sentence of the first paragraph to the version that I wrote back on October 11: "The State of Israel has its capital at Jerusalem, although its right to do so is disputed." Let me explain why. When I first saw this article in October, I found that the issue of Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel had been a subject of very bitter controversy, edit/revert wars, etc. for a considerable period. There was so much discussion that it had an archived talk page all its own. The sentence in the first paragraph about Jerusalem as capital was horrible -- I do not remember what it said, but it was anti-Israel POV. After first writing my own sentence, approximately "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," and seeing it reverted or edited back to something ridiculous, I proposed a new compromise (same as quoted above, which as of right now is what the article says.) I felt that this capsulized the situation, while introducing the "dispute" which was (and is) detailed further down in the article. Sometime after that, someone else came along and removed the second half of the sentence, so it just said "The State of Israel has its capital at Jerusalem." That solution, either the complete sentence I wrote back on October 11, or the shortened version, has been in place for most of the past almost-3-months, with a few exceptions in which there were some minor edit battles. (They did not rise to the "war" level.) Now, someone has questioned the syntax of "The State of Israel has its capital at Jerusalem," rather than "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." I acknowledge that the sentence structure is not ideal, but I did that for a reason. In my opinion, the two mean the same thing, but the indirect phrase "has its capital" was intended to at least placate (if not satisfy) the anti-Israel POV-ers, by implying that Israel had acted unilaterally in declaring Jerusalem as its capital. As I said, it does mean the same thing as "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." MP says that just because Israel says Jerusalem is its capital does not make it so, and if that was all that has happened, MP would be correct. However, in addition to Israel's declaration, Israel actually does have the headquarters, seat or what-have-you of all the branches of its government in (or in the "softer" phrase that I used, "at") Jerusalem. Those two facts, the declaration and the actual location of the government institutions, together, make Jerusalem the capital. The fact that many other nations choose to have their embassies elsewhere, which is a great point of contention on the archived talk page, really is irrelevant, but in any event the phrase "its right to do so is disputed" covers that. Note, the location of the capital is not in dispute, what is in dispute is only the right, or legality, or whatever, of Israel having it there. But it is there. 6SJ7 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Municipal emblem at the top of the article

I had previously moved this emblem to the section "Status as Israel's capital" where I gathered it would be more neutral/relevant, since the status of all this is disputed. It has been moved back. Do people really think it's neutral to have it at the top? Just curious.... Ramallite ^(talk) 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that would be a better position. Also, I have edited the intro to mention Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. Palmiro | Talk 14:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to further national and international politization of this article, by all parties. This is a symbol of the local governement in Jerusalem. The article is already far too political and tells very little about the city and its people. gidonb 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When a city is contested between two parties, putting the municipal symbol adopted by one party (or, if you like, the symbol of the local government established in Jerusalem by a party whose right to do so is contested) at the top of the article is itself a pretty political act. If you do indeed object to the politicization of the article, I would suggest that taking it out or moving it to a more appropriate location would be a good first step to combatting that. Palmiro | Talk 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The municipality of Jerusalem pipes shit of people's houses and does another few things. There is only one such authority in Jerusalem. Therefor its symbol is an excellent description of the current situation in Jerusalem. You are of course welcome to take this into a political direction, but that was what I was trying to get away from. Your introduction "When a city is contested between two parties" says it all. gidonb 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are missing the point. Just because one side controls Jerusalem doesn't make its symbolism neutral. Palmiro | Talk 14:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Among the "another few things" the municipality does is routinely demolish Palestinian homes because of lack of permits [7][8][9][10] (sorry, you won't find these stories on CNN). The municipality is responsible for issuing building permits, and routinely (and admittingly) denies them to non-Jews. It is responsible for the overcrowding of the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem because of denial of new housing permits, and the lack of basic services (including shit-piping) to Palestinian homes already built. It has also been criticized for not having any Palestinian council members, but that is because most Palestinians don't vote in municipal elections precisely because they do not recognize its authority over them which has done more harm than good. So those who want to argue that the emblem at the top is NPOV also need to think of a better reason to do so. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The City of Jerusalem demolishes illegal structures built by Jews and Arabs, but you are welcome to include the criticism in the article if it is not there. Understand me, I am not saying that everything is nice and dandy in Jerusalem. Perhaps you've mistaken me for another person, because I feel that the answer was totally detached of me. What I am saying is that the article lacks CONNECTION with the city. This is not a political statement and not about Palestinian or Israeli POV (except the excessive amount of both). I would like to see more economics, demographics, culture, local politics, natural stone buildings, and all other aspects of life in Jerusalem and functioning of the city in the article. I am sure that in every chapter you will add the criticism, which is about the city. With the exception of the chapter on transportation, the current article is almost entirely about the Jerusalem question, NOT about the city. A huge part of the article is about the POV of Israel, the Palestinians, the UN, the US and the UK. I am not blaming this on anyone in particular, everyone here seems to be worked up about these issues, and I am addressing this point to all sides. Lets work together to make this a better article. gidonb 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

See also the comments by 6SJ7 below. The article in its current state is a disgrace for Wikipedia. It is all about international politics, hardly about Jerusalem. gidonb 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay - this conversation was only about the neutrality of the municipal emblem at the top of the article, nothing more. I have no objection to anything you said above, but it's off topic to the heading of this section. You actually ignored the topic of the emblem entirely, so I gather you think it is NPOV where it is? I was just responding to your sentence "Therefore its symbol is an excellent description of the current situation in Jerusalem" - because it is not exactly clear what you mean (nor is saying "The City of Jerusalem demolishes illegal structures built by Jews and Arabs" fair because permits are denied to non-Jews routinely but to Jews very rarely). But I digress - it would be nice for this article to be more about the city itself (although doing it neutrally will be a challenge due to constant POV stances). I must say that I do take slight offense to your stating "I am sure that in every chapter you will add the criticism..." - am I known to you for filling up articles with criticisms??? Maybe it is you who have me mistaken for somebody else?? No, the reason I became active at Wikipedia is to add some humanity to these articles (especially to the Palestinian side which is severely lacking) but I am not in the business of demonizing the Israeli side as many do to the Palestinian side. You'd have a perfectly nice article on a Palestinian city with history and culture and them some knight in shining armor will come and drop in a WHOLE section taken from a deceitful propaganda web site about how that city is infamous because Ahmed the klezmer-hating narcoleptic ice cream vendor was caught at an Israeli checkpoint outside the city carrying a home-made rectal device that can blow up army tanks with high frequency sound waves AND was also carrying two-dozen leaflets calling for a holy war against the Israeli manufacturers of aluminum-plated toilet paper holders. Sorry, I don't do that. Not me. I will NPOV any political / nationalistic Palestinian or Israeli rhetoric I see, and I will also add the Palestinian perspective where it is lacking. But I do not normally go around looking for places where criticisms are warranted and add them; there are plenty enough people who do that sort of thing, and I prefer not to get involved. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Oh and incidentally, this article did at one point have a lot more sections that were not all that political, but they were removed and placed into their own articles (not by me). Ramallite ^(talk) 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you convinced me that you have the same objectives, now lets convince the others that this article really needs a change. With everyone's permission I am going to toss around some texts between the main article and sub-articles. gidonb 23:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Palestinian and I find putting the Emblem of the Israeli municipility of Jerusalem not neutral and not representative of the city. I'm still new and I did not know how to move it, can any one tell me how? We need to put a neutral image, like a view of the old city or so. We do not recognise the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, and thus we do not recognise its instittions there.Fandacomiya, 24, Feb. 2006

Putting the Emblem of Israeli Municipility in the front page introductory to the Jerusalem site is not neutral. The east part of the city is, according to the international law, occupied and thus the UN and the Palestinians do not recognise the occupation authority on east Jerusalem. The emblem is a symbol of the State of Israel. I changed it to a more neutral pic that shows the temple mountain with the dome of the rock and the western wall. Not the perfect pic, I know, but this is the best I found in the free domain in wiki. But the Emblem, on the front page, No No. --Thameen 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian claims/aspirations

The article currently states: "The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as the capital of a future Palestinian state. In 2000 the Palestinian Authority passed a law designating East Jerusalem as such, and in 2002 this law was ratified."

I am not sure as to the basis on which "East Jerusalem" rather than "Jerusalem" is cited here, and it doesn't seem to be borne out by either of the sources given. Certainly, the Palestinians have laid no claim to West Jerusalem and their negotiating position has entirely related to East Jerusalem, but all the legal references are to an unqualified "Jerusalem". Can anyone offer any thoughts/clarifications? Palmiro | Talk 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding the Palestinian position

I have reverted or altered most of the entries that occurred over the past few days regarding the Palestinian position:

• "which has been administered by Israel since 1967 and has large Jewish and Arab populations". This is misrepresentative, as there was a purging of indigenous Palestinian Jews and Arabs from eastern and western Jerusalem by Jordan and Israel respectively. In 1967, there were no Jews in most of East Jerusalem, and those that have since moved there are considered settlers by the international community. Rather than go into all this in the intro, better to just leave it out.
• This talk about the 'official' Palestinian position being that the Palestinian capital should be in the Jerusalem 'urban areas' is mere opinion by a few and not an official position, and I have modified it to be more accurate and NPOV. There is no official (or even unofficial) Palestinian position that excludes the relevant parts of the Old City.
• "reflecting a general aspiration among Palestinians to establish their capital there" is redundant language as it is already mentioned in the sentence before it.
• The paragraph beginning with "Since the late 1990s, a consensus has been developing in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion...." is inaccurate. There is no such consensus that leaves out the Old City at all. This is partly why the Camp David summit on 2000 failed. It is absolutely incorrect to refer to, among other things, the construction of the separation wall within Palestinian areas as reflecting some sort of 'consensus' between the two sides as opposed to a unilateral act by Israel. Nobody disputes that! I have modified this paragraph, deleting a large part of it.

Ramallite ^(talk) 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro and other new texts

The intro of this article has been turned into a terrible mess. I am not necessarily blaming any particular person or any particular "side" (partly because I do not feel like delving into all the different versions and figuring out who made the edits that brought us to this point.) I do not see why it cannot be something much more simple, such as this version [[11]] or this version. [[12]] Both of them were compromises. Either would be much preferable to the current fiasco. I hesitate to just do the edit myself because I know it will just be reverted or otherwise edited by one of the many POV-mongers on this issue. 6SJ7 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, further to 6SJ7's points and the discussion with Ramalite I have made some changes in the intro and in virtually all chapters of this article. We still need many more texts for the article to be about Jerusalem and not about the Jerusalem question. I have dumped these texts temporarily in the article positions on Jerusalem. I am sure that many more discussions on a better name and structure will follow. This is just the beginning. gidonb 09:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not climb on the wall by the deep movements of texts out of the article, I would like to move some texts back, also on the status of Jerusalem (religious, capital, territorial) and the history of Jerusalem. For the history chapter I have not moved anything in or out, as the history article is a mess. Perhaps I will find some better texts for the current status over there. gidonb 10:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have added some more neutral content to the intro. Please do not revert, but continue editing where I stopped. I worked already many hours by now. Further tomorrow. gidonb 10:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry by the way for the many separate edits. The advantage is that one can follow the process, the (greater) disadvantage that there is now one screen with only my edits. Oh well, I think the article has made a long way. I look forward to additions, corrections. gidonb 13:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to this aticle has been changed drastically many times. I myself did edit it few minutes ago. The introduction before I edit it was biased towards the Israeli POV and stressing in a biased way the importance of the city for the Israelis. I did the changes because I did not like that second paragraph in the article. But I think the result is bad and weak. We need a real neutral introduction. Changes and counter changes are no good. I may write a new introduction and see how it goes with others. Or may be some one else car write it.

The reason I did not like the second paragraph are: 1. It mentioned ONLY that Jerusalem was the capital of the ancient Jewish kingdoms. Why mention this in an itroduction? there is a historical section where this can be mentioned. But if we will mention this in the intro, then we need to mention the pre-Israeli and post Israeli political importance of the city. I mentioned the cannanites and the Islamic rule. But the end result is all over weak .

2. It was mentioned that Jerusalem is the holiest place for the Jews, but of "key" importance to other religions. This is not true. It is the holiest place for the Jews. But it is too the Holliest place for the Christians and is the third hoiest place for the muslims, which is more than a "key" importance. I changed that too. But again the result is not very satisfactory to me.

3. Was mentioned that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and east part is disputed. If we skip over the Capital issue, which was deeply discussed, then it is more proper to say that West Jerusalem is the capital, because the government is there and East Jerusalem is occupied. Also if we will mention that Jerusalem is the capital, then we need to mention that the East part is the disputed and the Palestinians have capital claims to it. I changed that too.

But as I said I do not like this very cramped introduction. We need a better one. I do not want to write a one now cuz I know it will be changed soon. I donno. --Thameen 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest host cities?

Do we really need this large and seeminly irrelevent template at the bottom of the article. Hosting the Eurovision Song Contest seems like the least notable thing about Jerusalem. I'll remove it if no one objects. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. being bold and removing it myself Nyh

Year error in history section

In the history section, the sacking by the Romans in 135 BCE does not seem to be in correct cronological order. Maybe it should 135 CE? Please help. --Mihai 16:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

135 CE is correct. ←Humus sapiens ^ну?

The "Israelis Template

I removed the "Israelis" Template from the front of the article because

1. It is large in size and consumes a large part of the introductory space.

2. It provides no information related to Jerusalem.

We better have a small link to Israel portal or to this template at the front, or put large things somewhere in a proper place down. --Thameen 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a common template for Israel. Surely it belongs to the article of the State's capital. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is and I agree 100%. I do not mean offense. But as I said. It is big and in this big frame I do not see any information about Jerusalem. It serves only as a link, so we can put a small link to the Israeli portal there. But to put all this big frame on the chest of the article is no good formating. I do not agree to it staying there. --Thameen 22:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly what do you mean "no good formating"? Does it break format? Only in this article or everywhere it is included? Or you just don't like it here? Sorry, only questions this time. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As a good will gesture, I have moved the template down to section Jerusalem#Jerusalem as Israeli capital. I've also rearranged the images into galleries (and added some more) in hope this would improve the formatting. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Thats very nice indeed. Ur way of doing things makes me like wikipedia. --Thameen 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Light-Rail/Tramway

I've read that the Alstom Citadis will be operating on the new system when it is opened, was a French Tram chosen for political reasons?Myrtone@Jerusalem.com.au

Why would Israel choose products from a country that treats it horribly as part of its foreign policy? What kind of sources do you have to back up your suspicion? JFW | T@lk 16:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Positions on Jersualem

I copied these out of the concise history section where they do not belong. Perhaps they can be used elsewehere. The texts are not mine. gidonb 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

According to an Israeli law from January 1950, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. In 1967, the city was reunified and the Eastern part was separated administratively from the militarily occupied West Bank and annexed to Israel. In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed the Basic Law: Jerusalem — Capital of Israel reaffirming the status of Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and indivisible capital". The UN Security Council Resolution 478 condemned the Jerusalem Law as "a violation of international law" and most countries prefer to keep their embassies in Tel Aviv. According to the United States Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, 1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; 2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; 3) The United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31 1999.

Copied from the intro

To all: Please stop front-loading the contents of this article, there are sections on the status and history of Jerusalem and separate articles as well. This article has a tendency to become extremely politicized and repetitious every time one looks in the other direction. How about expanding the culture for a change? gidonb 22:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem has a long history. Archaeological findings indicate the existence of a settlement in Jerusalem in the 3rd millennium BCE. The first mention of the city in historic sources begins in the 2nd millennium BCE. First built and founded by Canaanite peoples (possibly, but not necessarily the Jebusites who occupied the city during the late Bronze Age), it became the capital of the Jewish kingdoms of Israel, Judah and Judea in the First Temple and Second Temple periods. It continued to be an important city in the Holy Land during the Muslim rule. It is the holiest city of Judaism, and is of special significance to Christianity and Islam.

From 1948 until 1967, the Western part of Jerusalem was administered by Israel as its capital, while East Jerusalem was administered by Jordan. The city was reunited by the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, although its status remains disputed. An Israeli law of 1980 declared Jerusalem to be the 'eternal, undivided' capital of Israel, while East Jerusalem is being claimed as the intended capital of a future Palestinian state. The status of the city's holy places is also disputed.

gidonb, for someone who claims to oppose vandalizing wiki, you made a good job of vandalizing Jerusalem. You are not a 5th grade essay teacher, but a wikipedian, so please have respect for other people's work. The intro for such a complex and detailed article is concise and even-handed. so please stop mass-moving large texts meticulously prepared by other wikipedians with a coarse brush. Or if you like, go and set up a gidonpedia somewhere else, which only you can edit. Monosig 10:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem has a long history. Archaeological findings indicate the existence of a settlement in Jerusalem in the 3rd millennium BCE. The first mention of the city in historic sources begins in the 2nd millennium BCE. First built and founded by Canaanite peoples (possibly, but not necessarily the Jebusites who occupied the city during the late Bronze Age), it became the capital of the Jewish kingdoms of Israel, Judah and Judea in the First Temple and Second Temple periods. Although it never again served as a national capital until modern times, throughout the centuries it continued to be an important city in the Holy Land under Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader and Turkish Ottoman rule. It is the holiest city of Judaism, and is of special significance to Christianity and Islam.

In modern times, it was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 and the seat of government under the British Mandate, from 1917 until 1948. From 1948 until 1967, the Western part of Jerusalem was administered by Israel as its capital, while East Jerusalem was administered by Jordan. The city was reunited by the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, although its status remains disputed. An Israeli law of 1980 declared Jerusalem to be the 'eternal, undivided' capital of Israel, while East Jerusalem is being claimed as the intended capital of a future Palestinian state. The status of the city's holy places is also disputed.

Monosig, I copied your edits here in the hopes that we can add any useful information. Note that the reason for all these moves and reverts is that your intro mostly repeats data already included in other parts of the article. I'm glad that you posted to the Talk page, but note that in order for discussions to be productive, they must be WP:civil. Also, beware of personal attacks. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish mythology"

There is a sentence in the History section that says: "According to Jewish mythology and tradition, Jerusalem was founded by Shem and Ever, ancestors of Abraham." In the separate article History of Jerusalem the exact same subject is rendered as follows: "According to one Jewish tradition, it was founded by Abraham's forefathers Shem and Eber." Even assuming that "mythology" is an appropriate word to use in connection with an existing religion, I do not think the use of "mythology" here is correct. (Other than that, although they are worded differently, the two sentences mean exactly the same thing, though there needs to be one spelling of Eber/Ever, and since the title of his article is Eber, this article probably should use that spelling as well. Also, I don't think the word "one" is necessary in the other article.) "Mythology" (again assuming it would ever be appropriate in this context) implies something theological, supernatural or mystical, which is not the case here. We are talking about two human characters in the Bible, and whether they founded a city, which is apparently what it says in the Midrash (or at least that's what's implied when I click on "tradition" in both sentences, and it takes me to the article on "Midrash.") Shem and Eber may or may not have actually existed, but "mythology" incorrectly implies that we know they didn't. I suppose the word "legend" could be put in there instead of "mythology" and would be slightly more accurate, but I think the word "tradition" handles the issue well enough on its own. "Tradition" tells the reader that we don't really know whether the events described later in the sentence actually occurred or not. So I will either just delete "mythology and", or replace this sentence with the one from the other article, without the word "one," unless anyone objects. 6SJ7 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for housekeeping purposes: This comment has been addressed. The day after my comment, someone made an edit that removes "mythology" and streamlines the whole sentence, which is appopriate given that people wanting more detail can read History of Jerusalem. 6SJ7 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Capital

I just want to explain my edit of just now, that removed a mention of the Jerusalem as capital of Israel from the lead paragraph. Few people have been as insistent as I have that the first paragraph of this article state that Jerusalem is the capital. However, there is no need to say it twice in one paragraph. Whoever keeps putting this fact into the first sentence, please note that this fact is already in the lead, a bit lower down, as part of a sentence that I believe I wrote, which acknowledges that there is a dispute over this designation, while at the same time containing a clear statement that it is the capital. I edited this into the lead months ago as a compromise, and it has help up fairly well. Although a few people have tried to unbalance the sentence, it has always been reverted to its balanced form, usually not by me. The assertion that it is the capital, without acknowledging a dispute, while well-intentioned, always seems to invite a lot of nonsense that results in the fact not being in the lead at all. So I think it's pretty good the way it is right now. 6SJ7 03:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the holiest city to Christians and Christianity

Jerusalem is the holiest city in Christianity

You have put that Jerusalem is the holiest city to Jews, with a special segnificance to Christians and Muslims. Jerusalem dousent just have a significant role in Christianity, it is the holiest city in Christianity.

For this article to be taken seriously something must be said about Jerusalem's importance to Christianity. Unfortunately, the fact that this information was not included from day one indicates a complete lack of respect by not only the writers of the article, but Wikipedia in general. I've noticed errors on this site before, but this is rediculous.--MedievalScholar 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that place called 'West Jerusalem' or 'western Jerusalem'?

Should there not be an article for 'West Jerusalem' in its own right? Surely even irredentist israelis would acknowledge that there existed between, say 1949 and 1967, an urban entity seperate from East Jerusalem? The example of West Berlin suggests that there is a precedent for mainting the historical record for such an entity even after unification (by whatever means). Boldymumbles 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How was it a separate entity, other than the fact that there happened to be an armistice line (a temporary one, as it turned out) running through the city? West Berlin is a bit different not because it was a separate entity, but because of the historical events concerning it. If the Soviets had not built the Berlin Wall, and there had been no need for airlifts, and JFK and Ronald Reagan had not made their famous speeches there, and the Soviets/East Germans had let people cross the border freely, I doubt there would even be a separate article on West Berlin today. Approaching 20 years after reunification, the former separation of the city would probably rate a paragraph in the article on Berlin. 6SJ7 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a separate entity because it was adminstered by a different legal authority (the Israeli state), and effectively existed separate from East Jerusalem as there was little or no traffice or trade between the east and the west. This is correct? Additioanlly, in legal terms the two 'halves' of the city are of different status in international law. While East Jerusalem has, subsequent to 1967 been 'annexed' by Israel (I know there is some debate over the actual technical/legal procedure), and is de facto treated as a part of Israel by the Israeli state, the status of the west of jerusalem is not disputed in the same way. Thirdly, does west jerusalem not deserve its own entry even as a specific part of jerusalem with its own character and peculiarities, much like any other sub-section of any other city in the world? It seems that there is an ideological, non-neutral pov logic to not provide an entry for west Jerusalem, i.e. if no difference is acknowledged then the Israeli claim to the entirety of Jerusalem is presumed.Boldymumbles 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point about Berlin does not seem to back up your argument in any way- ther are a lot of 'ifs'! Things *happen* in cities and the issues that arise out of a city being legally and controversially divided are of historical, encyclopedic interest. If you have a look at the main Berlin article you will see that the 'temporary' division of Berlin still merits four paragraphs, even though, unlike Jerusalem, the current unitary administration of the city is uncontroversial. Boldymumbles 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question, West Jerusalem was not the controlled by Jordan. That point makes us little bit confused that Jerusalem is whether capital of Israel or Palestine. In my opinion, East Jerusalem is in West Bank which is Palestinian Authority, although East Jerusalem is dominated by Israel now. So, Israeli still argued about East Jerusalem to make their own land cause they don't want that city is separated. Before Israel was established, Jordanian occupied West Bank include East Jerusalem. But Palestine is not promised land. But They still have to make compromise on Jerusalem. Which means They need to negotiate with each other(Between Israel and Palestine). But, They have no idea what West Jerusalem is called. Anyways, East Jerusalem is Israel's land I guess. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please make you points clearly and I will address them, I have no idea really what you are trying to say, other than that East Jerusalem is not 'promised land'. Whatever that means. Additionally, anything that is, as you state your 'opinion' should have no place in an encyclopedia. Boldymumbles 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Largest City?

According to the Israel page Jerusalem is Israel's largest city but in terms of population Tel Aviv is larger...could this be clarified?--Vihrea 05:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is talking about the amount of land it takes up. tel aviv take up 50.6 km² while Jerusalem takes up 123 km². Jon513 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, You are right. Jerusalem is largest city in Israel. But many people live in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

When refering to the population of Tel Aviv, it is important to distinguish between Tel Aviv itself, and the whole metropolis, known in Israel as Gush Dan, and abroad simply as Tel Aviv. I think that in some foreign publication the population figures refer to the whole metropolis. Drork 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Jerusalem is Israel's largest city" states that Jerusalem is in Israel - this does not represent a worldwide view. Jebus1 06:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

you're wrong. saying jerusalem is israel's capital and largest city is a fact and should be the opneing sentence like every capital in the world in wikipedia's article. whether that fact fits the international law wishes or not is a seperate question. Amoruso 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Jebus does not have the right or authority to deprive Israel of its sovereign right to establish its capital wherever it wants. There is plenty in the article and elsewhere about the controversy surrounding Jerusalem. --Leifern 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

nicely said, I think that settles it. Also IMO this is simply a matter of style. I looked at almost every capital article on wiki (!) and it all has that opening line of "capital of" and includes "largest city" if it is indeed so . There's no reason to deprive this one article of wiki style on capital articles. Amoruso 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we change the wording so there is no implication of greatest population. And Jebus, just because it may be considered controversial, doesn't mean that it isn't fact. Other people may make claim over the city, but the fact remains that the sovereign State of Israel is currently (and God-willing eternally) in control of an undivided Jerusalem as its eternal capital. I can be as biased as I want in talk pages, right? Valley2city 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Really unhappy about the POV that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it the introduction. I don't think this represents a world wide opinion as only a few countries recognise this (Israel, El Salvador, Costa Rica and US being the only ones I can think of). I therefore believe the strength of the sentence should be reduced to something like Jerusalem is considered to be the capital of Israel or Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city (as worded by the UK foreign office: [UK FCO page on Isreal]) --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I recognise that this is a page of special importance to Jewish history but concerned that this may lead to bias in the article. --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What part of the definition of Capital does Jerusalem fail to meet? Jon513 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Being actually in the country, but my point is that most of the world does not recognise Jerusalem as the capital and therefore this is an opinion (I'm not saying that it isn't the capital nor am I saying that it is - I am saying that is is an opinion that Jerusalem is that capital) --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been debated to death. Pls. see archives. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for those that say Israel has no right to exist, does anyone claim that west Jerusalem is not part of Israel (that is west Jerusalem has been part of Israel since 48)? Jon513 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelavent, if you read the link I put up above (as an example) you will see that the UK doesn't recognise Jerusalem as the capital and therefore it is a POV that Jerusalem is the capital. As Humus says though, been debated to death and we will never reach a consensus. --Ptclark 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem, or at least its western part, is definitely the de facto capital of Israel. Jerusalem is the venue of all nationwide political and administrative activities. Foreign embassadors and delegates have to drive all the way from Tel Aviv (where their embassies are located) to Jerusalem in order to deal with the Israeli government. I think the only exception to that is the Minisry of Defense which is located in Tel Aviv. This reality is not recognized by the international community, which is why the foreign embassies are based in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan and Mevaseret Tzion. This is the reality and this is how it should be described in this article. It is a bit like the status of Northern Cyprus - no country but Turkey recognizes it officially, but no one can deny that there is a functioning state there. drork 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed - but worldwide opinion should be notedJebus1 07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations pages

Please see Israel-Venezuela relations and Israel-New Zealand relations. They could both use the perspectives of Israelis. There appears to be a revived movement to merge the Israel-Ven relations page into Foreign relations of Venezuela so I urge other users to vote against this. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This message belongs to Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics, not here. I took the liberty to copy it over there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Urshalim vs. Al-Quds

The article says that the official Israeli name in Arabic is أورشليم Urshalim. This is not accurate. The name Urshalim is the one used in the Arabic translations of the Bible. The official name in Arabic used by Israeli authorities is أورشليم القدس Urshalim-Al-Quds, i.e. a combination of the Judeo-Christian name and the Muslim name. You can see the use of the official Arabic name here, in the official Arabic site of the Jeruslaem municipality. Drork 21:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume that this silence means agreement to the change? Drork 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We should list both Urshalim and Al-Quds. I agree to that. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. My point is that Urshalim is simply alternative name in Arabic, which is not common except in certain texts. The official Israeli name in Arabic is Urshalim-Al-Quds (see the official municipality website in Arabic I brought above). This coalesced name is indeed unique and used only by Israeli authorities and Israeli official media. Drork 03:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of "Yerushalayim"

The actual meaning of the Hebrew name Yerushalayim is not known. There are several speculations about that. The most convincing one is that the city's name was originally derived from the name of the Canaanite deity Shalim. This way or another, if we wish to avoid speculations, then the interpretation "heritage of peace" or "heritage of Shalim" is very unlikely. Indeed the Hebrew word Yerusha could mean "heritage", however, the name was not coined in Hebrew (it is too ancient), and this "clip-compounding" morphology (allegedly: Yerusha+Shalim >> Yerushalim >> Yerushalayim) is alien to the Semitic morphology. Drork 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation as Yerushalayim is late from the time of the Masoretes, Greek and Latin transliteration suggests that it was pronounced Yerushalem earlier. Yerusha + shalem becoming Yerushalem is very plausible especially if this was a deliberate invention. The name in the Amarna texts was Urshalim which is understandable as cognate of Hebrew Ir-Shalem - City of Shalem / Peace. The later Yerushalem would then be a deliberate alteration or reinterpretation of the name and when names are deliberately altered as opposed to evolving normally any sort of weirdness can happen - just think of English nicknames. Similar deliberate changes to the name are seen later in the Greek form Hierosalem instead of Ierosalem where Iero- has been reinterpreted as Hiero- meaning sacred. And again in Norse Jorsala where -salem has been been reinterpreted as -sala meaning temple/hall again changes that are not normal grammar or evolution. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Capital and largest city

Setting aside for a moment the utter illegality, flagrant immorality, and blatant antisemitism of denying Israel its right to designate its own capital, it is certainly accurate to write that it is Israel's capital, then follow it up with mention of the controversy. The implication of doing otherwise would be to imply that Israel has no capital, which may be the intent of some people, but not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Leifern 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is the offical new intro template for capitals - I changed Tehran too. Iran does not maintain diplomatic relations with either the United States or Israel and has disputes with several more countries, therefore soverignity is disputed. Amoruso 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Legally

Jebus1, end the reverting. It was legal according to Israeli law. We are talking about actions by the State of Israel according to its laws. According to those laws, it was LEGAL. I am also not disputing that Hitler legally killed 6 million Jews. I am also not disputing that Iraq legally confisquated all properties of all Jews it exiled. I am also not disputing that China legally kills babies. Get it? Legally here obviously means 'according to Israeli law'. Please bring me a source stating that Israeli law does not consider East Jerusalem to be part of Israel. And yes, you do need to find a dictionary if you do not understand that the term 'legally' is relative to the laws of the country in question and not relative to your own POV or to what the majority of the world thinks. Go and learn English. I know this even without a dictionary and I have never set foot in any English-speaking country. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the territory is internationally disputed, one country cannot decide the legality of it. The UN disputes the legality so it is not POV, it is representative of world opinion. Your examples are irrelevant and emotive. Basically your argument it 'this is ours because we say so'. Jebus1 10:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jebus, read up about international law. International sovereignty reigns supreme over any other consideration, and to deny Israel of its right to name its own capital is in flagrant violation of international law. Oslo is the capital of Norway because Norwegians said it is so; Bern is the capital of Switzerland because that's what the Swiss decided. The whole world may decide that Bergen or Zürich would be better, but it would be irrelevant. --Leifern 12:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the point I was arguing. The point was that one cannot say that Jerusalem is in Israel if the territory is disputed internationally.Jebus1 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My dear, please read the following which I wrote on my talk page.

The majority of Orthodox Judaism was, is, and will always reject the dirty Zionist ideology, and their founders, the heretical Jew-haters Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann and the likes, may their names and memories be destroyed from history. They are cursed, the Zionists are cursed and im yirtzeh Hashem they will be completely defeated soon. They are traitors, informers, they are worse than the Christians, worse than the Karaites, Sadducees, worse than the followers of Shabsai Tzvi, worse than the Reform. Three times a day we pray that they should be destroyed. Not that they should repent, no, we pray that they should be destroyed. The best of the goyim will be turned into our enemies, and all troubles in the world, for the cursed Zionists are the root of all evil and the source of all impurity in the world. It is the worst idolatry of all idolatries that exist in the entire world.

Does it look to you like I am here to defend the Zionists? If that's what it looks like to you, you need medication. I hate the Zionists as much as Ahmedinejad and Khaled Meshal do. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This kind of language has dangerous precedents, as you alluded to in your first statement. Jebus1 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What kind of language? The things I wrote about Zionists? Well, it just happens to be that I am loyal to what all of the greatest rabbis have always said. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Try reading 'Mein Kampf'.Jebus1 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't get what you're saying. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am just making the point that if you dehumanise a group of people, this can have terrible consequences. I don't support some of the actions of Israelis, but they are still people.Jebus1 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Israelis are not Zionists. I live amongst Israelis and I carry an Israeli identity card. I am talking here about the first early Zionists, their leaders, and about current figures such as the ones behind the Temple Institute and Kach. I'm not talking about poor Iraqi Jews in Sderot. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just two points to make things straight:

1. Zionists are people.
2. Zionism is a diverse movement in which Kach or Temple Institute are not considered mainstream. In fact, the former was outlawed in Israel, and the latter is subject to restrictions. drork 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, well made. Jebus1 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel's largest city

The citations quite clearly show that Jerusalem is by far Israel's largest city; its population is almost twice that of Israel's next largest city, Tel Aviv-Yafo. Unless you can find reliable sources which indicate Jerusalem is not Israel's largest city, please desist from violating policy by deleting this accurate information. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For a city to be largest in a country, it needs to be accepted that it is in that country. You gave an inherently biased citation. Jebus1 19:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a reliable source; there are plenty more saying the same thing. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

see positions on Jerusalem page regarding UN Jebus1 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, do you have any reliable sources that say Jerusalem is not Israel's most populous city? Even if you subtract the 177,000 Jews living in "East Jerusalem", it's still Israel's most populous city. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are approaching vandalism at this point. Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You can say that Jerusalem is the city with the most Israelis - this is not something i will dispute. You cannot say that it is in Israel since this is pov Jebus1 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What will be the proposal, then? You would like to say: Jerusalem, being the city with disputed status and according to one of the parties of the dispute not lawfully under the full sovereignity of the adversary party of said dispute, is the biggest city having considered it in comparison with cities of Israel?

Nobody disputes the fact that there are different opinions on status of Jerusalem but this should not bar it from participating in the tally of municipalities by population or whatever. If you say go to Starbucks and happen to be the tallest person there and then someone starts questioning your status at said location arguing that you do not belong there - does it mean you stop being the tallest guy around? DBWikis 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

your argument doesn't really make sense but i take your point. how about:

"Jerusalem is the city with the largest Israeli population [1] and the capital of Israel, although this designation is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem)." since there is nothing controvertial here Jebus1 07:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would suggest that doing two things simultaneously - persistently trying to edit the article while being engaged in discussion on related talk page - is probaly not the best way to achieve consensus; it may appear as devaluing your stance, since your interlocutors are getting an impression that you are passionately trying to impose your suggested wording etc. regardless the discussion. How about talking first and editing later? Please remember that the city in question is about three millenia old and it would not differ *that* much if the amendments to the article will be put in not immediately, but rather after the discussion on the talk page will run its course?

ok, fair point.Jebus1 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, concerning your proposal above. Your point is that Jerusalem is clearly outside of entity defined in scope of the article as Israel and therefore can not be put into the population tally using expressions with inclusive semantics, e.g. in Israel. Other participants already hinted that Israel can be understood as State of Israel, Land of Israel, and also in sense of belonging to Israel as spiritual identity; but your position seems to be contrary to all three of these, i.e. you argue that Jerusalem should be seen as outside of all three. (In hindsight one may note that only relationship of the Eastern part of the city is disputable, and in legal sense, while it may be more problematic to dispute geography or ideological meaning). But let us assume that some credibility may be allowed to position that under no meaning Jerusalem can be seen in semantically inclusive, i.e. in Israel, what then? Then it will be... just POV and *we all* object to have those here.

if it is clear that the meaning is second or third, with link to definition of 'Land of Israel' or something then this is fine.Jebus1 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to indicate unequivocally in reference to what entity Jerusalem is suggested as being part of - it would make sense to be explicit, that is to say in Land of Israel or in State of Israel. With regard to the intention of statement under discussion and assumed to be related to ranking of municipal entities by population size, it therefore can be said: Jerusalem is the biggest city in the Land of Israel or is the most populous municipal entity under Israeli sovereignity (currently de facto, official status disputed) DBWikis 13:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

agreedJebus1 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Therefore trying to maintain NPOV might entail stating that: (a) status of Jerusalem is disputable; (b) for one party in said dispute Jerusalem is the biggest city in Israel; (c) for the adversary party of said dispute Jerusalem has the biggest population in the Holy Land whilst said population happens to be israeli. I think that formulating the simple clause about relative size of the municipalities along those lines is not ideal, because that way it will keep referring to the mentioned dispute in recurring manner; while in my opinion it is clearly and concisely stated upfront and as such must not be proliferated into every clause of the article in question. I believe that the intention of the clause being discussed is to make a point about relative size of the cities under de facto Israeli jurisdiction, not to strenghten the point that there is a dispute related to sovereignity over it. If parties already agreed that there is a disagreement this should not mandate evoking said disagreement as a collateral to every fact that can be and must be seen rather objectively. DBWikis 10:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding capital/sovereignty of "State of Israel" i think that the following is factually accurate:

"this designation is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem)" and should be stated. Jebus1 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It would help to separate issues pertaining to the "biggest city in Israel" from discussion on "Capital of Israel". The former is mostly about relative ranking and (barring the point of your objections to inclusion of Jerusalem into enumeration of Israeli cities) can be seen as factual assertion. Regarding the latter designation you suggest saying that it is ...not widely recognized what in my view sounds like gauging (what is the measure of "wide recognition" then - simple arithmetic majority? majority by combined GDP of recognizers? etc.) so I think saying that it is ...not universally recognized will be more exact because will not assign qualitative judgements whatsoever and yet will remain correct. DBWikis 13:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This could imply that most countries accept it except for a few arab/persian neighbours who'd prefer it not to be there at all. This isn't the case, eg the EU, who is Israel's main trading partner, does not recognise it. Furthermore, this comes from the UN who represent the international community. Maybe 'not recognised' would be better, as claimed on the UK Foreign Office website UK FCO position. Jebus1 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The position of British is worth noticing and was duly attended to in article Positions on Jerusalem in section devoted to UK and I think that structured approach is working reasonably well, i.e. in my view there is no real need to keep reminding to the reader of Jerusalem article all the time that this is under dispute, and that is focus of contention, and so on; as if said reader is assumed to be impared with short-term working memory deficiency. For example on the highway it is sufficient to post the max speed limit and then there is no need in incessant remainders; it is assumed that the driver has taken notice and stays informed. Likewise there is no need (unless warrented by lack of clarity) to keep repeating that Jerusalem is not universally recognized as a capital of Jewish state. Stating upfront that there is a dispute and multilayered controversy should be enough. After the reader had an explanation that some Israel's neighbours are less then happy about its claim to the city the factual account should follow unhindered by conditionals like ... according to the views of one of the parties of said dispute the fact that Eurovision contest was twice held in Jerusalem may lead to the conclusion that Israel could claim that it hosted the contest in its capital... No Sir, the logic of the article being discussed is like the following: (a) the disput is acknowledged; (b) facts are given bearing that in mind. Ergo it is logical to disclose in the introduction that Jerusalem's status is disputed and there are conflicting position regarding it; having acknowledged that, we go to the facts, e.g. that the State of Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital and that it has not (yet) met with universal recognition.

As to the question how the level of acceptance among the international community should be gauged: not wide, or not universal -- it must be clarified that the current wide rejection of Israeli claim *does not* mean wide acceptance of the contrary claims as you probably would like to argue. Instead it must be emphasized that this wide rejection is tentative, i.e. parts if the international community currently have chosen no to take sides, but this should not mean their opposition to Israeli claim is derived from the conviction that Jerusalem must be claimed by Arabs instead. It is better to explain that in fact the root cause of the current wide non-recognition is not the opposition to the claim per se but rather to the unilateral actions taken by Israel. And I am going to reread all archival talks pertaining to the subject again. DBWikis 17:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not actually taking sides and certainly not arguing the contrary position. I agree with the above. The only thing i wish to stress is that, according to worldwide opinion, that the Israeli sovereignty over some/all of Jerusalem is not (yet) established. As such, I think that the neutrality of the position on this page is important. I hope that this is an uncontrovertial statement. Jebus1 17:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide opinion about Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not seriously contested (except by groups such as Hamas), and West Jerusalem is still Israel's most populous city. Further attempts to change this wording will simply be reverted out of hand. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not actually true - indeed the only country i know of that accepts it openly is the US. Read the Positions on Jerusalem and the above comment which was expressed very well by DBWikis at 17:01, 2nd Sep.Jebus1 07:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: i am not trying to promote a propagandist line - just represent a neutral opinion. Neutral, which I take to mean worldwide opinion as expressed by the UN, which represents the international community. Just because you don't agree with this opinion does not make it propagandist or biased. Perhaps you may wish to look at international opinions on this before deciding that they are wrong. This is not an anti-Israeli view. Jebus1 10:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Which countries dispute Israel's sovereignty over "west" Jerusalem? Aside from the various Arab countries etc. that do not recognize Israel at all? Does the U.N. dispute Israel's sovereignty over "west" Jerusalem? In fact, it has accepted its jurisdiction over Jerusalem, since Security Council resolutions regarding the the region all talk about land captured as a result of the 1967 war, not land captured in the 1948 war. The reality is that Jerusalem is an Israeli city, Israel's most populous city. Please stop trying to turn Wikipedia into a platform for your personal political views. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the UK for one. But it seems that you are unconcerned with international opinion and will take your unilateral action anyway. Good luck with that attitude. Jebus1 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, that's interesting, I didn't know that about the UK. Saying "the UK for one" implies that there are others, perhaps you meant to say "the only one is the UK". Jon513 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly not what i meant but thank you for your misrepresentation.Jebus1 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jebus1' edits

Jebus1, quit your vandalism right now. Jerusalem has 724,000 inhabitants; Tel Aviv 379,000; Haifa 267,800; Beer Sheva 185,500. 65% of Jerusalem's inhabitants are Jews. Meaning we end up with 470,600 Jews in Jerusalem. So even then, Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel, both in population and in surface. Stop your vandalism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a nonsensical argument: there are 470,600 Jews in Jerusalem therefore it is in Israel. Does this mean that New York is in Israel too?Jebus1 09:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't you simply write: "According to Israeli definitions, Jerusalem is the biggest city in Israel, otherwise Tel Aviv is the biggest Israeli city"? drork 13:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No need. There is a motive for confusing definitions here and it's not needed. Whether or not Israel controls Jerusalem according to international law or not is irrelevant. International Law is an interesting sphere but it's not to be over rated in every single sentence. It is an ambiguous sphere and it doesn't change facts on the ground. Israel controls Jerusalem and has population in it, and this is a fact. Any discussion on politics or law can involve the question of recognition and so on, but not a basic fact written in introduction of a city. Amoruso 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I expect nothing else from Jebus1 other than immediately ending this vandalism. I live in Jerusalem, and when I walk around here, I most definitely do not feel that I am in Palestine. I see Israeli flags, Israeli cars, Israeli buses, stores with Hebrew letters, etc. I do not quite understand how some people call this 'Palestine'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as someone who lives in Tel Aviv, and suffers from the common "Jerusalem-phobia" (there is no map that can describe the road network there), I don't visit Jerusalem that often, and yet I do know that some neighborhoods in the distant eastern or northern parts of the city don't seem so Israeli. Some of these neighborhoods weren't part of Jerusalem, neither Israeli nor Jordanian Jerusalem, before 1967. When quoting the official statistics about Jerusalem, it is worth while mentioning that it is based upon official Israeli definitions of municipal borders and permanent resident status. drork 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who lived in both, I can tell you that Jaffa seems far less Israeli than any part of Jerusalem and yet it's included in the statistics of Tel Aviv. Amoruso 05:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, who said anything about 'Palestine'? I am not disputing any de-facto control by Israel or trying to promote a Palestinian agenda. Drork has some helpful suggestions, although there is no need to mention Tel Aviv since this is an article on Jerusalem. Something like: "According to national statistics/census figures...cite.. Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel". This would be a factual statement and does not challenge legitimacy.Jebus1 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for bringing a workable solution. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why not change the infobox to one like Haifa so a picture can be added together with the emblem? Amoruso 02:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction (yet again)

It is depressing to see that after such exhausting amounts of debate we have ended up with such a POV introduction. There is a very simple rule that should guide us here: Nothing should be stated as a fact or implied to be a fact unless it is near-universally accepted to be true. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (WP:NPOV). Much has been said on this page about the definition of "capital"; this is not relevant. For Wikipedia to define for the World what a "capital" is would be original research. What is relevant is the definition of "fact". Because it is far from universally accepted that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, we should not state it as a fact. Period.

The present introduction states "Jerusalem... is Israel's capital [implying that it is a universally accepted fact that it is the capital] and largest city [implying that it is a universally accepted fact that Jerusalem in its entirety is an Israeli city], and uses the phrase The status of the united Jerusalem, which implies that a united Jerusalem exists as a matter of accepted fact, with merely its status subject to debate. It goes on to say that Jerusalem's status... as Israel's capital is not widely recognised by the international community, which is a blatantly misleading understatement, since not a single nation has recognized such a status. Stating that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial is also an understatement: "widely condemned" would be closer.

For some fresh air, it may be helpful to step back and look at how others – fellow Wikipedians writing in other languages – have attempted to deal with the same issue. Here are a few leads from some languages that I can attempt to translate:

French:

Jerusalem... is a middle-eastern city which has a dominant place in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, and in Israeli and Palestinian national sentiment. The state of Israel has declared unified Jerusalem as its "eternal capital". This designation is not accepted by the international community. East Jerusalem is also claimed as capital of a potential future Palestinian state.

Swedish:

Jerusalem... is since 1949 the de facto capital of Israel, a status that has met weak international recognition. Most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.

German:

Jerusalem... is the capital of the state of Israel. The presidency and... are located there.

East Jerusalem was conquered during the six-day war and annexed in 1980 by a constitutinal amendment. The annexation is condemned as illegal by the international community and is therefore not recognized. There are thus international reservations about the extensions of Israeli rights to the eastern parts of the city and the expansion of the city boundary (and thereby the status as capital) to the east. The Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city as capital of a future Palestinian state.

Italian:

Jerusalem... is located...enormous historical and geopolitical importance... symbolic place for... Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

The international governance originally called for by the UN for the city of Jerusalem (corpus separatum) was never realized. Actually, the international community considers East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, in the sense of the IV Geneva Convention, while the state of Israel considers East Jerusalem an integral part of its own territory, although it does not recognize citizenship rights of its inhabitants. The state of Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital since 1950 and introduced legislation to this effect in 1980, but no other UN member state recognizes this, and most countries maintain their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv, the economic and financial center of the country.

None of these leads are perfect either, but I hope it is clear by contrast how biased the present English Wikipedia article comes across. For example, note that three of those four leads chose to avoid stating that Jerusalem "is" the capital.

I would think that anybody who actually wants a NPOV article should be able to agree on a policy of simply not stating as a fact anything that is at all debated. We don't need to state that Jerusalem "is" the capital, we can stick to universally agreed facts, such as what the Israli, Palestinian, and UN positions are. We don't need to imply that all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel; we can easily formulate any population information etc. without falling into this trap.

To be NPOV, we must also mention in the lead Palestinian as well as Isreali claims to Jerusalem. And we cannot gloss over the international condemnation of the annexation (nor should we affirm that condemnation, we should merely report it fairly). --mglg_(talk) 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does define what a capital city is -- not for the "World", but just for Wikipedia. I have never read it before just now, and the first sentence needs some rewriting, but the upshot of the "Capital" article is that a capital is the seat of a country's government. And so Jerusalem is, indisputably -- all three branches of the Israeli government are headquartered in Israel, and Israel says that Jerusalem is its capital. Nothing more is required. What is disputed is whether Jerusalem should be the capital, but that is a different issue. By the way, the "Capital" article lists Jerusalem under "Unorthodox (ha ha) capital city arrangements", which seems pretty fair. As for what this article should say, I have in the past written two different compromises for the first paragraph, both of which consisted of a separate sentence (at the end of the paragaph) stating that Israel is the capital but recognizing the dispute. Unfortunately, the former consensus to keep it that way apparently vanished a month or two ago, and I got tired of changing it, so I stopped. The result is the current unqualified statement about Israel being the capital. I do feel strongly that Israel should be identified as the capital in the first paragraph, because it is. 6SJ7 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you wish to change here - the version is exactly the same as the German version and others. It says it's the capital and still in the intro it says "The status of the united Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem), and Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial.". Nothing more clear than this. Amoruso 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, they are exactly the same? So you wouldn't mind if I substituted one of the others? mglg_(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, ours is still better. Amoruso 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing other wikipedia languages is irrelevant. Some countries especially in europe that you quoted are very hostile to Israel and thus their introductions will be quite similar to Arab versions and not to the Israel version. I see the German version actually says "is the capital of Israel" though you didn't emphasise it. It's practically the same. The article deals extensively with the status of jerusalem in international law. it doesn't change the fact that it is the capital of Israel and it follows other introductions of other capitals, as an important opening line. Amoruso 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you like to dismiss opinions of entire continents, you may wish to reconsider whether you ought to participate in international efforts like Wikipedia. English-language Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia that should reflect a global perspective. --mglg_(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take that into account. Wikipedia doesn't have to be biased like the U.N which is a political forum and this on the other hand is an encyclopedia. We deal with facts, not with anti Israel opinions advocated by political groups. Amoruso 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The UN is indeed a political forum. A forum where almost all states in the world are represented. Even Israel. Expression of opinion that disagrees with Israeli opinion is not anti-Israeli and nor is it inherently biased. Jebus1 10:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Having one Jewish state in the U.N while having 22 Arab states and giving 1 vote each is a bias to begin with. You can read the article on criticizm of U.N, this system is obviously flawed. Amoruso 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One state (of small population) with a very powerful ally as a permanent member of the security council vetoing any decision contrary to its interests. Jebus1 08:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously that ally didn't vetoe enough S.C res. since half of them address Israel more or less. Israel is the only country not invinted to be a part of this S.C at one point or another. Amoruso 08:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This is not a political debate. This is a debate about facts and how they should be presented. Once you use the term "capital city" you commit yourself to a certain definition, you cannot avoid that. Let us take an example which is less politically charged. Here is the definition of Amsterdam in the intorduction to the article: "Amsterdam, the official capital of the Netherlands". The fact is that none of the government institutes of The Kingdom of the Netherlands is located in Amsterdam, and yet the article still defines it as an "official capital". The Hague on the other hand is defined as the third largest city in the Netherlands and "the seat of government". Jerusalem is in fact both the declared capital of Israel and the seat of the Israeli government. There is a UN resolution which rejects that, and all foreign embassies are located outside Jerusalem, and yet all foreign delegates and officials come to Jerusalem to meet with Israeli officials and to attend official ceremonies. The facts on the ground do suggest that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It should be pointed out in the introduction, though, that this status is internationally contested and that there are Palestinian claims to this city. drork 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevant question is not whether it is true that Jerusalem "is" the capital, or a wholly Israeli city at all, but whether these things are universally accepted, which they very obviously are not. 210.255.218.52 11:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the goal of Wikipedia is to present facts rather than beliefs or aspirations. Therefore I find your remark rather peculiar. drork 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the beginning of this section. Yes, the goal of Wikipedia is indeed to present "facts". And this, again, is how Wikipedia defines a "fact": "By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute' (WP:NPOV). If there is any disagreement about something, it is a particular POV and should not be presented as a fact on Wikipedia. Even things that the author can prove to be true (!) cannot be presented as facts unless there is near-universal agreement about them. If this policy is unclear to you, please read WP:NOR which explains it clearly. Since there very obviously is no global agreement that Jerusalem in its entirety belongs to Israel, we must not state directly or indirectly that it is. Period. Therefore we cannot state that it is "the capital and largest city of the State of Israel", because saying so implies that it belongs, in its entirety, to the State of Israel. And there is no reason to make any such statement: we can convey the actual situation with similar brevity and and much higher precision by explaining that Israel claims it as its capital. --mglg_(talk) 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no improvement in a month, I will go ahead and make the edit myself. Please respond to the above reasoning before reverting. --mglg_(talk) 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though some people may not like it, Jerusalem is under Israel's control, and is the largest city in Israel. Also, it displays all the features of a capital, and serves as such de facto, and is designated as such by Israeli law (de jure). Thus, it is the capital of Israel. This has nothing to do with what's "right", or "acceptable", it only deals with the facts of the situation. okedem 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts, and they're properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, jayjg. With your long Wikipedia experience, you surely understand the WP:NPOV policy that the only things that can be stated as facts are those "about which there is no serious dispute"? --mglg_(talk) 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction fairly characterizes the position of those who dispute Jerusalem's status; that satisfies WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious fact, I've added 8 good sources attesting to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem in Arabic

Jerusalem has been known in Arabic by its original name throughout history. "Al-quds" is a vernacular name, meaning "the Holy", known to the Jews likewise by the name "Ir ha-Qodesh" ("the holy city"). However, the Arabic text of the Bible clearly calls it Urushalim, and not al-Quds. For example, see Ps. 137:5 - "If I forget thee, o Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning" - إِنْ نَسِيتُكِ يَا أُورُشَلِيمُ، تَنْسَى يَمِينِي (in tansitki ya Urushalim, tansa yamini).Eliyyahu 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but the current widespread name in Arabic is Al-Quds. The Israeli authorities insist on writing Urshalim-Al-Quds in official documents in Arabic. Other names for the city in Arabic throughout history were: Bayt-Al-Maqdis (بيت المقدس) probably derived from Hebrew Beit-Ha-Miqdash (בית המקדש) and Iliya (إيلياء) derived from the Latin name: Aelia Capitolina. drork 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that Palestinian Christians use the term 'al-Quds'. --Soman 15:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

POV: Various Religions' Claims To Jerusalem

Outside of this article, I can't recall seeing that "Jerusalem's significance in Islam is often questioned and debatable." The story of Muhammad's ascension and when it happened is fairly irrelevant if you take into account that religions like "Islam" and "Christianity" and "Judaism" are not unitary but have multiple strands. The "periods in history of Muslim religious neglect of Jerusalem" makes no sense to me--I don't know what periods they're talking about, what states, and what this has to do with past or contemporary Islam or why it should have bearing on whether there are many Muslims today that have an attachment to Jerusalem. Finally, while the quran is vital to understanding islam, I again fail to see the need for comparing how many times each religion's holy texts have listed Jerusalem--this is an extremely narrow view of what constitutes "significance" in a religion.

Many of these objections should be taken in the context that the only cited source is Daniel Pipes, who is, to put it mildly, notoriously NOT a neutral source on these issues. See wikipedia article on Daniel Pipes for citations.

A more neutral source, Karen Armstrong, had this to say in Time Magazine:

"Jerusalem was central to the spiritual identity of Muslims from the very beginning of their faith. When the Prophet Muhammad first began to preach in Mecca in about 612, according to the earliest biographies, which are our primary source of information about him, he had his converts prostrate themselves in prayer in the direction of Jerusalem." Saurav 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong is neither neutral, nor reliable. In fact, the religious status of Jerusalem was fiercely contested during the first several centuries of Islam. At that time, there were many more cities whose religious significance was higher than that of Jerusalem. Things changed at the time of the Crusades, especially under Saladin, when jihad propaganda relied heavily on claims of the sanctity of Jerusalem in Islam. Beit Or 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, the key word there is "more" as in "more neutral than Daniel Pipes." I would hope that anyone interested in an NPOV discussion of this would acknowledge that. I'm not a huge fan of Armstrong, but she is mainstream. In any case, setting that aside for a moment, I think something along the lines of "Jerusalem is of particular significance to many Muslims." The whole paragraph could really go though, if it's written anywhere near the way it's written right now. Saurav 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes is an academic; Karen Armstrong is simply an omnivorous popular writer with no scholarly background. The current wording of the sentence in the intro seems incorrect because it fails to mention the political connotations behind the trumpeting up of the role of Jerusalem in Islam. Beit Or 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes Armstrong as "a prolific scholar of religions" (which she is) and there is just no comparison between her and Pipes, who I understand is quite a hateful figure and was blocked by the US senate for confirmation for some Bush appointment recently because of the controversy surrounding him. In any case, I commented out his line and some other changes as follows:

• Jerusalem's significance in Islam is often questioned and debatable: If one person, Daniel Pipes, is the source for this, that does not necessarily translate into "often questioned and debatable", it means Daniel Pipes believes so. Since this is too trivial to point out straight in the intro, which is very inappropriate for an encyclopedia as it is, I commented it out. If anything, it can go in some "controversies" section or in another more appropriate article.
• If Zion can also mean "Land of Israel" (which it can, one only needs to remember the last two words of the Israeli national anthem and understand why they are not one word), one cannot add up the number of times Zion is mentioned with the number of times "Jerusalem" is mentioned as "total Jerusalem mentions" unless one knows how many times specifically "Zion" meant "Jerusalem".
• Judaism per se did not begin with Abraham, in fact the word "Jew", if I'm not mistaken, developed during the centuries after the Temples were built, which was way after Abraham. Likewise, the word "Christian" took a while to develop, so I took out the dates of how long the city has been important to what religion, which was also pretty trivial in my opinion.
• "Jewish Hebrew Bible" as opposed to what? There is only one "Hebrew Bible". Same with "New Testament".

Please discuss any problems here if I messed anything up for anybody. But please also mind NPOV. The Muslim claim to Jerusalem was attacked right in the intro before even describing what the claim it!!! That's POV and not quite acceptable. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I wouldn't mind if this whole description, which was recently inserted perhaps to drive a POV, be removed in favor of more appropriate sections elsewhere in the article such as "Religious significance". There already exists an article on that here with the Pipes tirade included. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ramallite. I think these lines should be (re)moved entirely unless someone can come up with an NPOV description that's appropriate for the introduction. Saurav 07:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the discussion of how many times "Jerusalem" is mentioned in various holy texts on grounds of irrelevance and POV. Saurav 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Jerusalem mentioned in the Hadith? If it is you might want to put that in there along with it being mentioned in the Talmud.--PiMaster3 ^talk 13:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem in the Qur'an

Ramallite has deleted the statement that the Qur'an does not mention Jerusalem, while accusing some unspecfied "folks" of "distortions"[13]. I'm expecting an explanation of why this deletion was done and who is distorting what. I suppose it is undisputable that there are no mentions of Jerusalem in the Qur'an. Beit Or 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I assume good faith and think that people are counting how many times certain words are mentioned in the holy books (of which I am still planning on writing sequels) just to enlighten the readers of WP? Or should I suspect that the whole point of this is to point out that the word "Jerusalem" is not mentioned in the Qur'an, as if that means anything? Tokyo and Vladivostok are not mentioned in the Qur'an either. As I wrote in the edit summary, using 'how many times a particular word is mentioned' is a misleading criterion to an importance of a city, as even Mecca is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an. On the other hand, the verse that mentions "the farthest mosque" in the Qur'an, if one were to keep reading that same passage, leaves little doubt that it is referring to Jerusalem (at least in my mind), because it makes multiple references to that 'masjid' (i.e. temple or mosque) and its being built by the "Children of Israel" (that phrase appears over 40 times) and destroyed twice. Have the children of Israel been building other temples worthy of mention that were destroyed twice? Now, I don't really pay much attention to religious mumbo jumbo, but my point is this: It's pretty trivial to be counting words in holy books and making political/POV/grand statements about the lives of human beings in the 21st century. But that's just one Holy Lander's opinion. It would be much more interesting to count the number of Baskin Robbins parlors on the Tel Aviv - Damascus highway. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup after edit conflict, wouldn't want to dash your expectations: The 'distortion' is two-fold: 1- That the word "Jerusalem" not being mentioned in the Qur'an means that the 'importance' of Jerusalem is not described in the Quran, and 2- it is being assumed that a city has to be mentioned in the Qur'an in order to have 'importance' to the religion. Like I said, Mecca isn't mentioned either. So the point trying to be made is a bit ridiculous. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, it was me, not Ramallite who initially removed the sections (unless it was done more than once and reverted more than once). When I did, I articulated the reasons above (to reiterate: I think the claims are both POV as well as irrelevant). People wanting to learn about Jerusalem surely don't need to know how many times in various religious texts the word is mentioned; it seems a self-evident POV insinuation that "Muslims" have less of a claim to the city than "Jews" and secondarily "Christians." If you can mount a stronger defense of why those sentences need to be there other than equating Karen Armstrong to Daniel Pipes, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, there's some other way that this edit conflict needs to be resolved, because I don't believe on the basis of your actions thus far that you're acting in good faith. Perhaps I can insert a line about how many times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Gita or by Marx ;) Saurav 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, not hearing any comments, I went ahead and removed the section listing how many times Jeruslame was listed in the Old Testament and the New Testament. If anyone reverts it, could you please offer some reasons prior to doing so? Saurav 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish whoever kept reverting the page back to the previous incarnation that mentions int he introcution the number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old and New Testaments would stop doing so and engage in this conversation. This only works as a collaborative enterprise. Saurav 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Saurav, your removals have been reverted. I didn't do it. Yet perhaps I can explain why others did. Anybody who knows much about history knows that it is the Tanakh (OT) and the Apostolic Scriptures (NT) that inspire people the most to regard Jerusalem with honor. It is such common knowledge that it almost goes without saying. It is a consensus. So to mention how many times the city is mentioned in those texts gives readers of this Wikipedia article a quick clue as to how important those ancient texts make the city. It is not, as I suppose one or another religious zealot might suspect, a sneaky excuse for promoting a particular religion. Then there are some technical reasons why your recent changes got reverted. I need not mention those. - Samuel Erau 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important to have this put into the perspective what Jerusalem means to these religions in their most important and guiding texts. The fact that Jerusalem is mentioned so many times attests to its importance. The amount of times that these words appear in the various "versions" of the Bible is important fact that needs to remain in this article and I think removing it would indicate some sort of biased agenda. Valley2city 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can anyone tell me why some people dont like jerusalem?

Some don't like it because they hate Jews. Now what does this have to do with the article? - Samuel Erau 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)