Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Jerusalem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Etymology section

As often noted, this section ranks as one of the scrappiest on the page. I suggest it be reworked somewhat along these lines.

Two hieroglyphic texts dated to the 19th.and18th.centuries BCE, one on a ceramic bowl, the other on a terra cotta figure, which mention a r()w-u-š()l-m-m, transcribed as either Rušalimum or Urušalimum, are commonly thought to be the first historic references to the city. These form part of the Egyptian Execration Texts, where Egypt’s enemies were named only to be cursed.^[1]^[2]^[3]. The name recurs in the Akkadian cuneiform as Urušalim, in the Amarna tablets datable to the 1400-1360 BCE.^[4] The god Shalem,who was a member of the West Semitic pantheon (Akkadian Shalim, Assyrian Shulmanu), the god of the setting sun and the nether world, as well as of health and perfection,^[5] appears to have had a special relationship with Jerusalem. ^[6]^[7]. The name 'Jerusalem' may have meant 'foundation (Sumerian yeru, ‘settlement’/cf. Semitic yry, meaning ‘found’) of the god Shalem. Others dismiss the Sumerian link, and point to yarah, a Semitic/Hebrew term meaning 'to lay a cornerstone', yielding the idea of laying a cornerstone to the temple of the god Shalem. Later, through association with the meaning of 'peace' in the root š-l-m, it was also interpreted as meaning, variously, 'dwelling of peace', or 'founded in safety'^[8],as well as 'Salem gives instruction' (Semitic yrh: 'show, teach, instruct').

Once something like this is worked on, one can then provide a brief sketch of the many folk etymologies that sprang up later.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

jerusalem is palestine capital, and offically still its not israel capital, this is wrong informations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.227.52 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiero

The article states incorrectly, "The Greeks added the prefix hiero ("holy") and called it Hierosolyma". Hiero- does not mean "holy". It is a Greek and Latin transliteration of the Hebrew syllables "יְרוּ" (yeru-) found in the Hebrew name of the town. These two syllables by coincidence sound a lot like the Greek word for "priest", but the Greeks prepended nothing to the name. Rwflammang (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Jewish majority city since 1870

It is very important to note that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since 1870. Another fact left out of the demographics section is the Arab Christian population that have left Jerusalem.

In the first population census carried out by the British Mandatory authorities in 1922, the city was found to have 62,000 people -- 34,100 Jewish; 13,400 Moslem; and 14,700 Christian. In the census carried out by Israel and Jordan in 1961, the population was 243,500, of whom 67.7 percent were Jewish. The ratio between Moslems and Christians has grown in favor of the Moslems since 1967 as a result of emigration by Christians to South America and the United States. In 1967, there were 197,000 Jews in Jerusalem (or 74.2 percent) and 68,000 Arabs, (or 25.8 percent). Today, the ratio has changed by 3.7 percent and become 71 percent Jews and 29 percent Arabs. It is estimated that, by 2010, Jerusalem's population will reach about 820,000, one-third of whom will be Arab.

http://www.likud.nl/govern11.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.165.2 (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} on the 17th citation, add 'volume VI'.(unsigned)

Done. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2009

(UTC)

British Mandate Census figures taken from 1945/1946 Survey of Palestine. Vol I. pages 148-152

Jerusalem urban population	1922	1931	1944
Total	62,578	90,503	157,080
Muslim	13,413	19,894	30,630
Jewish	33,971	51,222	97,000
Christian	14,699	19,335	29,350

Padres Hana (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a little less clear cut if you look at figures for Jerusalem sub-district

Jerusalem district total population	1922	1931 table 7c	1931 table 8c	1944
Total	91,272	132,661	153,714	240,880
Muslim	40,850	57,762	67,524	96,760
Jewish	34,431	54,538	54,823	100,200
Christian	15,496	20,309	31,279	43,770

I can't explain the two different 1931 figures. Perhaps one count includes British army.

Also note the figures for Hebron, Ramallah etc are quite different.Padres Hana (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jordan's attempt to destroy the fledgling Israeli state?

In the section "Political Status" it is stated "…in 1948…Jordan annexed the Old City as part of its attempt to destroy the fledgling Israeli state." This does not seem to be an accurate gloss on Jordan's motivations in the 1948 war. Many historians would say Jordan's primary goal was to take over areas of Palestine allocated for an Arab state under the Partition Resolution (which is in fact what happened); this is quite different from attempting to destroy Israel. In fact there were secret discussions between Abdullah and Jewish officials on this subject leading up to the war. J. Holden Caulfield (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite disputable, non-neutral, superfluous and unnecessary there, so I removed it.John Z (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Capital of Israel?

Isn't this biased and one sided? Since the Palestinians claim it as their capital also. It should say it is a disputed city. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A capital is the city serving as the country's "seat of government". That is 100% correct in the case of Israel and Jerusalem, as Jerusalem is home to Israel Parliament, government offices, PM's office, Supreme Court, President's quarters, etc. Even if Israel control of Jerusalem is wrong, or illegal, or whatever, that does not change the facts. Palestinians would like it to be their capital, and maybe one day it will be, but today they don't control it, and don't have their government there, so it's not their capital. okedem (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem may well be the seat of Israeli government. But Jerusalem is not the Internationally recognised Capital of Israel. No country has an Embassy there, only consulates.

The indisputable fact is that only Israeli's call Jerusalem the Capital of Israel. Wikipedia is a International reference encyclopedia not a pro-Israeli propaganda tool. Please amend this article to reflect the accepted world view and the indisputable facts. , ^[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.249.160 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not change anything. International recognition is not a criteria for a city to be a capital. Jerusalem is Israel's capital and Wikipedia's role is not to reflect the opinion of such or such country but to state the facts. Benjil (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet this article fails to reflect the indisputable fact the Jerusalem is not recognised by the International community as Israels capital, and it also fails to state that UN resolution 478 makes Israels claim to Jerusalem as its capital city Illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.249.160 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Read better, this is written.Benjil (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be overlooking Endnote iii. The language and structure in the lead were carefully crafted by consensus in response to lengthy discussions, for a record of which please see red link near top of this talk page. Please be more careful about what you label as "illegal" and "indisputable fact". Hertz1888 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just read the entire article, and it seems to me that the controversy surrounding Jerusalems status as Israels capital city, becomes a footnote, buried in the blurb, rather than a statement of facts, which should appear in the opening paragraph... Maybe the editor of this article would care to amend that. Probably not. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.249.160 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Many many people have complained about the same thing. I agree its a huge problem and part of the reason this article cannot sustain featured article status. While the consensus in the international community is that Jerusalem is illegally occupied, and while no country has an embassy in Jerusalem (they are all in Tel Aviv), some editors think that the only view that matters on this issue is Israel's and that only Israel can decide what its capital is. For some reason WP:NPOV can never be applied to this issue in this article. Its a massive failure of the Wiki system actually that a few hard-core editors can hold up WP:CONSENSUS by insisting their view is the only view that matters. Tiamut^talk 22:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the number of editors who oppose the current wording is definitely significant. We do not have consensus for the current wording, nor we have consensus to change it. Don't know where this leaves us. Imad marie (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital per the definition of the word, "seat of government". Some dispute Israel's right to set Jerusalem as its capital, yet they cannot change the reality of it. okedem (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. What we are trying to explain is that the vast majority of the world disputes this designation, viewing Israel's occupation of Jerusalem in 1967 as illegal. Oddly, the world's viewpoint is relegated to a footnote, while Israel's POV is highlighted in the main text. This is not NPOV. Not even close. Tiamut^talk 13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And you still do not understand that this is not a question of viewpoint but of facts. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is not a claim, this is just a description of things as they are. The "world" may or may not agree but this changes nothing to the reality. On the other hand, the dispute about Jerusalem's status needs to be addressed and it is. So everything is fine with the article. Benjil (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about viewpoints, it's about what makes a capital a capital. The whole lengthy discussion archived above (link highlighted in red) couldn't change that. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The rationals have been discussed in depth before, and I think it's useless to discuss the rationals any further.

My point is that we have a significant number of editors who oppose the current wording and they are being rejected by the same editors over time. Imad marie (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem was the capital of Israel since 1948. It remains the capital today. The fact that Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 war has as much to do with Jerusalem's status as capital as Israel's capture of the Golan Heights or the Sinai or the Gaza Strip. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite any injustices Israel may or may not have committed against Palestinians. Furthermore, capitals don't require foreign embassies to be located within their borders.

The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491). This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia. This has already been discussed and agreed upon here. --GHcool (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying that the state of Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, and no one should deny that this claim is disputed by the rest of the world. These are both "facts" and should be given equal prominence IN THE OPENING SENTENCE. --itihasi (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.253.100 (talk)

Agreed. NPOV means representing all significant viewpoints. Israel's viewpoint that Jerusalem is its capital is one, the world's viewpoint that Jerusalem is illegally occupied and cannot be its capital is another. Both can and should be mentioned side by side. Tiamut^talk 13:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in this discussion if you continue to ignore what is said. This is not a conflict of viewpoints between 2 claims. Israel does not "claim" that Jerusalem is its capital. Jerusalem is Israel capital. Do you understand the difference ? Benjil (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I could parrot the same thing back to you: There is no point in this discussion if you continue to ignore what is said. This is not a conflict of viewpoints between 2 claims. The world does not recognize that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and there are no emabssies there, they are all in Tel aviv; ergo, Jerusalem is not Israel's capital.

However, I prefer that we recognize that there are no "facts" in this debate. There is an Israeli perspective and a world persepctive. Currently, the Israeli perspective is given undue prominence over the world's perspective. To correct this, we should include the world's perspective alongside Israel's. Tiamut^talk 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously... Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Most other countries do not recognize it. But, guess what, international recognition has never been part of the definition of what a capital is, neither where the embassies are. So the article should stay as it is: stating the reality as it is - Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and in a footnote, that many countries do not recognize it. Benjil (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously ... Jerusalem is Palestine's capital. Most other countries do not recognize it. But guess what, international recognition has never been part of the definition of what a capital is, neither where the embassies are.

So the article should mention that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel and the proclaimed capital of Palestine and that the international community does not recognize either claim, since they are waiting for the outcome of negotiations between the two parties concerned. I've changed it to read that way. Tiamut^talk 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are ridiculous and proving how much your argument is weak. Jerusalem is not Palestine's capital. You see, I live in Jerusalem so I would have noticed... But, the Palestinians claim Jerusalem for capital. Now, you understand the difference or is it still too sophisticated for you ? Benjil (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to resort to personal attacks. I'm sufficiently sophiscated and serious enough to understand the arguments thank you very much.

While your personal experience is interesting - I too have lived in East Jerusalem and the people there definitely view it as Palestine's capital - neither yours nor mine is relevant.

What is relevant is that both Palestinians and Israelis claim Jerusalem as their capital. I noticed that Hertz1888 just removed "proclaimed" from before "capital" for the sentence on Israel. I don't think that's appropriate or NPOV. Both sides have made claims. Neither sides claims are recognized to be true by the international community who has held off of recognition until the two can come to a final agreement. Why should we be writing that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital," without any qualifier when this is the case? Tiamut^talk 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that there is anything I could add that would be clearer than what Benjil has written. Countries—not "the world", and certainly not would-be countries—determine their capitals. It is a matter of function, not recognition or mere proclamation. Lengthy prior discussions always come around to this basic fact. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is your viewpoint, shouldn't we change the text about Palestine to read "Jerusalem is also the capital of Palestine", without the qualifier "proclaimed"? It may be a country with limited recognition, but then so is Israel. NPOV requires us to treat both claims equally. So either they are both "proclaimed capitals" or they are both simply "capitals". Tiamut^talk 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I've now removed "proclaimed" from before "capital" for the sentence on Palestine. Either we describe them both as "proclaimed capitals" or they are both simply "capitals". I prefer using "proclaimed capital" for both given the lack of international recognition for either claim, but since neither of you thinks that "proclaimed" is necessary (even given the lack of international recognition), we'll go with "capital" for both. Tiamut^talk 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference. "Proclaimed" is necessary in the latter case (if the added statement even belongs) because functionality is lacking. Please refrain from making instant changes in a matter where consensus may require long-term discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because there is no difference. Both countries claim the capital as their own. The international community has withheld recognition from both claims. The idea that "functionality" is required for a place is a new one you've just now introduced. The argument that Benjil made (to which you said you had nothing to add) was simply (I'm paraphrasing): "Jerusalem is Israel's capital because Israel says it is." I'm telling you that if that is your viewpoint, then logically it follows that: "Jerusalem is Palestine's capital because Palestine says it is." I personally think it's best to say both are "proclaimed capitals" rather than "capitals" without qualification. You think it's best to say it's a capital for Israel and a claimed capital for Palestine. But that's not NPOV. Sorry. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And Hertz1888, I'd ask that you not mark edits like this as minor. It may be one word, but since we are discussing it on the talk page, and it clearly matters to both you and me how it reads, marking it as minor is inappropriate. Tiamut^talk 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Functionality? Not a new idea. Please see previous discussions, including the major archive (red URL near top of page), for background. It has to do with where the seat of government is physically located, among other things. Jerusalem does not function as anybody else's capital in this way. That's a real difference, not a point of view. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the archives and participated in many of these prior discussions (and that red URL at the top of the page doesn't impress me. It's meant only to pretend that there is some kind of consensus on this issue when there is not). I was referring to your arguments here and now, in which you did not mention functionality but simply referred me to Benjil's arguments.

But if you do want to discuss functionality, Jerusalem has functioned as the capital of Palestine. The PLO, the official representative of the Palestinian people and State of Palestine in the United Nations had their head office there (Orient House). The building was confiscated by Israel in 2001. That Israel has forcibly prevented Palestine from exercising functions in the capital should not be held against the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem.

This is all however beside the point. Both capitals are not recognized by the international community so both should read "proclaimed". That may not sit well with people on both sides of the fence, but it's the truth in the eyes of the world. Tiamut^talk 16:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, this has been discussed in depth many times before, with pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors fighting; consensus has never been reached. I suggest WP:RFC for neutral opinions from uninvolved editors. Imad marie (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much point in an RFC, we've had those already w/o any real progress (not that I really oppose).

As for the actual issue (overlooking the question of whether Jerusalem is or isn't the capital of Israel; the issue has been discussed to death and lacking any real world developments there's just no point in yet more discussion), Jerusalem most definitely is just the "claimed" or "proclaimed" capital of Palestine. Tiamut, your own source confirms this: "The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state"[1] Rami R 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):If you think it will help, go ahead and file one. I think it will attract the same editors it always does anyway and that it behooves us to try and work out these things together here and now. The current version of the page is fine for me, though I would prefer that the word "proclaimed" precede the word "capital" for both Israel and Palestine. However, if people want to let Israel and Palestine define their capitals for themselves without the word "proclaimed", all I ask is that we be consistent about it and not attach "claimed" or "proclaimed" to only one of those parties since that would be taking sides and the jury (in terms of world opinion) is still out. Tiamut^talk 16:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And Rami R, that's not my source. It was there in the article and I moved it up to attach to the sentence on Palestine because I don't believe in deleting sources. My source is the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Palestine Basic Law of 2002 which states unambiguously, "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine" [2])

As for sources, sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's claimed capital (not it's actual capital) are easily found, and there are some in the article. All of this is beside the point. :We all recognize the deep contestation nover Jerusalem. We all recognize that two parties claim it as their own. Per NPOV, we should treat those claims equally. Either it is the capital of both Palestine and Israel or it is the "proclaimed capital" of both Palestine and Israel. NPOV requires nothing less. Tiamut^talk 16:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked if it was too much sophisticated for you, and yes it was. I don't know how to put it simpler than that: Jerusalem is Israel's capital as Paris is France's capital. The city is under Israel's control and sovereignty and the seat of government is there. That answers all the definition about what a capital is. The Palestinians want it to be there capital also. We all know it. But in the meantime, this is not. Benjil (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Control and sovereignty are two different things. It is under Israel's control, but East Jerusalem is not in Israel so it is not under its sovereignty as in Israel does not have the right to control E. Jerusalem. Nobody says Paris is not in France so the two are not analogous. Also, I dont think there is much you could say that would be too "sophisticated" for Tiamut, so I suggest you stop being so condescending. nableezy - 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But west Jerusalem(where the seat of government is located) certanly is so I don't see a problem there. Fipplet (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. This article does not say west Jerusalem though, it just says Jerusalem. nableezy - 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the capital is Jerusalem even though not all parts are under complete undisputed Israeli sovreignty. You see West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem are not two separate cities but forms one city. The only city is Jerusalem and that city hosts Israel's government. Fipplet (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reality (or CNN disagrees with you.

Israel claimed Jerusalem as its "eternal and undivided" capital. The barbed wire and minefields that divided the city from 1948 until June 1967 might be gone, but invisible barriers still exist. If you want to take a taxi from Israeli West Jerusalem to a Palestinian neighborhood in the east, you ask the driver first. More often than not, Israeli taxi drivers will refuse to take you. You also are unlikely to find an Israeli strolling down the main Palestinian shopping district on Salah al-Din Street. The divide is also in wealth. According to the Jerusalem Center for Economic and Social Rights, nearly 50 percent of Jerusalem's Palestinian population is classified as low income -- those who earn less than $500 a month -- compared with around 20 percent among Israeli residents of the city. By most estimates, the growth of the Palestinian population of Jerusalem outstrips that of the Israelis, and no Palestinian faction would ever advocate relinquishing the Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem. And even Israel's claim that Jerusalem is its capital is one most countries around the world don't recognize. Almost all embassies, including that of the United States, are in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.

Tiamut^talk 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explane how CNN disagrees withe me? Fipplet (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article first might be helpful. Try beginning with the title: "Forty years later, Jerusalem still a divided city," and ending with "Israel and the Palestinians are still at war, 40 years later." Tiamut^talk 20:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related subject, our article though broadly defined to include East Jerusalem and the expanded municipal boundaries that reach into the West Bank, fails to mention anything about the reality of life in Jerusalem. Daily life in ancient and modern Jerusalem looks like it could provide a lot of good information that is currently missing. It says for example:
"The main business section in West Jerusalem is almost entirely Jewish. The Old City, in East Jerusalem, is almost entirely Arab. Welfare policies in the two sections are handled differently. Each side maintains its own fire departments, hospitals, and medical emergency crews. Schools are entirely separate. Two different bus systems travel the city, often following the same routes. Jews try to avoid using Muslim-controlled electric companies, and Arabs try to avoid using Israeli-owned banks. New roads make it possible for Israeli in Jerusalem's suburbs to travel back and forth almost without seeing an Arab."
This is a much more NPOV description of the reality of life in Jerusalem then what we have up on our page. There are at least two peoples/nations living in this city, and this article tries to pretend that there is only one. Tiamut^talk 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All the arguments in the world have been discussed before so I think an RFC is necessary here. I filed for one. Imad marie (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to facts

Again I must return to the basic point, that some people choose to ignore. "Capital" isn't about proclamations or opinions, declarations or aspirations, rights or morals. A capital is, per definition, the "seat of government". Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, home to the parliament, government offices, PM's office and home, President's office and home, the Supreme Court, etc. That is a government, and it sits in Jerusalem. Thus, Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, and thus capital. No opinions or claims, just facts. International recognition and the placing of embassies doesn't, and never had, any relevance to a city's status as capital. You can go back to the recognition bit as many times as you like - but it changes nothing of the status of capital.

Even if we forgo the discussion of whether the PNA is up to the level of an actual state, its governing bodies do not sit in Jerusalem, so it is not its "seat of government", and thus, not the capital. That's it. I'm reverting the addition of the Palestinian claim, as it is of little importance today. Their aspirations are mentioned in the footnote, and that's enough. okedem (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

PNA != state of Palestine. A state is an entity recognized by other states as such. The state of Palestine has such recognition. nableezy - 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant for this discussion. Capital = seat of government (open a dictionary). That holds true for Israel regarding Jerusalem. It doesn't hold true for a "Palestinian State". The governing bodies of the PNA (which you say is a different thing) are seated elsewhere, and the supposed "Palestinian State" doesn't even have an actual government, much less any physical presence, anywhere.

If you want to make a controversial change in the article, gain consensus before edit-warring to push it it. okedem (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I made one revert of this material, you have made 2. Which of us is edit-warring? nableezy - 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You joined in with other users to push through a controversial change to a stable version of an article. I don't care how many edits you yourself made. Once you see a change is in real dispute, you leave the article as it was for a long time, and try to gain consensus on the talk page, instead of trying to force it. okedem (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What a terrible crime! Trying to improve an article that many people claim is POV by editing it to be less so. As I said below, this version has been kept this way largely by refusing to acknowledge the enormous dissatisfaction with it, claiming consensus must be achieved prior to any changes, and then holding up all efforts at forging a new consensus by pointing to big red box at the top. It's time for a change. Tiamut^talk 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Get consensus for changes. That is a Wikipedia cornerstone. If you want to ignore it, go away. If you want to stay - play be the rules. That means - not editing by your gut instincts, but by actual evidence. Going by the facts, not what you'd like them be. In the above discussion you refuse to do so, and so I have little hope for the future. okedem (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. And of all the people who engaged in this discussion, I think I'm the only one who actually cited sources. Read your comment back to yourself. Tiamut^talk 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you're being ridicules. It is you who wrote, about me: "Okedem just blanket reverted to what he claims is the stable consensus version of this article". Instead of discussing the issue, you chose to accuse me of lying. Amusing indeed.

Open a dictionary, and look up capital. Then come back, and see if it applies to Israel, and if it applies to "Palestine". okedem (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't write Wikipedia articles using dictionaries. This encyclopedia provides an interesting deinition though: "Jerusalem: Historic capital of Palestine [...] On 23 January 1950 Israel proclaimed Jerusalem the capital of Israel, but this was not recognized by the UN. In November 1999 the Israeli representative in the General Assembly reiterated that Jerusalem was the capital." Then there is a length discussion of how Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, how Israel annexed it but how that recognition is not legal under international law, etc, etc. Note that any mention of Jerusalem being Israel's capital is attributed to an Israeli speaker or preceded by the qualifier "proclaimed". Just like the CNN article above which says that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. Very few reliable sources say it is the capital without qualifications. That's what NPOV is, reflecting the reality represented in reliable sources. Not picking up a dictionary, looking up capital, and engaging in WP:OR to try and fit the definition to Israel and exclude its application to Palestine. Tiamut^talk 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A dictionary is an RS for words, and in this case there's zero ambiguity in the definition of "capital". You don't like the outcome, but that doesn't change a word's meaning. Avi provided enough sources for you in the discussion below. okedem (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A dictionary would be a reliable source in the capital article, but we use sources to determine how to use words. Not determine on our own whether or not they apply. Just think of what would be done if we started determining what fits the definition of another word, let's just say the word "apartheid". nableezy - 05:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, really. The dictionaries define it as what it is - the policy implemented in South Africa. Capital is very simply defined, no room for interpretation or mistakes. And, again, Avi provided enough sources below. okedem (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A city without a single foreign embassy - some capital city! itihasi (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.11.198 (talk)

Temple Periods

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "In 538 BCE, after fifty years of Babylonian captivity, Persian King Cyrus the Great invited the Jews to return to Judah to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple." to "In 538 BCE, after fifty years of Babylonian captivity, Persian King Cyrus the Great invited the Jews to return to Judah to rebuild the Temple ^[10]. Later, in ~445 BCE, King Artaxerxes I of Persia issued a decree allowing the city and the walls to be rebuilt^[11]."

Done Thanks for wanting to improve this article. To maintain the chronological nature of that secton, I separated your two sentences. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post

Information cited to a non-notable Joe Shmoe who wrote an article on the Huffington Post blog violates WP:RS. I propose we remove the information cited in the Criticism of urban planning section to such sources immediately. I intend to carry out this proposal unless/until I do not hear compelling counter-arguments within the next few days. --GHcool (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it, pending consensus. -- Nudve (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the material and i concur with User:GHcool. Also, the practice of experienced editors inventing new identities as User:Whaleboy123 in order to make highly aggressive and political edits before, probably, disappearing and re-materializing as yet another new user has done is a highly problematic time-waster for everyone concerned.Historicist (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also concur, and have removed this material a third time. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Al-Quds

Why do people keep removing the redirect tag for Al-Quds at the beginning of the article? Only about 280 million people in the world refer to Jerusalem as Al Quds. Seems a redirect tag is appropriate in this case. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Kendraa

She is in history right now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.202.82 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

Should we highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel? like saying that "Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel"? Imad marie (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Jerusalem has a unique case like no other capital. East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel which caused all countries in the world to place their embassies outside of Jerusalem and to dispute the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Imad marie (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is the official policy of the US that Jerusalem is, and should be, the capital of the State of Israel. The stated reason the US hasn't moved its capital to Jerusalem is out of "safety concerns". -shirulashem^(talk) 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Slightly more complicated than that. "Section 214, concerning Jerusalem, impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Moreover, the purported direction in section 214 would, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the Nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states. U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed" in a statement saying that the provisions of the law stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel are "advisory" only and refusing to implement them in relocating the embassy. nableezy - 00:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(adding Yes) and Comment: Just a comment that to me the issue at hand is more the following: Both Palestine and Israel claim Jerusalem as their capital city. Neither claim is recognized by the international community. Should we note the lack of international recognition for both by prefacing "capital" with "proclaimed", or should we simply state that Jerusalem is the capital for both, without using any qualifiers? Tiamut^talk 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Um... okay, except you're missing one minor, little detail: Israel is a country and Palestine is not. -- tariqabjotu 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  - That's your opinion Tariq, to which you are of course entitled. But we don't write based on your opinion. Read State of Palestine. Most of the world disagrees with you. Tiamut^talk 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    - "The State of Palestine is a political entity that enjoys limited recognition as a state, but has no control over any territory." Right. As I said, Israel is a country and Palestine is not. Or, if you want me to tear down your false equivalence another way, I could say that Israel has its governmental buildings in Jerusalem and "Palestine" -- whatever you want to call it -- does not. I could say that Israel has control over the city and "Palestine" -- whatever you want to call it -- does not. Even if you just want to talk about clearly legal control, I could say Israel has long had legal control over the western half of the city, while "Palestine" -- whatever you want to call it -- has never had legal control over so much as a square meter of the city. Please don't taunt me with "opinion" when you choose to ignore obvious differences to support this tired position. -- tariqabjotu 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      - I'm aware of what the article says since I wrote most of it myself. You can be selective in your interpretation if you want to of course. It doesn't change the fact that Palestine is recognized as country by more than half the world.
        
        In any case, none of this has much to do with the issue under discussion. As Avi says, whether or not Palestine is a country is irrelevant. It has designated Jerusalem as its capital and that fact should be noted prominently in our introduction to the article on Jerusalem. Tiamut^talk 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        You ignored everything I said. First, I said several times that it didn't matter whether Palestine was a country or not; my entire comment was about how the comparison is still false even if you want to call Palestine a country (even though country involves land; state does not). Your point appears to be that because both Israel and Palestine call Jerusalem their capital, either Jerusalem is the capital of both -- with no qualifier -- or the "proclaimed" capital of both (with the qualifier). I explained why those are not the only two options, and you failed to rebut. This issue is already "explained prominently in our introduction"; in case you haven't noticed, there's an entire paragraph on the issue. -- tariqabjotu 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        I'm intimately aware of what's in the intro and aware of what your argument is. I've stated elsewhere that descriptions of Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine preface both with the word "claims". I've provided sources to support that that assertion. If you prefer to engage in OR argumentation over how one is an apple and one is an orange, that's fine. Your refusal to acknowledge the sources is noted. Tiamut^talk 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        You have provided no sources in this thread between your initial statement and my current comment. There are a host of other threads and sub-threads here and elsewhere across Wikipedia on which you have said things not addressed to me and I have not responded. If you want to hold one or more of those threads against me, fine. I'm not here to play games with you, especially when I have witnessed the inevitability of their futility. -- tariqabjotu 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        Very well Tariq. Always a pleasure attempting to collaborate with you. Tiamut^talk 13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No There exists a territorial State of Israel which has Jerusalem as its capital; the physical locations of embassies is irrelevant. What makes the case different with the State of Palestine is as the article says: "The State of Palestine…is a political entity that enjoys limited recognition as a state, but has no control over any territory." If there is no control over territory, there is perforce no control over a territorial or terrestrial capital. It can be said that Palestine claims Jerusalem as its capital, as the claim can be made in anticipation of "control on the ground". Israel has control on the ground, and this article needs to reflect the reality of Israel's statements and her political and governmental seats of power. What this article should say is what it already does say, that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and that this is not recognized by many. -- Avi (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- But Avi, doesn't this article also need to reflect Palestine's statements and her people's presence on the ground? Doesn't it also have to reflect the will of the international community which has withheld recognition for both claims until negotiations between the two result in agreement? Tiamut^talk 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Tiamut, I believe it does by saying that it is claimed as the capital of the State of Palestine; which is true. It is claimed as the capital, and as soon as there is a terrestrial State of Palestine with a seat of government in the physical city of Jerusalem, the "claim" phrase may be removed. While it may be unfortunate in many people's eyes, I think it is accurate to say that there is no physical state of Palestine yet, and thus, in my understanding, cannot have an actual capital but may designate its capital. Perhaps that is a better way to say it, that "The State of Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital." -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- And Avi a question ... when you said "this version" which version. The one Okedem restored [3] or the one that was built today to address these issues? Tiamut^talk 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I was referring to the version that has "claim" by Palestine, no "claim" by Israel, and the explanation in footnote iii, but I think the "designate" wording (see above) is better than "claim". -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    - So basically the version Nableezy had restored [4] but with the sentence on Palestine reading as you proposed above? Good with me. Though I still think "proclaimed" should precede "capital" for Israel, given how the sources describe it. Tiamut^talk 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  - See below for my response to Nableezy for a more expansive explanation of my opinions, for what they are worth. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No, because it factually false - it is the capital, per definition. See above - claim is irrelevant, international opinion and embassies are irrelevant. Look up the meaning of the word "capital". The international community has no say in this, only the facts, whether some people like it or not. okedem (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but neither of the suggestions in the RfC question. It should say "capital of Israel" but the footnote should be brought up immediately after that statement within the main text. It likewise should say capital of Palestine as that is the proclaimed capital of the state of Palestine. It should also note that the status as capital of Palestine has likewise not achieved recognition from other states. nableezy - 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just another way of highlighting the disputed nature. Which I support. Imad marie (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. By the way, Okedem just blanket reverted to what he claims is the stable consensus version of this article. I would note that this version has been kept this way by refusing to acknowledge the dissent to it, and claiming consensus must be achieved prior to any changes. Invariably leading to a lockdown of the article in this version or something close to it. Tiamut^talk 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, in the discussion above you've shown you care nothing for sources, facts, or basically anything that doesn't fit your view that international recognition has anything to do with status of capital. Here you continue that tradition with your despicable accusation against myself. I've reverted to the stable version. It's been that way for many months, because there's no consensus to change it, as your claims are never backed by the facts. okedem (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut brought sources, which you casually dismissed with an edit summary of "no such state exists" contrary to sources saying it does. nableezy - 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Came to this via RfC) May I remind everyone that Palestine is indeed recognized as an independent state by various other countries in the world. That should basically settle the issue here. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But it has no control of any territory, so it is hard to have a capital when there is nowhere for it to be. This is why I prefer "designated", for which terrestrial control is irrelevant. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Recognized, but doesn't actually exists. Even the PNA PM said it will be established in the future. But, again, that's beside the point here. A capital is a seat of government, as any dictionary will tell you. A capital isn't one because of claims or international opinion - those mean nothing in this regard. It's a capital because it's home to the nation government. That holds for Israel, but not for a "Palestinian State" . okedem (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Avi, do you have a problem with how it was worded prior to okedem's revert (besides perhaps changing "proclaimed" to "designated")? See here. nableezy - 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I need to preface with acknowledgment that I personally am biased, but I believe that is true of all of us. As a neutral statement of fact, I think all of us must agree that the government of the State of Palestine (which I believe is still the PLO?) has designated or proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, so I think it is proper to make note of that. I prefer "designate" to "claim" or "proclaim", but that is because I think it is the most neutral of the three. The nicety in using "designate", in my opinion, is that it work regardless of the reader's opinions as to the nature of the state of Palestine. For those who believe that there is no legal basis for the State of Palestine, and it is all words, well, the designation is more words. I can designate myself as Supreme Generalissimo of the United States; it's not going to to do a lot of good. And for those who believe that the state is as real and actual as Jordan, well, Jordan has designated its capital as Amman, and so it is. For those who believe that the legal standing remains nebulous and pending clarification and diplomatic actions on the part of Palestinian and Israelis, the designation is the government of Palestine's statement of intent at this time as to where it will physically locate its seat. I think that it would be a breach of neutrality not to recognize the Palestinian designation, just as it would be to tacitly assign it control over territory it does not control now and which may likely be subject to future negotiations. I know it was an overly long response, Nableezy, but I wanted to explain why I think the article should mention it, but recognize that it is a designation and not an actuality, at this point. Hopefully, in the near future, all these issues will be resolved. -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on your first sentence and much of what follows it. Designate is fine with me. What I'm more concerned with is how the first sentence of the article says two very strongly disputed things in Wikipedia's netural voice with no qualificatons. 1) that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel (some say a large part of it is not in Israel) and 2) that it is Israel's capital. With no mention of the dispute over its status as such or the lack of international recognition, etc, etc. Perhaps we could use "designate" for Israel too? And then mention both claims are disputed? Tiamut^talk 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for answering #2 prior to #1, but I do not believe that is an issue. Israel's capital is Jerusalem; others do not like that. Others cannot make Jerusalem NOT Israel's capital any more than they can prevent the State of Palestine from designating Jerusalem as its capital. In the article, there is a note directly on that phrase which discusses how there are others who neither approve nor recognize Israel's decision. I'm sure there are those who do neither recognize nor approve that the State of Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital. That too is irrelevant. The reason I feel the wording should be different is that currently, there is no physical State of Palestine which has control over actual territory. When that situation changes, then this article should change as well. As for #1, a number of possible explanations justifying the current wording come to mind, but they may not be acceptable to all. Firstly, one can say the city now is in Israel; that may change in the future. Secondly, it is under Israeli control. Thirdly, even if we were to excise the portions that are disputed, I believe it remains the largest city in Israel. Thus, regardless of one's personal political beliefs, I think the sentence may be justified as it is. Thoughts, Tiamut? -- Avi (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of fact, Jerusalem's 2007 population minus the 2006 population of East Jerusalem (per the articles on each) would be 319,296, which is 18% smaller than the population of Tel Aviv. nableezy - 06:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I dont think it is irrelevant that that others neither approve nor recognize Israel's decision, but I agree that it doesn't make Jerusalem not Israel's capital. The dispute over the words "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" shouldn't be relegated to a footnote. What would be the problem with moving what the footnote says up in to the main text without adding "designated" or "claimed"? It would be clear that the seat of government of Israel is in Jerusalem and that much of the world disputes that they have the right to do so. No implications that Jerusalem really is not the capital of Israel, only making it clear that there is a dispute over its status. nableezy - 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For personal reasons I would not, just as I guess for personal reason you would

. I unfortunately don't have the time now to give your question the attention it deserves, Nableezy. I hope to come back to it soon, though. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, it boils down to the perception of how neutral it is. As Okedem, Tariq, and perhaps others point out, the dispute is prominently discussed multiple times in the article. To add it yet again, or to make it even more prominent is the question, and making it too prominent may well be an NPOV issue as well. Again, I freely admit I have my own point-of-view which I know is coloring my instinctual response, which is that it is adequately discussed in the article and that making it more prominent may be an issue given the current status of the State of Palestine. I think this point will have to be decided by a consensus of editors, and I would feel more comfortable without further expansion, just as I am sure you feel the opposite, and understandably so. Hopefully, we will get feedback from people with less emotional involvement than we have, and can arrive at an understanding. As an aside, I note that an IP added the country box to State of Palestine which may be a problem, as there is no Country of Palestine yet. -- Avi (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The dispute over the legality of the annexation of East Jerusalem is discussed, but as far as I can tell the only place where the views of others on the making of Jerusalem the capital is not discussed anywhere but the footnote. nableezy - 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes: NPOV dictates that its disputed status be mentioned. As such, the case is not unique. We write extensively about these disputes in the articles for Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and others. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No: Jerusalem was the capital of Israel since 1948. It remains the capital today. The fact that Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 war has as much to do with Jerusalem's status as capital as Israel's capture of the Golan Heights or the Sinai or the Gaza Strip. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite any injustices Israel may or may not have committed against Palestinians. Reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 18:02, August 3, 2009
- This encyclopedia on the UN says: "Jerusalem: Historic capital of Palestine [...] On 23 January 1950 Israel proclaimed Jerusalem the capital of Israel, but this was not recognized by the UN. In November 1999 the Israeli representative in the General Assembly reiterated that Jerusalem was the capital." Note that any mention of Jerusalem being Israel's capital is attributed to an Israeli speaker or preceded by the qualifier "proclaimed". Just like this CNN article which notes that, "By most estimates, the growth of the Palestinian population of Jerusalem outstrips that of the Israelis, and no Palestinian faction would ever advocate relinquishing the Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem. And even Israel's claim that Jerusalem is its capital is one most countries around the world don't recognize." Very few reliable sources say it is the capital without qualifications and if they do, its immediately followed by a discussion of its disputed status in the eyes of the international community. Our article fails on both counts. Tiamut^talk 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  - A false analogy. The difference is that while the encyclopedia on the UN must detail Jerusalem's status from the UN's point of view, a general encyclopedia like the ones I gave above and like Wikipedia must give Jerusalem's status as an NPOV statement of the fact: that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. --GHcool (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Tiamut, I think it is fair to say that the UN is not without bias in this situation, and may not be the best source for an NPOV statement. -- Avi (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    - Avi, I think it's fair to say that NPOV does not require NPOV statements from every source, but rather that we reflect all significant POVs. The UN's POV is very significant.
    - Further, CNN, which has a pro-Israeli bias, also precedes any mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by the word "claim" and does the same for Palestinian claims. That's what I am proposing: i.e. being even-handed and reflecting the lack of recognition by the world of either claim. Tiamut^talk 08:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      - CNN is not pro-Israeli, but forget that now. You want to write it as if the two claims are equal. But they're not. Israel controls Jerusalem, and the city functions as the state's capital - home to all its governmental bodies. The Palestinian entity of questionable existence controls no territory at all, so obviously not Jerusalem, and has no governmental bodies in the city (or much of them anywhere). That's not remotely similar.
      - And again I say - the dispute and the Palestinian aspirations are discussed in an entire paragraph in the lead, and in the article body. That's more than enough. okedem (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        The two claims are equal. That's why the world community has not recognized either one of them. That Israel controls Jerusalem is a function of its greater military power and its forcible shutting down of Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem like Orient House.
        
        And while it is your opinion is that the dispute and Palestinian aspirations are discussed sufficiently, a significant number of editors and sources cited here disagree with you. Many have come to this talk page time and again to ask how it is that we present Jerusalem as Israel's capital without any qualifications. The article is not NPOV and will not be NPOV until these issues are addressed. Continually stonewalling people who bring up the critiques, or characterizing them as though they are beating a dead horse, won't help to improve the article, and it won't stop the critiques from coming. Tiamut^talk 11:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        The two claims are equal? That's absurd. Open a dictionary/encyclopedia, and read what a capital is. Perhaps you'd like to say that the moral claim is equal, or the legal basis is equal, or some such thing. But in reality - it's the capital of Israel, and only Israel.
        
        This article, I remind you, is not about international opinion, the conflict, Palestinian claim, or any such thing. It is about the city itself, and while international opinion is of some interest, it cannot take up half the lead. There's more to Jerusalem than the conflict, you know. You can't turn every article into a flier against Israel and for Palestinian causes. An entire paragraph in the lead, plus text in the article body, in more than enough (and was also a compromise - I support much less text on this issue). okedem (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        As I said before, we don't write wiki articles by looking up the definition of words and engaging in OR to decide whether they apply to a given situation or not. Reliable sources indicate that Israel's claim to Jerusalem is disputed by the entire world. Same goes for Palestine. Our article begins with the sentence: "Jerusalem is the capital and largest city in Israel." Wrong on both counts: No government recognizes it as Israel's capital and if defined to include East Jerusalem (as it is in our article), its not all located in Israel. The attempts to force other editors into accepting this as some kind of reasonable consensus by refusing to concede what the reliable sources say is the reason this issue keeps coming up and the reason this article cannot maintain FA status. Its not NPOV and its not right. Tiamut^talk 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        As I've said before, and you fail to refute - international recognition doesn't determine or change the status of capitals. A country can withhold recognition as it pleases, to express its discontent with actions, or its belief that things should be changed. But it cannot change to most basic thing - Jerusalem answers the definition of capital for Israel, and not for any other country/state/entity. If the article would say: "Jerusalem is Israel's internationally recognized and celebrated capital", it would be wrong. But "capital" is merely statement of fact, and nothing more. Perhaps it should be the capital. Perhaps Israel doesn't have a right to it; perhaps it's illegal or whatever. But we're not discussing the legality of it - just what it is. Like or not (this goes for you, and basically for any of the planet countries) - Jerusalem is Israel's capital, because Israel's government sits there. No OR here. Just a simple dictionary definition, that doesn't have qualifiers, doesn't have complicated criteria or different viewpoint. The most basic thing - we're writing an encyclopedia here - when we don't know if a certain word is appropriate, we find its accurate meaning, and see if it fits. In this case - it does.
        
        As you've provided no source saying international recognition has anything to do with capital, that claim shall henceforth be designated (or, perhaps, proclaimed) a "red herring". okedem (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No Fipplet (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No - per Avi. What this article should say is what it already does say, that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and that this is not recognized by many. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not exactly what Avi said. He said we should mention that it is the designated capital of Palestine too in the introduction directly under the statement about it being Israel's capital. Where he and I disagree is only on the need to qualify the statement regarding it being the capital of Israel. I think it should be prefaced by "designated" or "proclaimed" or alternatively that the lack of international recognition be mentioned directly after an unqualified statement. Whereas he thinks its okay to leave that part as it is. But we both agree that Palestine's designation of Jerusalem as its capital should be mentioned. Which currrently it is not, due to Okedem reverting it out. Tiamut^talk 11:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  - The RfC says 'Should we highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel? like saying that "Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel"? - to which I answered no, as did Avi. I realize this whole rfC is merely a ploy by you to promote the notion that it is also the capital of the 'State of Palestine', but you will need to start an explicit RfC about that. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No but I don't see anything wrong with stating somewhere in the body that the status is disputed. Having it prominent, or in the lede, is disingenuous. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No per User:Avi and because sovereign states have the right to designate a capital city.Historicist (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes per nableezy. Yazan (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Let me remind everyone that the issue of the dispute regarding Jerusalem's status is not swept under the rug. In fact, an entire paragraph in the lead, one out of only three, is dedicated to it, stating it is a "core issue" of the conflict, that "Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and related bodies". That "Arab Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state", and that the embassies were moved out after UNSC 478. No one can rightfully claim this issue doesn't get its due weight. Anything beyond this is simply overkill. This isn't an article about the conflict, but about the city. One in three paragraphs in the lead is more than enough. okedem (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No Leave the dead horse alone. The capital issue is discussed several times already -- in a footnote when the capital of Israel is mentioned the first time, within the body of the lead as a whole paragraph, and then later on in excruciating detail under the Political status section. The point has been made, and does not need to been made for a ~~second~~ ~~third~~ fourth time. There currently is no Palestinian state so the idea of saying that Jersualem is the proclaimed capital of Israel (a country that has had its central government functions in the city since basically its existence) and the proclaimed capital of Palestine (a geographical region, not a country, with no governmental facilities in Jerusalem) is a non-starter. The way to deal with the Palestinian capital issue is the way it's already been handled in the third paragraph of the lead -- mention that the Palestinians, when they get a state (something they do not currently have), they would like to have their capital on at least the eastern half of the city. The idea that Jerusalem is the "proclaimed" capital of Israel is meaningless, because it's not just "proclaimed" as such; it is, and has always, functioned as such. In short, Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel. The fact that it is "disputed" is a point that can at the very least wait until the third paragraph, when it can be explained in a manner that is informative, rather than misleadingly pithy for the sake of advancing a point that has zero relavence to whether a city is a country's capital. -- tariqabjotu 09:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No: Wikipedia should not be rewriting history and bending over backwards to accommodate the falsehoods that certain editors are trying to introduce through the back door, presumptuously claiming that they speak for "the world." --Gilabrand (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No: Jerusalem is Israel's capital as a fact and according to Israel's law that is the only one relevant here. Other claims should be indicated also but not on the same level of importance. Benjil (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No: Countries can self-declare Capital Cities, and indeed occassionally break-away seperate countries and Wikipedia has usually recognized their right to do so. See List_of_national_capitals where both Somaliland and Jerusalem are acknowledged. The article should note Jersulem as Capital City of Israel (as this is what Israel chooses to describe it as; similarly I could call myself Mr Wibble and I'd expect people to use that), however it would be appropriate to have a section on Disputed Status. --Truthmonkey (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No per GHcool and Avi. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More sources:

CIA factbook 2008: "Jerusalem (capital, proclaimed): Israel, West Bank"

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "In 1980 The Basic Law of Israel declared Jerusalem a 'complete and united capital' of the Israeli state, but most of the international community had recognized a UN resolution that declares such an act 'null and void' [...] Palestinians of Jerusalem [...] declined the opportunity to acquire Israeli citizenship [...] The political point in refusing Israeli citizenship was also apparent: maintaining the right to be citizens in the state of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital." Tiamut^talk 13:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

- We understand, thank you. There are neutral, reliable sources that say 'proclaimed' before 'capital of Israel' and there are neutral, reliable sources that don't say 'proclaimed' or 'disputed' before 'capital of Israel'. This is well-established. The question is in which bucket are we going to put Wikipedia: the former or the latter? Longstanding consensus, and the one that seems to still exist here, is that we're going to put it in the latter -- the one that leaves out "proclaimed" or "disputed". Perfectly good reasons have been provided for why those words should be omitted, and there are neutral, reliable sources suggesting it's perfectly fine to come down with that conclusion. So, you can stop providing sources now; there are probably hundreds of sources that deal with the matter in either way. Point understood. -- tariqabjotu 13:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No I am getting a sense of déjà vu here. I recall participating in this discussion last year, and it was not the first one. or second. No serious new evidence has been produced, so I don't see a reason to change the current compromise. -- Nudve (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue continually keeps arising because the "current compromise" is not much of one. Tiamut^talk 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some people have a problem accepting what seems to be a pretty wide consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some have trouble understanding what WP:CONSENSUS means. It doesn't mean majority rule, it means reaching a near unanimous agreement. Of which there is none here.Tiamut^talk 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No—this has been discussed dozens of times on Wikipedia, and the answer is still the same. Everything I could say about this has already been said, and also repeated here. Basically if a country has control over a territory that it declares its capital, and this becomes the country's seat of government, other countries' opinions do not change this status. The international dispute should be duly represented where there is space to do so (and where it is relevant), but in places like infoboxes and lead section, such space does not exist, and it's not relevant. The compromise, which seems fair to me, is to make do with a footnote. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No—How can one even answer the original question exactly as posed; it is a loaded question. In asking "Should we highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel?" the question presupposes something unproven. Like it or not, Jerusalem is the chosen capital of Israel, functions as the capital and is the capital by definition of what a capital is (seat of government, etc.); that much is beyond dispute, or should be. International recognition plays no part in determining its status, nor is it a matter of opinion. The nature of Jerusalem as capital needs no modifying adjective, though to some it is clearly unpalatable. I predict that this discussion will go nowhere if it focuses on such red herring issues as international opinion, embassies, and "representing points of view". These discussions are indeed getting repetitious, and "the answer is still the same". I would be in favor of adding a line to endnote iii clarifying that countries choose their own capitals, with no requirement for either embassies or international approval. Other than that, let's keep the status quo. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The disputes surrounding that are significant and require discussion in the article, but no additional language needs to be added to that very clear sentence, which is a statement of current fact. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No - per numerous comments, above. Jerusalem is the Capital, per that word's definition, and the dispute surrounding the recognition is already described in detail in the article (to the point of WP:UNDUE, in my opinion) Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion

Comment for Tiamut. I believe that part of the issue is the difference in focus as to what makes a capital. What I mean is that you refer to the non-recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital by multiple countries. That is absolutely true. However, that does not affect Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital - it affects the ACCEPTANCE of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by other countries. And that point is clearly stated in the article. Jerusalem is not accepted as the Palestinian capital by other countries for similar reasons. I maintain that the operative difference between the State of Palestine and Israel is that the latter is a physical country with territory while the former remains a non-physical entity at this time. Countries have capitals, ideas, no matter how good they may be, do not have capitals. As soon as the State of Palestine becomes sovereign over territory, it can consider some of that territory its capital, and then there is no longer any distinction. So, while your comments about the recognition of Jerusalem by other entities is correct, I continue to respectfully maintain that it is not the relevant point for this discussion. As I see it, both Israel and the State of Palestine have designated Jerusalem as their respective capitals, and neither designation is accepted by many countries. The difference is that Israel's "capital designate" is its "capital real", as Israel controls, and is at least de facto, if not de jure, soverign, over the territory it claims as its capital, whereas the State of Palestine is not, at this time. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Avi, but I have to respectfully disagree. When Jerusalem is defined as including East Jerusalem (and other parts of the West Bank) as it is here, to say that it is Israel's "capital real" is incorrect. I'm sure you are aware that all government offices are in West Jerusalem and that East Jerusalem (which contains the Old City) is predominantly Arab and Palestinian. Very few Israelis even enter Arab East Jerusalem (except for the 0.9 km2 that make up the Old City of course) and there is a separate system for health, emergency services, etc. Orient House functioned as the headquarters of the PLO for two decades (the PLO representing Palestine at the UN means that it essentially served as a Palestinian seat of government there). True, the building was seized and forcibly closed by Israel in 2001, but that does not change the fact that Arab East Jerusalem is not functionally a part of Israel's "capital real".

Our first sentence is the most problematic, because it presents Jerusalem as including East Jerusalem and on that basis defines it as Israel's largest city, even though most of the territory being described lies well within the West Bank and was illegally occupied in 1967. The idea that this is all made better by appending a footnote that explains that the international ommunity doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital is do indulge in an illusion. So many IPs come here and after reading the article ask why it says its ISrael's capital without any qualifications. Meaning, that most of them do not see the information you are saying is so prominently displayed.

I could go on, but I will stop for now. Tiamut^talk 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at least one government office that I know of is - the Ministry of Justice (located, no less, in Salah ed Din street). As Orient House is no longer operational, it's a meaningless point, that we should waste more text on. okedem (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More disinformation is being disseminated on this talk page: There is no "separate" system for health care in East Jerusalem. Arabs living in East Jerusalem can go to any hospital in the city, and receive services from Tipat Halav mother & child clinics and Kupat Holim HMOs. They are free to choose any facility they want, in West or East Jerusalem - and they do, unimpeded. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's important. Both parts of the city are served by the same emergency services (Magen David Adom), the same bus company (Egged), etc. As East Jerusalem tells us, 41% of EJ's population are Jews (181,000 or so). okedem (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, when users draw upon their personal knowledge and experience to characterize what others say as disinformation, its interesting, but irrelevant to establishing the facts. I already posted a source attesting to this situation above. Here it is again: "The main business section in West Jerusalem is almost entirely Jewish. The Old City, in East Jerusalem, is almost entirely Arab. Welfare policies in the two sections are handled differently. Each side maintains its own fire departments, hospitals, and medical emergency crews. Schools are entirely separate. Two different bus systems travel the city, often following the same routes. Jews try to avoid using Muslim-controlled electric companies, and Arabs try to avoid using Israeli-owned banks. New roads make it possible for Israeli in Jerusalem's suburbs to travel back and forth almost without seeing an Arab." (Daily Life in ancient and modern Jerusalem) Notice the chapter heading, "A Divided City"? Our article is trying to pretend there is one Jerusalem that includes east Jerusalem. This the Israeli desire yes, but it is not reality. Tiamut^talk 08:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some obscure book says something does not make it true. Living in Jerusalem I know a little better than whoever Diane Slavik and Ray Webb may be. There is no separate health system, and as someone said almost half of "East-Jerusalem" population is Jewish. Furthermore, all is is totally irrelevant to the question. Please stop trying to divert the subject. This is a very transparent strategy. Benjil (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer books to your opinion. That's in line with WP:V. Tiamut^talk 09:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not my opinion. This is a fact. All the controversy comes from the fact you don't seem able to understand the difference between facts and opinions. I think we already discussed that to the death. And the vote is quite clear. So may we put an end to this argument ? Benjil (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should let the discussion continue. There is no clear outcome here and this will remain an issue until it is addressed. We can address it now, or later, but it will have to be dealth with at some point. Tiamut^talk 10:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This will remain an issue until it is addressed ... It will have to be dealt with at some point.

This is the problem. You will only consider this matter closed, "addressed", and "dealt with" when what you want gets put in the article. That's not how it works. We have had this conversation literally dozens of times over a period of years and nothing has changed. Realize that consensus can change, but it does not have to. Once again, we have, in this RfC alone (to say nothing of past conversations), a general consensus for keeping the status quo by a ratio of about three to one. You have been defeated again and again; now drop it. The matter has, in fact, been dealt with. -- tariqabjotu 10:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:BATTLE Tariq. There is no "defeated" side here. WP:CONSENSUS relies on achieving near unanimity between editors acting in good-faith. If 1/3 of the editors participating in a discussion on a given issue continue to be dissatisfied with the text, then there is no consensus. And the issue will continue to be raised. That's only natural and in fact welcome since we are encouraged to continue discussing until consensus can be achieved. Sorry you don't like having to deal with this over and over again, but perhaps when you learn to respect the opinions of those who differ from your own, we will make more progress. Tiamut^talk 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, consensus is not unanimity. You might also want to keep in mind that filibustering is considered gaming the system. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I am familiar with WP:BATTLE, which concerns civility, not the idea that's one's efforts can be defeated (as they can). And WP:CONSENSUS does not dictate that the same group of people should repeatedly bring up the same debate with nothing new to bring to the table; that, rather, is called being tendentious and, echoing No More Mr Nice Guy, gaming the system. There is nothing here to suggest I don't respect your opinion; disagreeing is not the same as not respecting your opinion. Respect, rather, is gracefully conceding when you're outnumbered; that's something the persistent supporters of this "disputed" wording have not done. So, let me put it this way: based on the discussion here, with three to one in favor of the status quo, your proposed changes are not going to be implemented anywhere in the forseeable future. So, there's really no reason for me to argue with you about this, especially when I know there's no possibility of changing your mind. -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, too bad you signed the above comment. We might have mistaken it for a Hamas press release. That you have no clue about the reality of life in Jerusalem is crystal clear. Two bus systems following the same routes??? Arabs and Jews "trying to avoid" each other's banks?? Muslim controlled electric companies??? Where do you dig up this stuff?.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That you resort to characterizing a book and its contents as a Hamas press release only shows how little respect you have for WP:V and WP:NPOV. Tiamut^talk 09:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this bunch of nonsense you have cited comes from a children's book, which states it is geared for kids aged 9-13. Not everything you dig up on Google is a scholarly source that I have some obligation to respect. --Gilabrand (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I started with a children's book thinking it might be easier for you to understand. However, the same is said in scholarly sources. See Menachem Klein, for example. Tiamut^talk 10:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And please note, There are four Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem, with 546 beds, that provide essential secondary services. These also service Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, when they are able to get permits to enter East Jerusalem. I'm not surprised that you don't know much about East Jerusalem, given that most Israelis never go there (outside of the Old City of course). Tiamut^talk 10:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are two bus systems. In the last years there has been a new private Arab bus system. It was an initiative of the City Hall. It does not follow the same routes at all and deserves only Arab neighborhoods. Benjil (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How very considerate of you, my dear Tiamut. Except that you don't seem to understand what Mr. Klein is saying. He says everyone rides Egged buses (unless they need to go somewhere that is not served by Egged buses). So Arabs and Jews are free to use the same bus system, shop in the same malls, receive treatment at the same hospitals and clinics, hold accounts in the same banks, study at the same universities and enjoy outings to the same parks. Yes, there are separate school systems, but there are joint Jewish/Arab schools for anyone who is interested. No one ever said there are no Arab hospitals, buses, schools and banks. Certainly there are, but what you don't seem to understand is that Arab residents of Jerusalem have a choice, which they freely exercise. To say that no Israelis walk around on Salah e-Din is OR at best. When was the last time you were there, conducting street polls? Much remains to be done. Jerusalem is not conflict-free. But it is a far cry from the picture you are trying to paint, of "two cities," which is false, tendentious and misleading.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do understand what Klein is saying and its not what you describe above. You are free to soapbox as to what you think the reality is in Jerusalem, though I'd prefer you provide sources tht could be useful to improving this article. Tiamut^talk 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Side point: Moving up info about Palestinian capital

Considering the original question in the RfC is about adding the word 'disputed' or 'proclaimed' in front of "capital of Israel", I'm adding a side section on a point that has been brought up: should the piece on Palestinian claims on the capital (currently in the third paragraph of the intro) be moved up [cut/paste], repeated closer to the top [copy/paste], or remain where it is [nothing]? Note that I'm ignoring the "proclaimed" vs. "designated" debate; that debate is so minor compared to the other issues. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for Cut/Paste or Nothing. I would be okay with saying at the end of the first paragraph that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/designated capital of the Palestinian state provided most of the other info currently in the third paragraph is removed completely from the intro. That's because I believe bookending the intro with this point is simply excessive. Alternatively, I think the current location of this info -- in the third paragraph, where this can be discussed with a little more detail and clarity -- is fine and, in fact, probably better. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for moving the info up. My edit was trying to do that. And for using the terminology suggested by Avi for the Palestinian claim. I'm not for removing the information in the third paragraph however. That further downplays the POV of the international community, which was a primary reason people were motivated to file this RfC. Its weak wording and relegation of the important details to a footnote is simply not enough. Tiamut^talk 13:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the lead is unbalanced - but against Israel

Some users don't seem to realize that the current state of affairs isn't the "pro-Israeli" user's dream, but a compromise position. You see, in the lead we mention a fact (that could be seen as Israel's side) in a single sentence: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and its largest city...". Then we spend an entire paragraph talking about how disputed it is (also mentioning "disputed East Jerusalem" in that first sentence). We say it's a "core issue", talk about the condemnation of the annexation; embassies leaving; Palestinian aspirations. We never mention Israel's position here - I'm not talking about the simple fact of Jerusalem being the capital or its size; when we say the annexation has been condemned, we fail to present Israel's defense to that - Jerusalem was territory without a sovereign, captured in a defensive war. Its status in the partition plan isn't different from West Jerusalem - the city was to be internationalized, but the Arabs rejected the plan and captured half the city, etc. I don't want to start a discussion about the validity of those claims, but we don't even present them. We say Israel annexed EJ, and that many condemned that, but don't give Israel the right to defend its actions, leaving the reader with the clear conclusion that it's "wrong". Already the conflict gets undue weight in the lead, one out of three paragraphs. An entire section of the article is devoted to "Legal status".

Just as you might not like some things, not everything is perfect in my view. But I see the benefit of a compromise, and am willing to accept a non-optimal solution, to avoid a tug-of-war, and give due weight to the other viewpoints. okedem (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this before?

Am I going senile or something? This whole argument seems familiar. I'm sure I read it three or four times already. We should simply dig it out of the archive - such a waste of good effort to rewrite all those arguments again.

As I recall, last time we went through this, I suggested that instead of writing

... is the capital of Israel and its largest city

we write

... is the seat of Israel's government and its largest city

It is, after all, only the word "capital" that is in dispute, not the facts: we all know where the office of the registrar of deeds is. Thanks to the great authors of the English language, we have many ways of saying the same thing. Why are we being such lugheads? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a link at the top of the page that goes to the sixty or so threads we've had about this issue already. And, from what I recall, the reason "capital" remained instead of "seat of government" is because we wouldn't say "Paris is the seat of government of France...". Saying "seat of government" is evasive, suggesting Israel's official capital is somewhere else (as in the case of The Hague) or not officially designated (as in the case of Tokyo). And, as was stated earlier, this evasion would serve to further the efforts of those he keep bringing up this issue by casting doubt on a factual statement. -- tariqabjotu 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that (huge) collection of threads seems to be missing some useful ones. I've added another, which seems particularly relevant to the present discussion from /Archive 7 here. --NSH001 (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that "seat of government" suggests something else than capital is, in my educated guess, not so. I bet that if you ask 100 people to read the "seat of government" version of the lead, 99 of them will not even notice the difference - if they think about it at all, they will think we are being poetic. And the 100th person will be Tiamut, who will be satisfied by the indisputable accuracy of the statement. It will end, once and for all, this idiotic dispute. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

While perhaps not to you, the evasiveness is apparent to me. Playing with semantics to give an illusion of doubt is not okay. -- tariqabjotu 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to call your attention to this sentence, from a New York Times article from June 19, 1879: "... will be made transferring the seat of Government back to Paris." (search for "Paris seat of government" in Google). Ha! --Ravpapa (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... are you joking? If not, there are a couple problems with your example that do anything but support your point. -- tariqabjotu 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Later: Interesting. I have just been reading about Paris, France. It is not the capital of France. France has no official capital. Sticklers refer to Paris as the seat of government, not as the capital. But you, Tariq, never even noticed that. So much for the vaunted difference between "capital" and "seat of government". --Ravpapa (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation please? However, if I were to assume for the moment that you are correct that Paris is not the official capital of France, that does nothing to catapult my point. Jerusalem is both the capital of Israel both how its country denotes it and how its country treats it, which is more, according to you, than could be said about Paris. Please don't nitpick. -- tariqabjotu 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not easily offended, but your suggestion that I am nitpicking cuts to the quick. It is you, not I, who is nitpicking, finding minute distinctions where none exist. Except in a few very odd cases where the national government sits in a location other than the declared capital, the words "capital" and "seat of government" are used interchangeably. Merriam-Webster defines capital as "a city serving as a seat of government".

However, as your post and those of the other combatants shows, everyone is loath to change the word "capital", each for his or her own reasons. So it appears that the teams will continue batting at each other about this. Maybe they like it. Actually, I kind of like it, too. Perverse, no? But enough is enough. So this will be my last post on the topic.

Incidentally, I was reading about Paris at Capital (political). --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your example shows why your suggestion isn't good. We use the word "capital" all over Wikipedia to describe capital cities. The only places we use "seat of government" is when the designated capital is different from the seat of government, as one can read in the article you just linked to. In our case, Jerusalem is both the officially designated capital, and the seat of government, meaning the word "capital" encompasses the full meaning without need for clarifications (like "official capital" for Porto-Novo). If we really did use "seat of government" interchangeably, fine - but we don't. So there's no justification for singling-out Jerusalem, just because some people don't like seeing the words "Israel's capital" attached to it. okedem (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes That city is special due to the on-going conflict. Noting that it is disputed (despite Palestine being a state or not) will make the reader aware of it. Likeminas (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

arab capital of culture

Why is this single line being repeatedly removed? Is this article not allowed to highlight anything that might show Jerusalem as an Arab city? nableezy - 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This line should be kept because it's an interesting fact. I don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate. Although instead of "have been", we should say "were" and the whole line (since it's quite short) should be merged into the larger, relevant passage. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the Arab city business. It has to do with WP:RECENTISM. Jerusalem is thousands of years old. Nableezy wishes to stuff one out-of-context sentence from a March 2009 news article. Why? Imagine if everybody decided to put their favorite out-of-context sentence from a random 2009 news article about Jerusalem. The article would be reduced to political sniping highlighting every little perceived injustice committed in the last 9 months in this city that has existed since biblical times. Is that really what this Jerusalem article on Wikipedia is for? I propose we remove this sentence immediately and I will do it myself unless Nableezy can give a worthy counterargument. --GHcool (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire history of the modern state of Israel is recentism in comparison to the thousands of years Jerusalem has been in existence, should we remove anything that the article discusses since 1948? Recentism is about skewing an article by placing undue weight on recent events, this is one line. And recentism is an essay not a policy. nableezy - 21:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not following. Jerusalem was selected as the 2009 Arab Capital of Culture and we shouldn't add this because it happened recently? If this line was in the "History" section, then I would agree with you. However, it looks like a perfect fit for the "Culture" section. Is the issue about the latter part of the line, where it says the celebrations were suppressed? If so, we could surely find a way to reword it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's being removed either. It's obviously an important aspect of Jerusalem's culture, no matter how recent it is. Although Jerusalem does have an extensive history, the article (outside the History section) is supposed to be primarily about the city as it is today (or, rather, in recent decades). We don't talk about sports in Jerusalem in the 6th century BC or the economy of the city during the Crusades; we talk about sports, economy, and culture today. The only problem with the Arab Capital of Culture piece is that it's abruptly mentioned. It needs to flow better with the content around it and be stated in a manner other than two curt sentences. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How about in this passage: The Palestinian National Theatre, for many years the only Arab cultural center in East Jerusalem, engages in cultural preservation as well as innovation, working to upgrade and rekindle interest in the arts at the national level.[177] The Ticho House, in downtown Jerusalem, houses the paintings of Anna Ticho and the Judaica collections of her husband, an ophthalmologist who opened Jerusalem's first eye clinic in this building in 1912.[178] Al-Hoash, established in 2004, is a gallery for the preservation of Palestinian art.[179] In 2009, Jerusalem was selected as the Arab Capital of Culture, but celebrations in the city itself were prevented by Israeli authorities because they were organized by the PNA.[176]. Again, we could reword it, but that should solve the flow issue. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason that the pro-Is don't like this is because it sounds like you are merely pissed off because the Israelis wouldn't allow the festivities - the selection isn't all that important. And, truth be told, this injustice seems pretty mild compared to the recent house evictions in Sheikh Jarrah, the plans to bulldoze large sections of Silwan, and on and on.

I suggest that we include the bit about the Arab Capital of Culture, but leave out the bit about the Israelis suppressing the festivities. The point, after all, is to show that Jerusalem is a capital of Palestinian culture, and not to show what shmucks the Israelis can be. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Later: I did some revision and expansion of the stuff on Palestinian culture in Jerusalem, which might now be palatable to both sides. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Ravpapa did an excellent job. It is, to use Ravpapa's phrase, palatable to me. Thank you, Ravpapa. :) --GHcool (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I could certainly accept Ravpapa's changes—just mention that it was selected as the capital of Arab culture suffices. Thanks for your help, --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Rioting: A Jerusalem pastime?

Has anyone noticed that riots are rather frequent in Jerusalem and vicinity? They riot over the Temple Mount (go look it up on the news), the Church of the Holy Sepulchre [5], parking lot openings on Shabbat [6], perceived harassment of haredim [7], and just about anything and everything, it seems. Since this habit of rioting has been pointed out numerous times in the media, the riots ought to be notable and thus worth a section (or maybe even an article). 192.12.88.7 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"جيروزاليم" is out of context

The word "جيروزاليم" is not the Arabic name of Jerusalem. It is not even a word in Arabic. It is the way to spell the English name of Jerusalem when using the Arabic alphabet.Eddau (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

al-aqsa in Jerusalem

"The first verse in the Qur'an's Surat al-Isra notes the destination of Muhammad's journey as al-Aqsa (the farthest) mosque,[162] in reference to the location in Jerusalem. "
well, Jerusalem isn't mentioned as the translation in the footnotes demonstrates, it is just a (much) later guess for political and economic sake, shall we delete that? may be we could specify the actual date when it was declared so...? Hope&Act3! (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the issue around whether or not the Quran explicitly mentions Jerusalem or not is irrelevant. The point is that Muslims have always considered it the third most holy site for their religion after Mecca and Medina, so just leave it at that. It is also a fact that at the outset of Islam, the direction of prayer was towards Jerusalem, indicating that it was a city of major spiritual significance. These facts are not disputed. Foxinsocks74 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology.

Jerusalem comes most likely from early semitic hur(cave)[as in arabic hira,aramean hawran...]and semitic shlm/slm (peace,safe,healthy)so it means the cave of peace,healthiness...

Keeping in mind that Semitic H evolved to E in Greek.

Humanbyrace (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

please cite your references. --dab (𒁳) 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My reference is in Arabic from historian Ahmed Dawud "Semites,Arabs and Hebrews" book.

Humanbyrace (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ahmed Dawud is wrong. But if you can provide publisher, year, ISBN and page number, we might consider mentioning him regardless. --dab (𒁳) 10:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why sould him be wrong and what is the utility in so case to mention it?

the publisher is "Dar al Mustaqbil" Damascus and the introduction is dedicated to an occidental French scholar named Pierre Rossi.

Ahmed Dawud writes that Jerusalem appeared first in Greek language septuagint Torah of the 3. BC

and is composed of Yeru+Salem as Greeks changed Semitic H to E when adopted the Semitic alphabet.

So the original is "hura-shalim" meanig most likely cave of peace,wellness,safety or cave of the monks is shalim was the plural of shaliwu=monk in Semitic.

Humanbyrace (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a very strange etymology. I am not sure whether your H refers to the Semitic /ħ/ or /h/, but in any case, I don't know of /h/ or /ħ/ transformation into /j/ in any Semitic language. Greek is totally irrelevant here, as all Greek translations of the Bible were made hundreds of years after the city was already known as /jeruʃaˈlem/ or /jeruʃaˈlajim/. Furthermore, in case this theory was right, I would expect some Arabic ancient source to mention Jerusalem as /hurasalem/ or /ħurasalem/, just like the Arabic name for Gaza still preserves the /ɣ/ phoneme (/ɣazza/) that merged with /ʕ/ in Tiberian Hebrew (/ʕazza/). DrorK (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

re this revert, if there has "never been a consensus" I daresay the default option is to lay out the facts such as they are. If this isn't acceptable to either camp, the article will have to be tagged as {{NPOV}} until reason prevails. I am sure I have no opinion on the Middle East conflict, but I do have an opinion on upholding WP:NPOV on Wikipedia.

Saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (footnote: under Israeli law. The UN and most countries disagree and consider Israeli control of East Jerusalem illegal)" is not honest. The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is a disputed city, de iure under UN administration, but de facto under Israeli control since 1967. It isn't anti-Israeli or anything to state this, as it is simply a matter of fact. After stating this, it is still possible to add that Israel emphatically does consider Jerusalem its capital. And no, it is not an internal affair for a country to claim as its capital a city that isn't recognized as part of its territory in the first place. We might as well claim that Beijing is the capital of the Republic of China.

I have no wish to impose any particular revision, but any neutral observer will need to agree that the current revision is not neutral. I suggest we amend this, but if this isn't possible within reasonable effort, I will just insist that this article must be tagged as biased. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the edit summary accompanying that revert. There has "never been a consensus" for the other wording. The existing wording and structure result from numerous and lengthy discussions involving many editors; see, for example, "Archived Talk about Jerusalem as capital of Israel", highlighted in red near top of this page. A parallel discussion recently at Talk:Israel resulted in similar conclusions. Many, if not all, of your points above have been previously discussed and negotiated, repeatedly, on these pages. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I agree fully with Dbachmann and must say that Hertz1888 has left out that the last discussion on this issue once again ended in no consensus (for either the current ~~wording~~ format or that proposed to replace it). Should either one of you be interested, a mediation request has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel in order to come to some sort of resolution regarding this issue. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 11:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying any information in the article is false. Jerusalem is, of course, the Israeli capital, under Israeli law. I am saying it is patently deceptive to put this as "Jerusalem is the Israeli capital [footnote: under Israeli law]". You want to address this point of presentation instead of rehashing the futile debate whether Jerusalem "is" the capital of Israel, which is basically an ontological discussion on the value of the copula. It is, under Israeli law. It is not, according to everyone else. I have no issue with that. The point is that both views are equally valid and deserve equal presentation, and it is not arguable to hide away the view which is apparently less welcome to the majority of editors here in a footnote.

This should be no argument at all, because it is not a point on "truth" in the Middle East conflict but a question on how to arrange undisputed information that is already present in the article. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify (and have) that it is not so much the wording that it is at issue, but rather the format (i.e. way it is presented), as you have laid out above. Tiamut^talk 12:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has ever presented a single source to say that international recognition is relevant to a city's status as capital. Capital is defined as "seat of government" (open any dictionary, that's the definition you'll find); Jerusalem answers this description for Israel, Israel controls it, and has designated it the capital. Thus, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

The lead already has an entire paragraph discussing the conflict, which is way more than it should have, in my view. This was a serious compromise, and it's a shame (though not a surprise) it is not respected. okedem (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to claim Jerusalem is "de iure under UN administration" is simply false. This was a plan for it, not its current legal situation. okedem (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jerusalem is, of course, the Israeli capital, under Israeli law. Ugh. This never ends. As much as you want to sideline the "Is it or is it not the capital?" issue and focus on something else, statements like this one indicate the importance of that question. You frame the pitfall of the lead as an omission of "several views in an international dispute" and a delegation of "povs you do not like to a footnote". Aside from the latter point being a baseless presumption (you don't know what I believe about the political status of East Jerusalem, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't base your comments on uninformed conjecture), your rhetoric ignores the points supporters of the status quo have been trying to make for years. That is, there is nowhere in the definition of a capital city that requires the international community to accept it. Israel terms Jerusalem as its capital and the city functions as such; those two points are enough to say, unqualified, that Jerusalem is the capital. Obviously, the controversy vis-a-vis Jerusalem is important, and so it is rightfully mentioned not only in the footnote, but in the third paragraph of the lead and again, in greatest detail, under the "Political status" section. But no more. We don't need to pound this controversy into the heads of readers to the point where our statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", a fact that is hardly debatable, sounds like a farce.

We had a lengthy request for comment regarding this issue as recently as August. Proposals to change the lead were soundly rejected for the umpteenth time, but again we have this issue brought up with the same sort of extortionary tactics. Just some of the ones that have been used over the years and/or at present: Well, if you're not going to succomb to our demands, we'll demote this article from featured status. (Done.) Well, if you're not going to succomb to our demands, we'll tag the article as not neutral. (Done.) Well, if you're not going to succomb to our demands, you'll be demonstrating that you don't care about NPOV. (Understood.) And, most pertinently, Well, if you're not going to succomb to our demands, we'll be back in a few months to bring this up again. This is disrespect at the highest degree. You have presented no new information. You have presented no new proposal. You are simply bringing up the same point as before and implying that your proposal would have been in the article ages ago if your opponents weren't so fucking blind about what WP:NPOV says and what the world outside Israel has to think. With that misguided attitude toward how discussion works, this matter will never be put to rest. I suppose I'll see you in June. -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that you enjoy some kind of exemption from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF tariqabjotu. Its practically impossible to engage in any kind of constructive dialogue when all we have is name-calling, mutual recrimination, and cursewords to contend with. No wonder these discussions never go anywhere. Tiamut^talk 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tiamut, you have it all figured out. </sarcasm> -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that smug self-assurance contributes little toward the building of a collaborative editing environment, I try to check my ego at the login page. You?

About the article, I've restored the POV tag that Okedem deleted. Considering that there are tens of editors who have expressed concern regarding the way we represent the different POVs on Jerusalem, the POV tag both here and at Israel should remain in place until we can reach some sort of resolution. I'm quite sure I'm not the only who is tired of being made to feel like a problem editor for asking that our articles comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The tags might encourage people to avoid farcical discussions characterized by stonewalling, verbal abuse and derision to instead seriously address the issues being raised by their fellow editors. Here's hoping. Tiamut^talk 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And what is your definition of "resolution"? The RfC in August concluded with more than 70% of editors involved saying 'no', not to a specific proposal, but to the overarching question, "Should we highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel?" That there are people who still drop by and make comments about the article does not necessarily indicate there's a problem with the article; no matter what we do, given the nature of the subject, we will have dissenters. The question is whether editors who are familiar with the back history, even if they did not fully agree with the results themselves, will respectfully tell those people that, unfortunately, his or her position was already discussed at an earlier date and that it was decided that we would go with something else. Obviously, considering we're still getting comments suggesting that those who agree with the current formulation are refusing to comply with policy or are otherwise stonewalling, thus delegitimizing their position, that isn't going to happen -- at least, it appears, until what you want gets put in the article. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that in this article, an entire paragraph of the lead discusses the conflict, and the word "capital" has a prominent link to a footnote, using a different format than references, this issue has more than enough space.

This issue will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. However, the current phrasing has been in the article for a very long time, and was the result of extensive discussions. No new sources have been presented (or sources at all), and many respectable sources use the unqualified "capital" designation, without even a note. We have a note, and an entire paragraph of the lead, including an entire section.

This strategy cannot continue. Time and again we have this discussion, with claims that users need to "seriously address the issues being raised". The issues have been addressed and discussed, with the result being the footnote, lead paragraph and entire section in this article. More than enough. Raising this again and again, with no new developments or sources is nothing short of disruptive. I'm removing the tag. There is no justification for this "try, try again" tactic. The issue has been discussed, and your position did not gain support. okedem (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We are in mediation now over this issue. Obviously, its not resolved. It is true that sometimes when the issue is raised, we move one more millmeter away from a version that states one POV as fact and sidelines others. Other times, nothing happens. The person raising their concern is just shouted down and told we have already reached consensus (when in fact we have not). Consensus is not immutable. Discussion can be difficult and recur often, particularly true when addressing intractable conflicts and in this case, one of the central unresolved issues in that conflict. The NPOV tag is warranted given the level of dissent with the current version. Removing it is disrespecting the views of those challenging the current version. Trying to tell us all that we are being disruptive for welcoming further discussion on this unresolved issue is a thinly veiled threat that isn't going to work here. Please restore the tag. This is a first step towards acknowledging that there are people who legitimately disagree with your position, which is essential to any effort toward finding a genuine resolution, however temporary or ephemeral, as most things are in modern life. Tiamut^talk 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The mediation is primarily about the Israel article. Again, what is your definition of a "resolution"? When will this be "resolved"? -- tariqabjotu 06:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Its also about this article, as you yourself have stated there. As I said above, when there is consensus that what we have is acceptable, it will be resolved, for a time. Nothing in life is permanent. Everything changes. If you are not willing to coountenance changes to your preffered version, you shouldn't be editing here. Tiamut^talk 08:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, until your position is accepted, you'll hold the article hostage with the tag. Doesn't work that way. Your position has been rejected, live with it. okedem (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your refusal to acknowledge that there is a good faith dispute is noted. Tiamut^talk 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Tiamut, I will not restore the tag. Nothing has changed, no new information, no new sources. No reason to change the current phrasing, which got wide support. Your position for changing the lead has been discussed extensively, and failed to gain support. Raising it again and again, just a few months apart, is an attrition tactic, and isn't legitimate.

I will also quote myself, from a previous discussion, so maybe you'll understand that the current version is by no means the "pro-Israel" version you make it out to be:

"Actually, the lead is unbalanced - but against Israel"

"Some users don't seem to realize that the current state of affairs isn't the "pro-Israeli" user's dream, but a compromise position. You see, in the lead we mention a fact (that could be seen as Israel's side) in a single sentence: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and its largest city...". Then we spend an entire paragraph talking about how disputed it is (also mentioning "disputed East Jerusalem" in that first sentence). We say it's a "core issue", talk about the condemnation of the annexation; embassies leaving; Palestinian aspirations. We never mention Israel's position here - I'm not talking about the simple fact of Jerusalem being the capital or its size; when we say the annexation has been condemned, we fail to present Israel's defense to that - Jerusalem was territory without a sovereign, captured in a defensive war. Its status in the partition plan isn't different from West Jerusalem - the city was to be internationalized, but the Arabs rejected the plan and captured half the city, etc. I don't want to start a discussion about the validity of those claims, but we don't even present them. We say Israel annexed EJ, and that many condemned that, but don't give Israel the right to defend its actions, leaving the reader with the clear conclusion that it's "wrong". Already the conflict gets undue weight in the lead, one out of three paragraphs. An entire section of the article is devoted to "Legal status"."

okedem (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I will restore the tag myself then. You didn't even bother to engage me in further conversation, but instead simply copy pased one of your earlier comments here. I've already seen that thank you. I don' consider it a satisfactory or substantive answer and proably have already replied to it, and so won't bother doing so again. Clearly, you are having difficulty accepting that people can disagree with you in good faith about what NPOV looks like. There is a dispute. Burying your head in the sand and saying "No, there isn't," won't make it go away. I suggest you treat the mediation process with more seriousness than you have people's comments here. Tiamut^talk 08:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, your position has been considered in multiple discussions, including the RfC in August, in which the large majority of editors opposed changes to highlight the conflict even more. I copied an earlier comment because your current complaint is just a re-hash of the old discussion - no new information or sources (by the way, you never bothered replying to it back then). It's clear to me that you will never consider this issue "resolved" until your position is accepted.

Please justify your new attempt to change this - is there a change in the situation? Do you have any new information, not previously considered? What is your justification for dragging us back into a discussion that was held (and concluded not to your satisfaction) just a few months ago? okedem (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, its not like I am the one bringing this up every time a new discussion ensues. Each time, the discussion is initiated by a new editor. Funnily enough, each time, their complaint is that the text fails to saitisfy NPOV. That is my position too. And when I see an editor making a good faith attempt to reinitiate the discussion, it is my opinion that it should be reconsidered. There is no need for new information or new sources.

This text has evolved over the years and it will continue to evolve, as does the whole of Wikipedia. As we get greater and greater input with the years, issues will need to revisited. WP:CONSENSUS can and does change. It is not disruptive to reconsider an issue that was last discussed months ago. Particularly when so many editors are dissatisfied wih wha is there presently. If you don't like revisiting the issue, no one is forcing you to be involved. Tiamut^talk 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There will always be users who disagree, but this means nothing about overall opinion. If the article didn't say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, you'd have users complaining on the talk page too. To claim you're not the one bringing it up is technically correct, but still misleading. When someone tries to change some compromise phrasing, in Israel's favor, I revert them and explain on the talk page that the phrasing is a compromise, and we should respect it. I've done this plenty of times, even when I don't like the phrasing. On the other hand, you latch on to every such complaint, to restart the argument, hoping that by chance this time your position will prevail. Respect the opinion of the community, and accept that you're in the minority on this one. okedem (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Being in the "minority" is not an effective argument for dismissing someone's concerns, particularly when the conern they have is related to NPOV. What is most disconcerting in this article, is that it is Israel alone that consider Jerusalem its capital (i.e. a minority of one). While the rest of the world rejects this claim, our article posits this minority position as fact, while using convulated formatting and language to describe the majority position of the international community. That this has gone on for years now is an example of how successful some editors have been at intimidating others who come to complain about this into silence. Not happening this time Okedem. You've agreed to mediation too, so you must recognize there's a dispute, or else what are you particiating for? Let the tag go up on this page to reflect that. Tiamut^talk 13:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, the incredible amount of text you and others sharing your views have poured in various talk page regarding this issue shows how ridicules your claim of being "silenced" really is. The intimidation claim is even more idiotic - did someone threaten you? Or is the mere fact that others disagree with you intimidate you? Come on, you can do better than such patently false claims. The capital issue is one of the most discussed ones on Wiki, and you know it. No one is being silenced here.

Your concerns have not been dismissed, but discussed Ad nauseam, as anyone can see. We will not rehash the entire discussion again - nothing has changed from the previous discussions in August. There's no information, and no change in reality. Thus, we could simply copy and paste all of our previous discussions here. The result will still be the same - your position did not gain support. You need to accept this, instead of trying again and again, hoping for some random majority. Clearly, for you the issue will only be "resolved" if the article is changed to your liking. That's not how this works.

And our mediation is not about this article, so it's an irrelevant claim. okedem (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The dispute has had its day in court. Many, many days. Nothing new is being said or offered in evidence, but the discussion goes on and on... endlessly, it would seem. Is the tag going to reappear every time someone new comes along and remarks on the so-called POV statements or their formatting? A compromise means that all parties will be dissatisfied to a certain extent. That may be as close as this matter will ever come to "resolution". I do not see the tag as serving a constructive purpose. It threatens to become a permanent presence, inviting ever more fruitless discussion. Time for it to go. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We are currently in mediation over this issue becasue many editors feel the text is not NPOV as it stands. As such, it is highly inappropriate to remove the tag. It is a denial of the fact that there is a dispute, and disrupts the dispute resolution process by failing to acknwoledge that. Please restore it. Tiamut^talk 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not "in" mediation. Mediation was proposed. Your using the mediation process as an excuse to put tags on this article is not exactly what mediation is supposed to achieve, as far as I understand it. You don't think changing the status quo on this article is disruptive to the resolution process? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No. This is an open encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Change is part of what Wikipedia is all about. "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." And yes, we are not yet in mediation, as we await your approval and that of Nsaum75. However, most of the editors have already agreed. I hope you are not planning to derail the mediation process by withholding your own approval. Tiamut^talk 13:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still considering what to do regarding mediation. Since you pretty much say you'll return to this issue until you get a result you like, I'm not at all sure I'm going to be wasting my time on mediation you'll just ignore if you don't get what you want. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not threaten mediation participants, Tiamut. Mediation is 100% voluntary and both he and nsaum75 have every right to reject the mediation for whatever reasons they want. And considering what both of them have said on their own talk pages, they have legitimate concerns. Your comments above are further legitimizing them, and even legitimizing the reservations I still have, although I still have hope that our mediators are steely enough to keep similar degrees of stubbornness at bay. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone. If you read a threat in my comment, its only because you have failed to assume good faith. Tiamut^talk 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, we are not in mediation over this issue. We are in mediation over the Israel article. Two separate articles. Similar disputes -- that's why I mentioned this article -- but two separate articles. And if asked about this article in the course of the mediation, I will point them back to the August RfC and say, confidently, that's it's been resolved and that there's nothing further to discuss, except perhaps how to stop people from raising this issue again and again. If you're just going to use mediation, and various parties' agreement to it, as leverage to bolster your position on this article, or anywhere else, we don't need mediation. You're obviously not ready for it. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever tariqabjotu. You are not a disinterested party when it comes to me, as proven over and over again in your comments. Tiamut^talk 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Okedem is right in that the link format in "capital" is different from refs. This was a point of contention in the Israel article and having it here may provide an opening for progress in the mediation. I'd like to encourage the editors who haven't yet consented to the mediation to do so. In terms of time used, well, editing Wikipedia is a sure way to spend a lot of time. We spent a lot of time discussing the issue on Talk:Israel and without the mediation, we're likely to do a repeat performance soon. If mediation succeeds, we may have something that people can live with and be spared a two-week session on Talk:Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jerusalem/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

50 images, 375 citations. JJ98 (Talk) 17:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

^ Gudrun Kramer, A History of Palestine:From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford 2008, p.22.
^ In G.Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren (eds.) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (tr.David E.Green) William B.Eerdmann, Grand Rapids Michigan, Cambridge, UK 1990 p.348
^ These figure among the so-called Sethe texts published by Kurt Sethe in 1926. See Jane M.Cahill, ‘Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy:The Archeological Evidence’ in Andrew G. Vaughn, Ann E. Killebrew (eds.),Jerusalem in Bible and Archeology:The First Temple Period Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta 2003 pp.p.21 n.38
^ ANET pp,.487-489
^ Meir Ben-Dov, Historical Atlas of Jerusalem, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002 p.23.
^ G.Johannes Bottereck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry, (eds.) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. tr David E.Green vol.XV p.48-49 William B.Eeerdmanns Co.Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge UK 2006 pp.45-6
^ Marten H.Wouldstra, The Book of Joshua, William B.Eerdmanns Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan (1981) 1995 p.169 n.2
^ Marten H.Wouldstra, The Book of Joshua, William B.Eerdmanns Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan (1981) 1995 p.169 n.2
^ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1181813036973
^ Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-5
^ Nehemiah 1:3; 2:1-8

[1] Gudrun Kramer, A History of Palestine:From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford 2008, p.22.

[2] In G.Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren (eds.) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (tr.David E.Green) William B.Eerdmann, Grand Rapids Michigan, Cambridge, UK 1990 p.348

[3] These figure among the so-called Sethe texts published by Kurt Sethe in 1926. See Jane M.Cahill, ‘Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy:The Archeological Evidence’ in Andrew G. Vaughn, Ann E. Killebrew (eds.),Jerusalem in Bible and Archeology:The First Temple Period Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta 2003 pp.p.21 n.38

[4] ANET pp,.487-489

[5] Meir Ben-Dov, Historical Atlas of Jerusalem, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002 p.23.

[6] G.Johannes Bottereck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry, (eds.) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. tr David E.Green vol.XV p.48-49 William B.Eeerdmanns Co.Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge UK 2006 pp.45-6

[7] Marten H.Wouldstra, The Book of Joshua, William B.Eerdmanns Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan (1981) 1995 p.169 n.2

[8] Marten H.Wouldstra, The Book of Joshua, William B.Eerdmanns Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan (1981) 1995 p.169 n.2

[9] ttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1181813036973

[10] Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-5

[11] Nehemiah 1:3; 2:1-8

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]