Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11


According to Resolution 242, United Nations considers East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT Occupied Palestinian Territory) therefore is not disputed territory is currently occupied Palestinian territory by a foreign power. The UN has stated numerous times in this regard through the General Assembly and Security Council (see UN resolutions on its website). The UN estimates that Israel repeatedly violates international law by not complying with the orders of the resolutions, which include:

*1. Withdraw from occupied territory and respect the borders prior to 1967.

*2. Remove the invading civilian population.

*3. Repairing the damage done.

Since it is established very clearly, and voted overwhelmingly that Israel currently maintains invaded the eastern part of the city of Jerusalem and is refusing to comply with numerous resolutions make clear with indisputable clarity that East Jerusalem is not part of Israel is OPT. For those who do not know, the UN states that "no territory can be acquired by war", therefore East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank Palestinian territories and there is no dispute about it, there is no dispute, no such thing as the dispute does not exist, all there is the refusal of Israel to return the territory to the Palestinians.

The vast majority of those resolutions are not binding. These resolutions can not be wiping away the historical rights of Jews who are also on that territory. Therefore, what is needed is to write things in a balanced way. Ccrazymann (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You should add West Jerusalem to the territories that are internationally not viewed as being in Israel, since Israel occupied the area in 1948. The partition plan, to which Israel's declaration of independence refers, does not include any parts of Jerusalem within Israel's borders. "Belligerent occupation" is the technical term for the status, "disputed" is a term floated by some parties who didn't like "occupied" a while ago, but "disputed" is not favoured by e.g. Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know that is the position of the UK but most states accept that West Jerusalem is within Israel. nableezy - 21:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
At least the EU also holds the position that the corpus separatum is legally in effect, which precludes Israeli sovereignty over any parts of the city. The US also doesn't recognize Israeli soverengnty over West Jerusalem, but discussing "most countries" is frankly beyond my powers for the time being. Most countries (I'm speculating here) probably have recognized Israel in the sense of the Partition Plan, which includes the corpus separatum but as noted I'm speculating here. The ICJ IIRC didn't mention West Jerusalem in the wall ruling. --Dailycare (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC).
You may be right on sovereignty, but the UK at least differentiates between East and West Jerusalem, granting recognition of "de facto authority" over West Jerusalem since 1950 and considering East Jerusalem held under military occupation since 1967. nableezy - 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Another viable solution would be like Jerusalem is a "disputed territory", like many others around the world, a true NPOV include the city within Israel and Palestine both countries. This is not just an issue of the UN, which has been clear about is an issue that has global consensus. In a reasonable time I will include an issue that involves this. Ccrazymann (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
here is a source that supports that: "The city's status remains disputed" --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to make things clear, the UN SC resolution 242 does not mention a Palestinian territory of any kind nor does it mention Jerusalem. It simply talks about "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". It further calls for mutual recognition between all states, agreeing on secure recognized borders etc. The fate of Jerusalem cannot be inferred from this resolution. Most Western countries refer to Jerusalem as a special territory whose sovereignty is not assigned to any country for the time being, and yet most of them accept it in practice as the Israeli capital. For example, King Abdullah II of Jordan made his first official visit to Israel in Tel Aviv, however most diplomats and heads of states from non-Arab countries do come to Jerusalem for official visits and meet their Israeli counterparts in their offices in Jerusalem. DrorK (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but at the last council of the united nations done in May 2009 in Cyprus, participants voiced their concern about the internal Palestinian divisions blocking national unity of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under the Palestinian Authority. They expressed support for all efforts of Arab and other countries, in particular for the efforts by Egypt, as well as for the initiatives of President Abbas, aimed at promoting reconciliation and restoration of Palestinian national unity, which were essential for progress in achieving a permanent settlement of the question of Palestine. They encouraged the Palestinian factions to put the national interests and aspirations of the Palestinian people ahead of any partisan concerns and to bring the current rounds of talks to an early and successful conclusion.
The UN, rejects Israel’s claims that these cases are a private matter to be dealt with by municipal authorities and domestic courts.
“Such acts are in violations of Israel’s obligations under international law,” the Commissioner General underscored.
UNRWA, she said, calls on Israeli authorities to reinstate all Palestine refugee families that have been displaced or forcibly moved out of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, and “asks that the dignity, rights and freedoms of these people be protected at all times”[1]. Ccrazymann (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Free file manager, 20 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} You say in your article that "Jerusalem is the capital of israel". This is complitely wrong! First, because Tel Aviv is the "capital" of "Israel". and second, Jerusalem is still under war! and is not the capital of israel. It is devided to two parts , est city and west city. It seems that in your website you are not or you don't like to be unpartial! Can you please change this information please????

Free file manager (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A capital is the city serving as the seat of government. Jerusalem is home to all of Israel's branches of government, thus, it is the capital; Tel Aviv is in no way the capital.
There is no war in Jerusalem, and it is not divided. The Eastern part is claimed by the Palestinians, and perhaps will one day be under their control, but currently it is one city. okedem (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Obay, 21 April 2010


Please correct the false information: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"!!!

Tel Aviv is Israel's capital. the same wrong information is on Israel page.

This is completely unethical

Obay (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is not the capital of Israel. Do you think that spamming this page from different accounts will lead someone to accept this bullshit claim? Breein1007 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Avicennasis @ 04:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Frankoliver75, 22 April 2010


Hello, i like to say that Jerusalem is NOT the cpital of Israel.

The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv as the world community and the UN has recognised. To claim that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not legal statement and against the international low. Please edit the page . Many thanks and kind regards Frankoliver75

Frankoliver75 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. -- œ 10:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the third time this has been requested, likely by the same person under 3 different usernames and you still have not gotten WP:CONSENSUS or engaged in any discussion. If this is requested again without first achieving some sort of consensus it could be considered as disruptive, so you may take this as a warning. I would also advise you to read over our Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. -- œ 10:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Owning land

The phrase in the last bit of lead "...some countries, such the United States, still own land in the city (Jerusalem) and pledge to return their embassies once political agreements warrant the move." is sourced to a 15 year-old NYT story that says the US was "leasing" the land in question (the actual ownership of which, the article says, was disputed, although that is not the issue, as nowhere in the source is it even suggested the US "owned" the land). Further, there is no mention of any other countries owning land in Jerusalem earmarked for embassies or any other purpose. The "pledge" is similarly not mentioned or sourced to any other countries, the Republicans had proposed construction of an embassy by 1999. What the NYT article does describe is the "struggle between Israelis and Palestinians over Jerusalem, which each side claims as its capital." Anyway, removing that "ownership" phrase. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Also would suggest we look at "Palestinians demand East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state", would it not be more accurate to say East Jerusalem has been declared/proclaimed/whatever as their capital? RomaC (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As outlined above, the source dis not support the statements in the article; to wit, "some countries own/lease land" and "some countries including the US have pledged to return to Jerusalem" and so this statement was removed. Breein reverted, hoping he will discuss his reasons here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion request of 24 Feb 2010

Searchtool-80%.png About your Third Opinion request:
Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: It is unlikely that any Third Opinion Wikipedian will be willing to accept the Third Opinion Request on this matter without at least some new discussion of it here on the talk page. I say "new" since this question has been exhaustively discussed on previous occasions, the most recent being in the "Lead" and "Controversy" sections of this page just above, and apparently including at least three RfC's and a failed attempt to enter mediation just two months ago.

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so.TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Occupation or dispute?

People here have been using "dispute" on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the Palestinians claiming it back and "disputed land" on what the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world, calls the Occupied Palestinian Territories in its 2004 revision of the wall Israel contructed partly on Occupied Palestinian Territory. There is no dispute and not even the US aknowlegdes East Jerusalem and the other occupied territories and as well calls it occupied territories. The so called "dispute" is an illusion as the occupant, Israel, is the only one drawing into doubt the validity of the courts ruling. What I'm calling for here is merely using the terms of the intenational consensus instead of the terms of the occupant. There is no doubt that it is illegal to acquire territory by war, transfer ones own population into occupied territories according to international law. This law is broken and has been broken by Israel for decades as shown by the International Court of Justice in July 2004[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joakimm (talkcontribs) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I add that I find it quite ridiculous that the article barely mentiones that East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory and that the city is surrounded with illegal Israeli settlements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joakimm (talkcontribs) 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As there is no objection (or even comments) to the question raised I will take the freedom to change "disputed" to "occupied" in the main article. Here is the link to the full document issued by the ICJ: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Response was given in edit summary on 30 December 2009. The wording and structure, particularly of the lead section, have been discussed countless times, and result from such discussions. The ICJ was expressly mentioned in the discussion found in Archive 7 of this page. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You choose to keep on calling Jerusalem a "disputed area" when the fact of the matter is that there is no longer any serious debate - neither legally nor scholarly - that East Jerusalem is occupied. Annexation after war is illegal according to the Geneva Convention and there is no dispute that East Jerusalem was annexed - though without any international recognition - after the Six Day War and is hence to be referred to as occupied. The only thing that keeps Israel in the occupied part of the city is their "historical right" to it and the "bonds" of the Jewish people to the place. You choose to use the wording of an occupier and your own made up jibberish in stead of the highest legal organ in the world. The articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable sources and the fact that the ICJ and every country in the world except the occupier - even the US - and the ICJ calls East Jerusalem occupied territory. (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)MAZAKA

I can't seem to find any references on this so called "dispute" over Jerusalem in the article. However there has been posted much evidence for the case of calling East Jerusalem occupied and none valid to the contrary. One should stick with the sources, not to ones own "opinion" og the matter taken out of the blue. (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Joakimm

I can find such a reference. Here is the link: FROM "OCCUPIED TERRITORIES" TO "DISPUTED TERRITORIES" , . The Israeli position is that East Jerusalem has been annexed with its residence all offered citizenship, the Palestinian position is that it is occupied. According to the Olso accords, it is one of the issues to be settled according to negotiations. Since it is a negotiable issue, we can assume that neither side will get 100%. Since this is such a hotly contested issue, perhaps reference should be made to the fact that the Israeli position is that East Jerusaslem has been annexed, the Palestinian position is that it is occupied, and it is referred to final status issue by the Olso accords, and that the parties have engaged in discussions about how to split the city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article discussing the legal status of Jerusalem. Israel's Right in the 'Disputed' Territories [2]. A few points that have not been brought up in this thread. East Jerusalem was controlled by the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. It was then controlled by the British, and it was then annex by Jordan in 1950. That annexation was not widely recognized and Jordan abandoned all claim to the West Bank in the 1990s. This means that Israel would have to be occupying Jordanian, British, or Ottomon territory, parties that no longer claim soveignty over the area, or in the case of the Ottoman Empire no longer exist. Israel did not capture East Jerusalem for a sovereign Palestinian state, such a states creation is being negotiated because it has not yet existed. If we are going to consider Israel's annexation invalid and the idea that called the territory occupied is invalid, which seems to be implied by the Olso accords considering it an issue for negotiations, then East Jerusalem is either unallocated Palestine Mandate territory, to be split between Palestinian Jews (now called Israelis) and Palestinian Arabs, or East Jerusalem's allocation to Israel and Palestine is a final status to be negotiated. That seems to be a long explanation for a one line description, so I think it would be most neutral to say that East Jerusalem is "variously refered to as disputed, annexed, or occupied." While it can be argued which of the three descriptions is the most valid, the fact that all three are used by various sides depending on their political position is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion reached no consensus what so ever, so the person who changed "disputed" to "occupied" acted unlawfully. It's "disputed" then. DrorK (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Uhh, no. The scholarly sources are clear in this respect. "Disputed" does not address the legal status of the territory, it is a meaningless word. East Jerusalem is "occupied territory" according to countless sources. That some partisans want to call it "disputed" is not reason enough for an encyclopedia article to use terminology overwhelmingly ignored in the scholarly sources. Saying "occupied" is the "Palestinian position" is absolutely false, that is the position of the the third-party scholarly sources, as well as, almost without exception, all of the governments of the world. You have on one hand terminology that is used only by one party to the conflict, and on the other you have the terminology used by everybody else (and the Palestinian position is not that it is "occupied Palestinian territory", their position is that it is "occupied Palestine"). We dont use the favored terminology of a fringe opinion. nableezy - 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, this was added in January, and has been in the article sense. This followed discussion at the Israel talk page on how to handle the "largest city of Israel" line. Can you leave the text in until you have a consensus to change it? nableezy - 18:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of editors have in the last days been changing "occupied" to "liberated" in all article references to East Jerusalem. have reverted and left messages but is there something I've missed not sure why this is happening... RomaC (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
"occupied" is the term used in WP:RS and the international community, most recently the ECJ when ruling on preferential tariffs. --Dailycare (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


The idea that Yerushalayim means "teaching of peace" is new to me, and I think it is quite far fetched. There is a root in Hebrew w-r-y which means "to instruct" (e.g. hōrāˀá - "instruction", presumable derived from the form hawrayat with diphthong aw transformed into ō, the combination of aya turns into hiatus, and final t muted when not in a non-bound inflection. It is also true that initial w turns into y in Hebrew, e.g. AR: walad, HE: yeled. And yet, having said that, it is still quite far fetched to take the yeru- component, decide it is a w-r-y derivation, and attach the meaning "teaching" to it. There are other similar roots from which this component could be derived, and the suggested root does not mean "teaching", but rather "to direct" or "to instruct". So, to sum it up - unless there is a very good reliable source to this suggestion, it should be dropped. DrorK (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I was also taken aback when I saw it but didn't know enough to be able to say that it's wrong. Breein1007 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
We can't use "teaching" since it is not supported by the sources. Having spent a few days in a research library a few years ago looking up everything I could find on the subject, I can report that only the options yeru (settlement in Sumerian), yerusha (heritage) and yarah (to lay a cornerstone; hence foundation) get any serious support. But the worst problem in the article is the "shalem" part of the name. The professional literature is overwhelmingly in favor of derivation from the name of the god. Zerotalk 02:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean the deity known as Shalim? Tiamuttalk 10:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That's the one, yes. Zerotalk 11:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Whatever happened to te etymology section you and User:Nishidani were working on? Perhaps its time to start adding things from your research here, witht he appropriate cites? It can only be an improvement on what we have at present. Tiamuttalk 11:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see Nishi did already add some things here. I think the main problem with the text as it stands now is that its orgnaization is jumbled and there are some uncited sentences of dubious accuracy. I also don't like the weasel word "some" before used before the Shalim information. Perhaps splitting the section into two parts: a) texts in which the name is mentioned and the different forms it takes b) the meanings ascribed to these names by different scholars or in different ages, would help to makes things a little clearer. Tiamuttalk 11:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I was working on a draft here but it was in the days of different citation standards so it would take some work to make publishable. And by now I have collected several other good sources. I'm not as organised as you! Zerotalk 12:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be worth pursuing creating a stand alone article on the etymology of Jerusalem, drawing heavily upon the draft versions in your subpage. Should you be interested in doing so, I volunteer to format the citations and polish prose. That could then be summarized in two neat little paragraphs for inclusion in the etymology section here, with a link back to the main article discussing the etymology at length.
If you like this idea, just set up a sub-page for that purpose alone, let me know where it is, and I'll get to it. I suggest it use your draft and that the rest of the related contents be placed on the talk page for consideration on how to include them. Tiamuttalk 12:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Holiest site

{{editsemiprotected}} could somebody add that jerusalem is the holiest site in judaism, and the 2nd holiest site in christianity?

also, could somebody state that for shia muslims, Imam Ali Mosque is the 3rd holiest site rather than jerusalemJigglyfidders (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - you may want to gain consensus first or include a source for verification. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 191° 3' 45" NET 12:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} could somebody add that jerusalem is the holiest site in judaism, and the 2nd holiest site in christianity?

also, could somebody state that for shia muslims, Imam Ali Mosque is the 3rd holiest site rather than jerusalem.

Not sure about the other religions, but in Judaism, the Most Holy Place is the קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים, (the "Holy of Holies") which is located inside Jerusalem. This fact is mentioned in the article currently, with three citations there. Plus, the article you provided only list Jerusalem as a Holy Place, it doesn't say "Holiest Site in Judaism". I don't think the entire city is considered holy, just the important locations within. Just my two cents. :) Avicennasis @ 00:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above; the references are not sufficient. In addition, user Jigglyfidders, you can edit the page yourself - semi-protected pages can be edited by any confirmed user.  Chzz  ►  13:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

request for change

can we change the picture of jerusalem from what it is now back to the view from har hatzofim this picture dosent make jerusalem look too good.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


Is there a reason we can't just use the same, agreed upon, language as the Israel article? nableezy - 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is - the lead of this article dedicates an entire paragraph to the conflict (and there's a nice big footnote on the word "capital"). More than enough. okedem (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
But what does that paragraph have to do with the unqualified statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? nableezy - 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, why cant we just say "Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital, with both making laws to that effect. The status of Jerusalem remains a heavily disputed issue within the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The entire city is under the control of Israel, with East Jerusalem recognized as occupied territory."? nableezy - 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Good idea! I'll change. (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support anon, but that isnt quite how things work here. nableezy - 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We've been over this. Claims are nice. Reality is what's important; in this case - Jerusalem is the seat of government, thus it's the capital. An RfC not that long ago, suggesting we put more emphasis on the dispute in the lead, failed with a margin. Respect that. okedem (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I never understood that argument. If Jerusalem being the seat of government makes it the capital, why not just say it is the seat of government? If the two are equivalent, why use the most disputed wording? And I agree, reality is important. It is reality that Israel's claim to Jerusalem is not recognized. But I guess that reality is not as important. nableezy - 19:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Because we use the term "capital" in this encyclopedia. Sure - it's not recognized, and that's written in the article. But you've never shown why recognition is so important to be in the first sentence (just the lead isn't good enough, I guess). Respect the RfC. okedem (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is so important because countless sources think it is important. nableezy - 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously okedem, what did you expect? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I would hope more than I expect from you. nableezy - 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be an obvious mistake, which I hope he'll learn from. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, maybe it's a good idea you take a break from your humour? Just a thought. Breein1007 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Holy shit, I've been active in many Wikiprojects but not enwp, I now realize enwp=ziowp. Israeli claims is more omportant than the truth in this place I notice. A lots of countries in the world (most of Africa and Asia for exampple, India and China included) recognize the Palestinian state (see state of palestine and see Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of it. This should of course be mentioned in the very first of this article together with the statement that it's the capital of Israel. (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this dispute while tidying up the history of the period between 1948 and 1967. I have had a look at the existing lead, and it has all the top heavy hallmarks of an ongoing edit war. We need to put the reader first. The reader likes simple undisputed facts that are written in a coherent and easy to read fashion. This is English wikipedia. We don't need to be tripping over all the Arabic and Hebrew translations of the name. I was thinking about a more simple introduction along the lines of,

Modern Jerusalem became divided between Israel and Jordan following the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, with the old walled city lying entirely inside Jordanian territory. Control of East Jerusalem along with the holy sites within the old walled city passed to Israel following the six day war in 1967. Jordan subsequently relinquished its claim on the West bank and East Jerusalem, while in 1980, Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem to Israel. Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is not internationally recognized and is strongly constested by Arab states. Nevertheless, the annexation is a 'de facto' reality, and Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital. Most foreign embassies however have moved their locations to Tel Aviv as a result of the controversy. The city, including the disputed territory of East Jerusalem etc. etc.- - - -then follow on with the statistics

How about that? That is about as neutral as I can possibly make it while at the same time exposing all the key facts, and without making it top heavy. David Tombe (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And looking again, that ancient history stuff doesn't need to be in the introduction. That can go into a separate history section further down. We only need the 1948-67 history in the introduction as a device for presenting the controversial facts in a neutral fashion. David Tombe (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "consider Jerusalem its capital"; per the definition of the word, Jerusalem is the capital, being the seat of government, and is the capital under Israeli law. Recognition isn't, and never was, a requirement for a city's status as capital. okedem (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
And the annexation is not just "strongly contested by the Arab states", the UNSC declared it null and void and multiple GA resolutions have reiterated that. And EJ is not a "disputed territory", well it is but that is a meaningless phrase, it is an "occupied territory". And "control ... passed to Israel" is not exactly a NPOV phrasing. nableezy - 15:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So am I correct then in concluding that my compromise wording wasn't Zionist enough for Okedem and that it wasn't Palestinian enough for Nableeezy? To Okedem, would you have preferred that I had simply stated that Jerusulem is the capital of Israel without any doubt about it and without any controversy whatsoever? And to Nableezy, are you suggesting that I should totally brush Israel's point of view aside altogether because it conflicts with the United Nations point of view? Prior to 1945 there was no United Nations. Alsace and Lorraine was considered to be German as soon as Bismarck beat Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian war. In those days we didn't argue legal fictions over the head of 'de facto' realities. Both of you seem to have forgotten about the English speaking reader in all of this. They want to know the facts. They want to know the details of the dispute. The dispute originates with a UN partition plan in 1948, and the only way that we can present the facts in a neutral fashion is to thread the facts with the history going back to 1948, and to state clearly which side wants what, and what the practical realities are. There is no greater way to exacerbate a dispute than for both sides in the dispute to deny that the dispute exists. Here we have two sides, each wanting to obliterate the others point of view as if it doesn't exist and never existed. And what do we get? We get a top heavy introduction due to Arabic and Hebrew translations using Arabic and Hebrew script that means nothing to English speaking readers, and with midi files to hear pronunciations as if the English speaking readers are interested to know how it is pronounced in Arabic or Hebrew. I'll leave you to it. I did but try. David Tombe (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. It was not factual enough for either of us. And no I am not suggesting that. Your text glossed over things that are of fundamental importance and showed a lack of understanding about the issues. I took issue with your phrasing that Israel's annexation is "strongly contested by the Arab states" because that is q wee bit of an understatement. I also took issue with you choosing the favored phrasing of the occupying power in place of what countless reliable sources use to describe the status of E. Jerusalem (hint: occupied). If you think that means that I object because it is not "Palestinian" enough or that I am trying to "obliterate the others point of view" then I am afraid I cannot help you. And the world has come a long way since Napoleon. And the "fact" is that the UNSC declared the annexation of Jerusalem "null and void" and that most countries, almost without exception, and most scholars, again almost without exception, regard E. Jerusalem as "occupied Palestinian territory". And I was not saying there is no "dispute", there is, but the phrase "disputed territory" has no meaning. All of Israel is "disputed". And the "dispute" over the status of E. Jerusalem is not a result of the partition plan, but rather the armistice agreements and the 67 war. But dont let details like that get in your way. nableezy - 03:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, Try to look at it from the perspective of a 19 year old lad from Tennessee who has suddenly become interested in knowing more about Jerusalem and the controversy surrounding East Jerusalem. The purpose of the article introduction is not to go into detail on matters that are of fundamental importance to both sides in the dispute. It is to let the reader know the skeleton facts and to give the reader a basic idea about both positions in the dispute. On reading the introduction, the reader should know when the line came down and who controlled either side of the line in the subsequent years, and who claims what. The reader will also want to clarify that the line did not cut through the old walled city. I learned all these basic facts from Hutchinsons and Britannica, but somebody reading the current wikipedia introduction will be left confused. We cannot write the introduction either purely from an Israeli perspective or purely from a UN perspective. Both perspectives need to be stated. Anyway, I've now taken on board both your points and so I will have another try. How about this,

Modern Jerusalem became divided between Israel and Jordan following the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, with the old walled city lying entirely inside Jordanian controlled territory. Control of East Jerusalem along with the holy sites within the old walled city passed to Israel following the six day war in 1967. In 1980 Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem to Israel, but this was strongly opposed by Arab nations, and a United Nations resolution declared the annexation to be null and void. Meanwhile in 1988 Jordan relinquished its claims on the West bank, including East Jerusalem, in favour of a Palestinian State. Jeruslaem is now the capital of Israel, but owing to the fact that many nations consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, most foreign embassies have moved to Tel Aviv. The city, including the disputed territory of East Jerusalem etc. etc.- - - -then follow on with the statistics

How about that? David Tombe (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I would approachreally want to start things differently. Something like:
Jerusalem is an ancient Middle Eastern city which has played a major role in the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all of which have important holy sites there. The city has been fought over many times, notably during the Crusades. Most recently it has formed one of the central issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In its 1947 partition plan, the United Nations had intended the final fate of Jerusalem to be dealt with separately from the establishment of Jewish and Arab states in mandate Palestine. The city was to be administered as a corpus seperatum independent of either state. However, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War resulted in the city being divided with Transjordan gaining control of most of the Eastern part of the city, including the holy sites of the old city, and Israel holding modern West Jerusalem where it established its capital. Israel took the remainder of the city in 1967 as a result of the Six Day War. It has declared the whole city its "complete and united" capital but this claim is opposed internationally with the United Nations Security Council having resolved that the Jerusalem Law which asserted this claim is "null and void", and with most states maintaining their embassies in Tel Aviv. Meanwhile the Palestinians have declared East Jerusalem as the capital of their intended State of Palestine...
To me the history and the holy sites are key to the identity of Jerusalem and to why it is such a bone of contention between the sides in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This should be made clear in the lead paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talkcontribs)
The UNSC did not declare EJ occupied territory, they declared the Jerusalem law "null and void". EJ is occupied territory, not just "considered" occupied by most countries. nableezy - 14:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded slightly. The main thing is that I think that there is an element of WP:RECENTISM in having the first sentence being about Jerusalem's status in (or not in) Israel. I would regard Rome as similarly flawed. The most important facts about that place are that it was some centuries the centre of the major Mediterranean and European power, and that for most of the last two millenia it has been the centre of the dominant branch of one of the world's major religions. Its status as the capital of a middle-ranking European state for a bit over a century is a definite third to those two other facts.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont really have a problem with the organization or the other changes, the only thing I have a problem with is downplaying the legal status of EJ. nableezy - 17:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict) Peter, That's actually very good. You have emphasized the additional important factor that the very reason for the controversy is because of the holy sites in the old walled city. That's the way to do it. You weave the skeleton historical chronology of the controversy through the presentation of the facts, exposing all points of view in the process. That's what the 19 year old guy from Tennessee wants to read. I'll be interested to see the responses from Nableezy and Okedem. I fear however that Okedem will object on the grounds that it doesn't state the factual reality that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, while Nableezy will object to the lack of any mention that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Nevertheless, I think that your wording is perfect encyclopaedia wording. David Tombe (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, The Israelis don't consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory and they are a major party in the dispute. Therefore we cannot steamroll over Israel's point of view. In my wording above, I suggested writing that many nations still consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. The only way that can be changed in your favour is if you can produce evidence that 'most' nations consider it to be occupied territory, in which case, we can write 'most' instead of 'many'. But it is totally unreasonable to brush the Israeli point of view aside entirely. There needs to be some give and take here, because the article is written for the purposes of presenting all the facts to the 19 year old boy from Tennessee who doesn't yet know the facts. He needs to hear the points of view of the principle parties in the dispute so that he can make up his own mind. David Tombe (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, the Israelis do not consider EJ "occupied", but then there are a number of Palestinian groups that dont consider any of Israel to be Israeli but we dont seem to have a problem not giving them equal time. It is not just that nations consider it occupied territory; the International Court of Justice, in a unanimous opinion, repeatedly referred to EJ as "occupied". The UNSC, as well as the GA in resolutions that often pass with one nation opposing (guess which), repeatedly refers to EJ as occupied. The ICRC says that EJ is occupied, HRW, AI, Btselem and countless other organization say it is occupied. And finally, scholars almost overwhelmingly agree that EJ is occupied territory. The view that it is not is a fringe view. To downplay this to say that "many/most countries consider" is an absurd understatement. nableezy - 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm only interested in the 19 year old reader from Tennessee. What about giving Peter Cohen's draft a run on the main article and see how it goes. It is definitely much better than the existing introduction.David Tombe (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Tennessee. I would be fine with that draft if Israel took the remainder of the city in 1967 were changed to Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967. nableezy - 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK Nableezy. What I suggest you do is insert Peter Cohen's draft into the main article along with your suggested amendment. Then stand back and see what opposition it attracts. Even if the dispute continues, we will at least have a better overall introduction, even if the word 'occupied' goes in and out two times a day. If that happens we can then address that issue in isolation. And thanks for the correction about Tennessee. I wish now that I'd chosen Kentucky. David Tombe (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait until Okedem has a chance to comment, something like this is best done with prior agreement. nableezy - 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, That's a good idea. Ultimately, I think that this problem can be solved with a trade off in which Okedem accepts that Israel occupied East Jerusalem after the six day war, and that you accept that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. All the qualifying information will of course also be present in Peter Cohen's draft, such as the embassies being in Tel Aviv and the UN and Arab nations opposing the Jerusalem law. I thought that Peter Cohen's draft was a rather good framework for a solution. Fine tuning can then follow. The result will be that the 19 year old boy from Alabama will have a clear outline of the conflict. David Tombe (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked the text, mainly inserting links but the odd rewording e.g. that the UNSC "resolved" rather than "declared" the Jerusalem Law null and void. By the way I've noticed an oddity in that the "eternal and indivisible" phrase appears in our article on UNSC Res 478, but does not appear in the text we give for the Jerusalem Law. Anyone care to enlighten me on this? For now I've quoted a phrase from the law. I've left "occupied" out this avoiding any commitment in our text to whether Israel legally possesses all, none or part of Jerusalem.

--Peter cohen (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

First, if you want to completely rewrite the lead, please open and RfC, and get some more opinions. (Thank you, Nableezy, for your patience.)
Now, as far as I'm concerned - I fully oppose this suggested lead. It basically reads like it should be the lead of The dispute over Jerusalem, or some such conflict-oriented article. An article about a city, even such a unique one, should still start with the very basics - where is it, what is it, how large is it, etc. It should then discuss history, importance, etc. A conflict can be discussed, but it can't take over the whole thing.
The third paragraph of the current lead deals with the conflict, which is quite a lot of space about such a short period in a city several thousands of years old. If you feel that paragraph doesn't do a good job, we can improve it, but we can't have singular focus on the conflict. Please note that an RfC not too long ago, suggesting we "highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel" failed to gain much support. okedem (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, Your point of view here is indeed the very point of view which is intolerable to the opposition. You want to paint the status quo as existing in the absence of controversy. I was trying to reach a compromise. Peter Cohen correctly points out that Jerusalem, just like Rome, is alot more than just a capital city of a modern nation. And he is correct in that respect. Jerusalem is an ancient city which has been riddled with controversy throughout history, and continues to be the centre of controversy right at this moment in time. You are not being fair to the 19 year old from Alabama who wants to read about Jerusalem. Your preferred style of introduction, which is to state in simple terms that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel, without any elaboration whatsoever, steps on the toes of the Palestinians and it plays down key facts that are of interest to all readers. The back story must be weaved through the introduction in order to let neutral readers aware of all the points of view. There has to be some give and take. The historical background is for the 19 year olds in Alabama, the capital of Jerusalem is for the Israelis, and the 'occupied' East Jerusalem is for the Palestinians. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform people of facts that are of interest. The purpose is not to play down facts in order to cover up a controversy and bolster a status quo which is the subject of considerable opposition. David Tombe (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "I" the capital of Israel? (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with asserting, simply, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine? Both entities consider Jerusalem to be their capital, and that would be NPOV because it recognizes the claims of both. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong is that some editors believe the Israeli position trumps that of other countries, and world opinion. There is something to be said for this argument, as the city, including East-J, is under Israeli military occupation/administrative control. What happened recently at Israel is that editors wanted the article, on first reference, to reflect the clear and undeniable real-world issues and disputes regarding Jerusalem as the capital, and not simply present the Israeli position unqualified. It took some work and met much opposition but eventually it got done. I can't say I'm delighted to see some editors (the same editors) again opposing a (similar) adjustment here. As has been pointed out by many editors, Wikipedia articles are for the readers, not for the editors. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong is that "capital" is not a question of belief or "both countries consider it their capital". It is a simple factual issue, of whether the city is the country's seat of government. Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. Jerusalem houses no part of the Palestinian government, even ignoring the fact that there exists no Palestinian state as of yet. okedem (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Ramallah, where the current seat of the Palestinian Authority is, is in the same conurbation as Jerusalem, even if it's not quite within Israel's declared political boundaries of Jerusalem. And the intent to move to "Jerusalem proper" (whatever it is) is obviously clear. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the Knesset is geographically a lot closer to the CBD of any reasonable definition of Jerusalem proper than the Mukataa is. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Kids doing their homework want to know the name of the capital city according to the same definition used for other countries. Some commentary can and should follow about the claims for Jerusalem to be the capital of a Palestinian Arab state, if there ever is one. What are the facts to suggest any other city is actually Israel's capital? If it isn't somewhere else, it has to be where Israel says it is, as are the capitals of other countries declared by their governments, and not by international vote.Labellesanslebete (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's NOT the capital of Israel

I can see alot of bias in this article with Israeli view point!!! it's not fair... Jerusalem is an occupied city since 1967! and all of you know this truth... please remove those lies from this article now. Freedom's Falcon 222 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

and before 1967? Was it occupied? I see you're an experienced user and I don't think it's polite to ask to remove the capital of the country without proper rationale. How would you like if someone went to an article you worked on - Amman and said that it's occupied by Hashemites and it's not the Jordanian capital? FYI, Check on a long history of different attempts and discussions to attack the legitimacy of Israel's eternal capital. Best, Amoruso (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you consider it's youe capital - which i don't agree with for sure- and say there is no occupation there, how will your reactions be if some one stole your house (with 3 rooms) and then leave you just 2!!! This is exactely what happend in Palestine in 5 june 1967, You all recognize that there is an occupation in West Bank and Gaza, BUT dont tell the rest of the truth! East Jerusalem is Arab City, and Yes it's occupied by zioinists that day! so, if You believe in peace ,toleranc and right history, Be brave and remove those lines! thanks..... Freedom's Falcon 222

and if you ask about what happend in Jordan, I answer you, there is a big differance between what happend in Trans Jordan and What happend in West Bank and occupation of the rest of Palestine in different years .. This land is Arab for 5000 years ago, and I advise you to check out the real history of this region, you will see there is Arabian civilzation in both Jordan and Palestine before your grand fathers came from Egypt! and the rulers of this land was arabs since those days! so, hashemites are one of those arabs ! Freedom's Falcon 222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ofcourse Israel has the right to designate its own capital, but the rest of the world sees that as an illegal capital, and act accordingly; hence, no country recognize it as such, none would move their embassy to the proclaimed capital. Rewroding the line that Juerusalem is the capital should be as follows: According to state of Israel, Juerusalem is the capital of the country. According to the UN and the rest of the world, Israel illegally occupies a portion of Jerusalem – and unilaterally extended the borders of that city deep into the West Bank, the nations of the world are reluctant to reward Israel capital recognition due to the occupation conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


Could we clarify in the History section regarding when Jerusalem first became a Jewish City? The current section regarding history pre-1000BC is vague, whereas articles such as Jebusite, Canaan, Abdi-Heba and Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) suggest that pre-David the city was Canaanite and not Jewish. A subtitle to that effect has been added but can i suggest that the text should be more balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The text seems very clear to me - "in the time of Joshua, Jerusalem was in territory allocated to the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:28) but it continued to be under the independent control of the Jebusites until it was conquered by David and made into the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel" - is there a problem I'm not seeing? okedem (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Allocated by whom? It's clear enough that the text in question was written after the fact to cover up the usual policy of ethnic cleansing. Hcobb (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Graphical Timeline

A historical timeline graphic has been added, to help orientate the complex and convoluted history section and ensure balance.Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good, but iy looks somewhat sub-standard. Is there any way of making it look better? Also it needs to be placed somewhere better. Chesdovi (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Judah - two phrases to be clarified

The phrases: 1) "For over 450 years, until the Babylonian conquest in 587 BCE, Jerusalem was the political capital of firstly the united Kingdom of Israel and then the Kingdom of Judah" and 2) "When the Assyrians conquered the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, Jerusalem was strengthened by a great influx of refugees from the northern kingdom" ...both suggest that Judah remained independent between 722-587BC. While the sentences are not incorrect, they seem to contradict articles such as Tiglath-Pileser III, Manasseh of Judah and Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC), which are clear that Judah (including Jerusalem) was a vassal of the Assyrians / Babylonians during this time period. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

The most identifiable image related to Jerusalem is the Dome of the Rock. The image that we have currently shows that and shows modern Jerusalem in the background (and shows the Church of the Holy Sepulchre). Could somebody explain why it is routinely removed? nableezy - 16:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Who says it's the most identifiable image related to Jerusalem? Perhaps it's routinely removed because people prefer a non-denominational picture? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I would support moving an image of modern Jerusalem, but maybe, as a way to resolve this, someone should create a collage image. This should show both the old city and modern Jerusalem, but if it shows just one, then the dispute will just continue. Unfortunately, I do not know how this is done, but anyone who can, please do if we come to that conclusion.--RM (Be my friend) 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Instead of going back and forth endlessly, can we please leave the existing image in place until and unless an equally (or more) iconic, recognizable, visually outstanding image is proposed and there is a consensus for making the change? The photo substituted in no way symbolizes Jerusalem and, without close inspection, could have been taken in any number of other cities. A collage is a possibility, but both, or all, components would have to clearly represent unique aspects of Jerusalem. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Assuming it's not a conflict issue but a design question, I would definitely second a collage. There are probably more beautiful sights in the capital (including a picture of the new Calatrava bridge, which is missing) than in any other parts of the country, and I saw collages in various other cities of Israel. Amoruso (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So its agreed then? On a collage? (Although I cannot make one, anyone who does should include both old and new Jerusalem, and as Amoruso so kindly put it, that new Calatrava bridge).--RM (Be my friend) 19:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To avoid future conflicts, it may be best to preview designs here and look for consensus. I think a well-designed collage would be a plus. The article Jerusalem Chords Bridge features a photo (in its infobox) that might be suitable. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you do it?--RM (Be my friend) 14:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not my forte. There may be someone I can ask and possibly interest in working on it. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm no graphic artist, but I can do a simple collage (nothing fancy). So go ahead and suggest images for it. okedem (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I would not use the chords bridge infobox image, File:Jerusalem Chords Bridge.JPG is better in this case. Chesdovi (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
You are so right. Good one. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, whoever is open to suggestions, I would suggest using File:Jerusalem Chords Bridge.JPG, File:Jerusalem vista.jpg, File:Jrslm 214.jpg, File:Jerusalem Dome of the rock BW 14.JPG, and File:Knesset Building (South Side).JPG. Although that is just a suggestion.--RM (Be my friend) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

See the examples below. I would prefer to use the Cairo montage as a template for Jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by using the Cairo montage for Jerusalem?--RM (Be my friend) 15:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem collage .JPG
Attempt by Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That was quick. Very nice. I would replace some of the images, as they're not really iconic enough.
I was thinking pictures of these would be good:
  1. Shrine of the Book - simple, iconic, easily recognizable even in a small picture
  2. Knesset
  3. Tower of David
  4. Dome of the rock - it's very recognizable in a vista
  5. Teddy stadium (second picture on that page, I think) - not that well known, but a good reminder of Jerusalem being an actual city where people live their everyday lives, and not just a collection of religious places.
  6. Supreme Court of Israel - though that picture might not fare well in such small sizes
  7. The Western wall - a must, I think
  8. A picture of one of the churches - I don't really know which one is more famous / important - I suppose Church of the Holy Sepulchre ([2]).
  9. The string bridge - quite striking in that picture (much more than in reality...)
  10. The windmill - it's nice, I'm not sure it's a must.
  11. Maybe something from Yad Vashem, if we can find something recognizable enough.
  12. Hebrew University of Jerusalem - again, if there's something iconic enough.
  13. Is there anything suitable in East Jerusalem? Something important to the Arab residents (apart, of course, from the famous mosques)?
Personally, except for the Knesset, I didn't recognize any of the 8 pictures in the middle - could be my lack of knowledge. okedem (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Because it is spectacular, I hesitate to say anything critical, but the examples you posted range from four to eight images each, and with 11 here, it looks to be just too crowded, affecting visibility. I can't make out what that is in the middle even by zooming in. Please consider reducing the number to nine or fewer. Excellent proposals by Okedem, above; I won't attempt to second-guess. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Alrtight, for now, I have inserted this collage.--RM (Be my friend) 19:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that premature? It's still under development here. Would you mind very much reverting until we have a finalized design and consensus to proceed? Hertz1888 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I second that. We just started talking, what's the rush? okedem (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I still think that this should at least serve as a temporary image until we have reached consensus. If consensus says no, than we can simply remove it, but I think that during our conversation, its best to leave this image in place.--RM (Be my friend) 21:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I had already gone ahead and turned back the clock. The "temporary image" could serve, but may be several stages removed from the version for publication, and I see no need to rush. We have established this page and section as the place for experimentation. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright then, let's have some more collages, and then have consensus pick out the right one.--RM (Be my friend) 23:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Essential icons: Western Wall, Dome of the Rock & al Aqsa (together), Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Beyond that I'd suggest one or two street scenes, such as a random view of the alleys of the old city and a marketplace. Zerotalk 10:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Zero, and oppose including buildings associated with Israel's attempt to claim the city as capital such as Knesset or Sup. Court. Also oppose including images of the apartheid wall. --Dailycare (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Insist on including the Knesset and possibly the Supreme Court. Every other capital article has an image of the government building and it's very easy to understand why. Leave the petty nationalistic politics out of this. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, and need to make sure that people don't succeed in sabotaging our efforts by turning this into an idiotic argument about nothing helpful. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the Knesset is clearly an iconic image. Therefore, it only makes sense to include it. Breein1007 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with Dailycare's reasoning. I didn't include the Knesset in my list because I don't think it is particularly interesting. Jerusalem has so much to see that is 100% unique; why put a rather ordinary government building into the first image? The shrine of the book would look nicer, but personally I'd prefer at least one "ordinary" scene, on the grounds that a city is more than monumental buildings. Zerotalk 18:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Uh... Breein, the Cairo montage is even among the sample collages, and you can see that there is no governmental building included. A governmental building is generally only included if it's iconic, as in the case of London or Moscow or Washington, D.C., of if there's nothing else available to represent the city. Even if presented a picture of the Knesset, I bet most people wouldm't identify it as the Knesset building. And Jerusalem has tons of buildings and streets that can adequately represent the city. I think it's good to show other things beside religious landmarks, but I don't think the Knesset image is an absolute necessity. Nor is it a definite no due to the conflict. -- tariqabjotu 11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I believe the building on the left of the thrid row is The Mogamma, a government building. FWIW, I also think the Knesset should be in there. Seems pretty common to have important government buildings in such collages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare's comment is typical of the kind of reasoning some people employ - "I don't like it, therefore it doesn't exist" - you don't like the reality of Jerusalem, so you just want to ignore it. Too bad. Oh, and I have no idea why you jump in with the wall thing (and with the propagandistic moniker "apartheid wall"). No one suggested it.
The Knesset building is iconic, and symbolizes an important part of Jerusalem - its function as capital. okedem (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The Knesset building is not iconic, and this image should concentrate on what Jerusalem is known for. The Dome of the Rock is the most obvious example which is also used often by WP:RS to accompany stories that relate to Jerusalem. Sure, the Knesset is in (West) Jerusalem but its presence there is a reflection of Israel's policy to claim the city as capital, which, we should be reminded, is illegal. Why put pictures of crimes in the collage? As I wrote above, the images Zero mentions are OK by me and I support them. --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep your legal claims for the courts. We're talking about reality, not your personal beliefs. okedem (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Collage vote

Please vote for no less than 7 places which should be included in the collage. Other images can be added. The result of this will give an idea of the most popular places but the vote will not be viewed as a final decision of which images are to be included. At least one panoromic view will be included. Chesdovi (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Place Votes Nominator
Western Wall
Chesdovi(1), Breein1007(1), Dailycare, Tariqabjotu (1), Avraham (1), Hertz1888(1), Nableezy (2)
Dome of the Rock
Breein1007(3), Dailycare, Tariqabjotu (4), Avraham (2), Hertz1888(3), Nableezy (1)
Chesdovi(5), Breein1007(5), Tariqabjotu (5), Hertz1888(6)
Damascus Gate
Chesdovi(6), Dailycare, Tariqabjotu (6), Hertz1888(7)
Jerusalem Chords Bridge
Chesdovi(3), Tariqabjotu (3), Breein1007(2)
Shrine of the Book
Tariqabjotu (2), Hertz1888(2)
Church of the Holy Sepulchre
Dailycare, Nableezy (3)
Yad Vashem
Breein1007(4), Hertz1888(4)
Hurva Synagogue
Chesdovi(4), Hertz1888(5)
Tower of David
Montefiore Windmill
al-Aqsa Mosque
Nableezy (4)
Supreme Court of Israel
Teddy Stadium
Jaffa Gate

I only voted for six; I think seven images is a lot. Of the photos that I voted for, I think the Knesset image is lowest on my list of priorities, and I'm tempted to remove my vote for it. I'd like a random street photo as well, perhaps one from Jaffa Road because we have an article on it. -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Of those listed, I only voted for 2 for now; I too would prefer to see more pictures of places and people (e.g. neighborhoods) than buildings, although with the light rail construction, rchov Yafo is a mess now :) -- Avi (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I just uploaded File:Kikar Shabbos.JPG for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
To avoid clutter and miniaturization, I would set a strict limit at seven (six plus a panorama, which could be a skyline including the Dome). A street photo emphasizing people would be welcome. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There isnt a mosque listed (the Dome of the Rock isnt really a mosque), a picture of al-Aqsa should also be included or be shown in one of the other pictures. nableezy - 15:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wailing Wall isn't really a synagogue either. Anyway, to save space a picture like this showing both the Wailing Wall and the Dome of the Rock could be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, not really a mosque, but an extremely important Islamic symbol; the Western wall isn't really a synagogue, you know. I think that to be fair, we should confine ourselves to one religious symbol per religion, so three in total, with the Dome of the Rock in the vista, as it's so prominent in any Jerusalem panorama.
Regarding street scenes - it's no good to just suggest we have "a street scene". I don't think anyone is opposed to that, so delve into the Commons, and find one you like, that would look good in reduced size. okedem (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the Western Wall is not a synagogue, but Hurva Synagogue is. And the Dome of the Rock is not only an Islamic symbol, the actual building is Islamic, but if the sources saying that it is built over the Foundation Stone are accurate that makes it more than an Islamic symbol. I think we could have a picture that includes both the Western Wall and the Dome of the Rock like the one NMMNG linked and one for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (really, why isnt that getting more "votes), one for al-Aqsa, and one for Hurva Synagogue or whatever synagogue yall say is more important. nableezy - 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the more pictures you use, the uglier it gets. Why not just keep it simple with one panorama of the old city (including temple mount obviously), one panorama of the new city (with some landmark like that ugly ugly bridge), wall, church, knesset? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't support having the Hurva picture there. Dedicating two or three images to religion is more than enough. We can't fill the collage with religious icons, and this is why I suggested we be fair, and present one symbolic place for each of the three religions. okedem (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We can have multiple symbols in a single picture. My suggestion would be close the London collage but have two pictures on the top and two on the bottom with one in the middle. I would say the center image should be this or this which shows both the Western Wall and the Dome of the Rock, and this in one corner, this or this or this in another corner. That would leave two pictures, I would say one of those should be some neighborhood and the other some government building or the bridge or whatever. nableezy - 21:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Still not really understanding your reasoning. Your picture calls for a combined image of the Western Wall and the Dome of the Rock, AND a separate picture of a mosque, and a picture of a church. Something isn't exactly adding up. Breein1007 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Put a picture of a synagogue too, I dont care. al-Aqsa is the most important Islamic site in Jerusalem, that is why I think it should be in there. The Dome of the Rock is an iconic image of Jerusalem, that is why i think it should be in there, not because of any religious significance. nableezy - 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Look, what you're saying makes sense for an article about the religious significance of Jerusalem, not for this one. If we do what your suggest, we overwhelm the collage with religious sites, leaving no room for anything else. Even if the Dome of the Rock isn't the most important Islamic place in Jerusalem, it's still extremely important to Islam, and very recognizable. One image per religion is a lot already enough (3 out of 6-8 pictures). okedem (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Another problem of using a photo of the wall and dome is that if the panoromic view includes the dome too, it would be duplicated. We could use this one which has both the golden and silver dome, which would mean not having to have a separate image of a church. Chesdovi (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If we had something like this I'd be really satisfied (that particular pic may have a BBC copyright). I don't see why the church couldn't be in there in addition to this. --Dailycare (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Other examples by chesdovi

Are we voting? I prefer the version on the left, for the selection and overall appeal. I would give more space to the Kotel and less to the Mamila scene. The night view of the walls and David's Tower, from the right-hand collage, is more dramatic and would enhance the left-hand collage if substituted there. Thanks for doing these. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, vote for the left one.--RM (Be my friend) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Final vote

I think that its time to select which one of these collages will be inserted into the infobox. As I see no further debate, and that many of the requested landmarks are in these, I think that we should choose between them.--RM (Be my friend) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

May we hear back first from Chesdovi regarding the modifications I suggested (to the first one)? It may not be in final form.

I have equalized the sizes shown above and positioned the samples for easier comparison. Too bad we can't have all three. Each has something desirable the others lack. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The one on the right is interesting, but no Wall. Replace the housing project with the strings bridge(if that must be in the picture, I digress) and give the larger frame to the Wall. --Shuki (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I could create loads of different examples. I actually can't imagine any of the ones I have made featuring. The above vote is not really helpful that much and I think people should provide a selection of images they think should be included. The sooner the better. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the vote is not helpful. Instead, we should list images we think would be appropriate to add to the collage, and our image experts like Chesdovi can easily whip up a new one once we have some idea of which images are consensus picks. -- Avi (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent repeated disruptive requests

  •  Inconclusive No obvious technical evidence, although proxies may be in use, but behavioral evidence indicates meat puppetry at least. Revert the next one or two, and if it continues, we may have to semi-protect this page for a while. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have manually archived them to #10. -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


I've added the UN flag in the infobox to represent the viewpoint that the legal status of the city is corpus separatum, per Res. 181. Since the United Nations and the EU (in fact also the US) subscribe to this view, it's a significant viewpoint (in fact, it's the consensus viewpoint) which triggers WP:NPOV and compulsory inclusion. Mentioning Israel there as well is something I'm also OK with, since while Israel is the only country to subscribe to that view, it's in this context a "significant minority view" mentioned in WP:NPOV. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you know full well your edit is contentious, and is against consensus here. Even after being reverted, you choose to edit war it in. This is unacceptable. Propose changes, and seek consensus, don't try to force your views.
Now to the point - the corpus separatum idea was a part of the partition plan, recommended by the general assembly. It never materialized, and no one takes it seriously anymore. Even if someone still actually recommends this, it doesn't exist in reality, and so is completely irrelevant for the infobox. To clarify - there is no actual viewpoint that Jerusalem is currently part of a UN administered corpus separatum; at most, some might think it should be. okedem (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, let's try to keep the tone civil and presume good faith, shall we? I wouldn't say I was edit warring, since I corrected a mistaken revert of yours where you said the "UN is irrelevant". Now why is this mistaken? It's mistaken because WP:NPOV says that all significant viewpoints must be represented, and the UN's viewpoint (shared by all member states except Israel) is certainly significant, thus voiding your claim it's "irrelevant". Your comment of "is" vs. "should be" fails since we're discussing what the legal status of the city is, not who is currently occupying it. Your contention above that no-one would take the idea seriously anymore likewise fails: the statement of the German Ambassador to Israel - on behalf of all European Union ambassadors in Israel - according to which the member states of the European Union do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in keeping with the 1947 United Nations Resolution attributing "corpus separatum" status to the city. It's not necessary here to begin listing all the UN resolutions that find Israeli attempts to change the status of the city to be null and void. This isn't a question of opinion, but a question of fact. Are the opinions of the UN and the EU significant in the sense of WP:NPOV? they are, therefore what's the problem, and why do you feel the edit would be contentious? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The UN does not consider Jerusalem to be a corpus separatum today. This is nonsense. Please do not insert it into the article again. Breein1007 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You've been here long enough to know better than feign ignorance ("What did I do wrong?"). Even if you don't think it's contentious, once you've been reverted, you should discuss, not push again. And don't pretend you didn't think this would be a contentious point; I don't believe it for a second. Note that the infobox already mentions the "Palestinian territories", even though the city is under complete Israeli control, and the fate of the post-1967 territories has yet to be determined; for instance, negotiations might end up with the city under complete Israeli control. To say now these are "Palestinian territories" is already taking a side very different from the Israeli one.
Your quote doesn't support your claim. The official position of many is not to recognize Israel's claim to the city, as they believe it has no legal grounds, seeing as how the UN recommended a different solution. They don't even say it should be a corpus separatum in the future, and certainly don't actually claim it is a corpus separatum now. Also, a little mentioned point is that the whole corpus thing was supposed to be for 10 years, and then a poll of the city's residents (where there's been a Jewish majority at least since 1896) would determine its fate. Anyway - please present sources saying the city is currently part of a corpus separatum under UN administration. okedem (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, text should be appreciated by a mind willing to understand, not one seeking misunderstanding. "the member states (...) do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in keeping with the 1947 United Nations Resolution attributing "corpus separatum" status to the city" does in fact mean that the EU is "keeping to" the attribution of the c.s. status. Likewise (since Bree appears to ask for sourcing) we can cite a UN resolution from January this year (64/20): "The General Assembly, Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem (...) reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void". And finally, why are you opposing the inclusion of the flagicon? I mean, there are already the Israeli and Palestinian flags there, despite there yet being no state of Palestine and the Israeli claim to the city being rejected by the entire world. Sure, Israel is occupying the city and half of it is planned to be included in the Palestinian state, but neither of those entities can really be argued to properly exercise sovereignty in the city as of now. So why oppose the UN flag but support keeping the other two? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, your quote doesn't support your statement. It only says "we planned something else, so you shouldn't have taken over". Not "we control it", or "in the future we should control it". The partition plan is in the past. I've seen sources refers to Jerusalem as Israeli, Arab, or disputed. I've never seen a single source refer to it as belonging to the UN.
And as Jerusalem is completely under the control of Israel, in all ways, I have no objection to removing the Palestinian flagicon. Israel is definitely exercising sovereignty, even if it shouldn't (check out the meaning of sovereignty - it isn't based on UN opinions, or what should be, just on what is). okedem (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're unhappy, then here is another source: "the EU reply stated that all of Jerusalem, including the Jewish sector, is a "corpus separatum" or separate body." (BBC). So now that you have seen sources (you neglect to discuss in your comment the UNGA resolution I also cite) describing it as a corpus separatum, I presume you're OK with the UN flagicon and may in fact add it yourself? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That article is over 10 years old. Apparently the EU has changed their mind since then [3].
The UN flagicon is inapropriate here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source saying the EU would have changed its mind? That one doesn't, on the contrary it again says that Israeli sovereignty isn't recognized. Are you playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT concerning the UN view? --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article again. Are you playing WP:IDIDNTREADTHAT? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact I did read it twice. There the EU says they envision the future of the city to be a capital of two states, along the 1967 lines. Here's another source (LA Times) saying the EU considers Jerusalem to be legally a corpus separatum: 1. I also again refer you once more to the UN resolution, passed this January. --Dailycare (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for another 10 year old newspaper article. Still not sure how you get from there to the UN does/should/did control Jerusalem in any way. Also, thanks for referring me to a primary source. What exactly do you want me to do with it? Interpret it for the readers of the encyclopedia? No, wait, that's what you're trying to do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG, using the UN resolution as a source for the UN opinion is very clear, and once more this doesn't involve "control" of Jerusalem but its legal status, namely that the UN and EU (and in fact the world at large) consider the legal status to be a UN area. Since that's a significant viewpoint, we'll be including it back in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This, however, is not the encyclopedia of the UN, nor is this article titled "The legal status of Jerusalem per various supra-national organization". We detail what is, not what some people think should be, nor the arcane legal aspects of it. The cold hard fact is the only country exercising any sovereignty in Jerusalem is Israel, and that no "corpus separatum" ever existed there.
"we'll be including it back in the article" ?! In case you haven't noticed, this article already has a six paragraph section titled "Political status", detailing the various opinions on the subject (with the first sentence explaining the corpus separatum, also explained under "British Mandate and 1948 War"); the current conflict is detailed in an entire paragraph of the lede; when we say "capital" we have a prominent footnote, and when we discuss size we specifically mention East Jerusalem, to inform the reader of the problem; Positions on Jerusalem is linked from FOUR places in the article; UNGA 194 is linked twice; international opinion of Israel's annexation of EJ, and the future of Jerusalem, are discussed both in "Division and reunification 1948–1967" and "Political status".
The legal/political issues surrounding Jerusalem are so over represented, as to take over the article. And you seriously claim the information isn't there? okedem (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I agree this is not an encyclopedia "of the UN", and I'll expand that to saying this isn't an encyclopedia "of Israel" either. Let's put all the significant views there like WP:NPOV says, and that's the end of it? One flagicon doesn't take much space. Alternatively, we can remove the flagicons altogether to free up space. --Dailycare (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but reading the UN resolution to mean that Jerusalem is a "UN area" is your OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, OR means that a conclusion is drawn which is not in the source. In this case, the source explicitly mentions the provisions on Jerusalem in Res 181, so there no danger of OR. Of course, we could equally refer directly to Res 181, or Res 303 which affirms it, or any number of concurring resolutions - I chose 64/20 as an example since it was passed this year. As you're aware, we frequently use UN resolutions as sources on Wikipedia. So now we have the UN, the EU and of course also the countries that maintain consulates in Jerusalem (the "consular corps of the corpus separatum"), which I believe numbers nine countries at present, including the US and seven European countries. But overall, let's hear your suggestion on the flagicon issue that's consistent with NPOV, I'm OK with UN, UN+Israel, UN+Israel+Palestine, or no flagicons at all. You earlier suggested only Israel, however that fails since it only illustrated Israel's view, which is universally rejected. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the UN, in addition to resolutions we can cite e.g. reports where resolutions are discussed, such as this one:


(b) The resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council in relation to Jerusalem following the occupation of the entire city of Jerusalem by Israel in June 1967 also maintained this original principle of internationalization. Further, they required Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the conflict, and to rescind all measures taken, as well as to refrain from taking further measures, to alter the status of Jerusalem. Thus, it would appear that the United Nations since 1947 has maintained the principle that the legal status of Jerusalem is that of a corpus separatum under an international regime.

--Dailycare (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does the UN call Gilo a "settlement built on Palestinian territory" then? It appears from your source it should be part of the corpus separatum, built on "neutral land? Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't mean that every source has to mention the information being sourced, sourcing means that there are reliable sources that have the information (such as the ones I've cited above). "Palestinian" means pertaining to Palestine, where Jerusalem is situated. Further, "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (OPT) is a term that has a specific meaning in international usage. That Secretary Ban chose to use that term when discussing Gilo hardly means that the UN would have changed it's position concerning the corpus separatum, which according to the actual source cited above is based on resolutions. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think something here is unclear. The question isn't what the UN thinks; the UN is a good source just for what the UN thinks. Not for what actually is. It can believe / claim whatever it wants. Our field in the infobox isn't "Legal status according to the UN", because that's not actually really important. Our encyclopedia deals with reality, and the reality is that the UN has nothing to do with Jerusalem, even if it thinks it should control it. okedem (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the question is very much what the UN thinks, since it is a significant viewpoint which has to be included in the article. I refer you to my post above stamped 14:36, 27 April 2010 concerning the "control" point. The field isn't "Legal status according to Israel" either. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Included, sure. As I've shown above, this point, and other non-Israeli viewpoints regarding Jerusalem's status, are explained in way too much detail in this article. It is not, however, the main thing, and has little bearing on Jerusalem, in the present, or the future.
The field isn't "legal status" according to anyone; writing "Israel" there has nothing to do with "legal status according to Israel", or Israel's opinion about the city. Israel's status in Jerusalem is not opinion, but fact. It might be Israel's opinion that Jerusalem should remain, fully, in its hands, but Jerusalem's current status as an Israeli city is just reality - the municipality is Israel's, the laws in effect are Israel's, all of the services are Israel's, the only sovereign body is Israel, etc. For all intents and purposes, it's an Israeli city (and obviously, not a UN-administered city). okedem (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I must have missed the UN resolution instructing Israel to hand over Jerusalem to them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, what are you suggesting, change to "Country (de facto)"? Saying "Israel is sovereign there" over and over again doesn't make it any more so. As we've discussed previously, that is a fringe minority view that can't be represented as the only view anywhere on Wikipedia, including in these flags. Since the text as you note already has the info, why not make the box conform to it? As I wrote above, I'm OK with UN, UN+Israel, UN+Israel+Palestine, or no flagicons at all. I'm also OK with "Country (de facto) : Israel" However my preferred option is UN+Israel+Palestine which compaclty illustrated there are various views and also what they are. --Dailycare (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever for other flag icons besdies from that of the Zionist entity. The field states "Country", not "claimed by" or "legal status", etc. We simply do not add more than one. Okedem is quite right and his arguments are solid. Argentina's flag does not feature on Falkland Islands. Dailycare is simply annyoned that the Israeli flag gives an impression the city is properly Israel's. Well, thats just tough. We are not going to change the set standards just for his POV. Both flags may appear on a village in Area B, such as Hizma, but not on the Navel of the World which is currently under the brutal Zionst regime's control. Chesdovi (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, you mean to say that you feel there is no need since you don't decide these issues alone, we decide them collectively. You refer to Okedems comments and he in fact does say that the UN is qualified to render the opinion of the UN (great!) and that he feels the material is (properly, one assumes) already included in the article. Now as to "Country", the country de facto is Israel, the country de jure is the UN. You're reading "Country" as "country de facto". As I mentioned above, I'd be OK with that labeling when made explicit. --Dailycare (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect, the country de jure is not the UN, anymore than if Israel were to pass a law saying that Tehran is now Israeli territory, then we would have to reference that. -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
"the country de jure is the UN". That's just too funny. I suppose you are a published expert on these matters, Dailycare? Stop trying to interpret UN resolutions and show us a reliable source that says what you're claiming.
Anyway, as you correctly stated, we decide things collectively. There's obviously no consensus to add this flagicon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we not missing the obvious? I'm not that up on current events, but last time I looked, Jerusalem belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Shouldn't their flag be here, too? IronDuke 23:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't looked since 1922, when the Ottoman area was changed into the Palestine Mandate, which in turn was terminated in 1948. Currently Jerusalem is seen as the corpus separatum by the UN, EU and various countries as mentioned and sourced above, and Israel sees it as its territory, however this is universally rejected outside Israel. NMMNG appears to be right in that there is little support to add the UN flagicon, what about "Country (de facto)"? --Dailycare (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right you are. I was going to suggest a sort of Crusader, Ottoman Empire, British Mandate of Palestine melange, but I guess we're past the UN flag idea. "De facto" implies "de jure" is somehow not present. If you steal a loaf of bread in Jerusalem, you aren't prosecuted by the UN, or by Hamas. And now that I've had a minute to get current, it seems that the Israeli government operates out of Jerusalem. So, UN flag is no good, "de facto" no improvement. IronDuke 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum, if the UN passed a resolution proclaiming that the Secretariat and the General Assembly Hall have seceded from the United States and are now their own independent country like Vatican City, would that be considered binding? Of course not—similarly here. The consensus is clear. -- Avi (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

May be flag and coat-of-arm impose by "Israel" on Jerusalem not belong in article info box, because it be non-nutral and suggest that Wikipedia endorse "Israel" claim on future capital of Palestine. Ani medjool (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review the many, many discussions about this. -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Avraham, the UN headquarters already has extraterritorial status so "seceding" isn't needed. However if the UN did, validly and with the consent of the US, decide that the building were to be made sovereign then that would be binding, just as the creation of the Vatican is binding. Similarly concerning Jerusalem the UN did, validly and with the consent of Britain (the mandatory power) decide to make Jerusalem a corpus separatum and that is binding. Ironduke, in Jerusalem if you steal a loaf of bread does that become your loaf by the act of stealing, or does it still belong to the original owner? --Dailycare (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem has never belonged to the UN. The UN had never ran it, never had any authority in it. The UN voted for a plan recommending that Jerusalem be under its control. It didn't work out. End of story. This whole notion, as if some failed plan can determine current status, is simply silly. The only country, the only sovereign there, is Israel. Britain never had the authority to "consent" to any such thing; Palestine was not its territory, but territory placed under its administration, for a specific purpose. Their opinion was not relevant. okedem (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think we should include any flags in the infobox. While ISrael claims Jerusalem as its capital, its sovereignty over the city is not recognized by the international community. While Palestine claims Jerusalem as its capital, its sovereignty over the city is currently nil. While Jerusalem was supposed to be a corpus separatum, that neve happened. So, until Jerusalem's final status is settled, there should be no country listed in the infobox and no flag. Tiamuttalk 09:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the question was "who should control it", then yes. But that's not the question, and not the field. Who's laws are in effect there? Who controls it? Who exercises sovereignty? Who runs their government from there? What citizenship do the resident hold? In all ways, it's Israel. okedem (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The field is concerned with which country Jerusalem is located in, not with who controls it or who it belongs to. While Israeli domestic law is in force there, international law denies the applicability of Israeli law there. While Israel controls it, its control over the eastern part of the city is widely regarded as illegimate. While Israel runs its government from there, no embassies are located there. While many of the residents hold Israeli citizenship, some hold no citizenship. Your framing of the question is incorrect, and your simple answer to rhetorical questions you raised fails to address the complexity of the situation.
Given the dispute over Jerusalem, appending an Israeli flag to the infobox and listing Israel alone as the country in which it is located is misleading and POV. Tiamuttalk 10:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Before Dailycare started pushing for his change, two bodies were listed there, with two flagicons - Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Dailycare (unintentionally) made a convincing argument to remove the Palestinian Territories from there, and so they were removed. But prior to this, you didn't see me or anyone else here fight for that removal. okedem (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it is POV to list Israel alone, particularly given the contestation over the status of Jerusalem. The current format needs to be changed to be NPOV. I'd prefer that we list no country and no flags, given the complexity of the situation. But if you insist on retaining the Israeli flag and Israel, I insist that Palestine and its flag be listed as well. Both claim Jerusalem as their capital and neither claim is recognized as currently legitimate by the international community. Tiamuttalk 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut is the voice of reason here, (as always), but I still want to note that Israel's presence in West J is more widly accepted, giving us more creedence to use the Israeli flag icon for the city. PA has no precence in the city at all. Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for saying so Chesdovi. About West J, if the article were just about that half of the city, we would be having a different discussion right now. As it is, Jerusalem as defined in this article includes the eastern half, which makes things much more problematic. Tiamuttalk 11:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare: The UN proposal for CS is not binding, according to User:harlan who stated: "the armistice occupation is de jure, i.e. legal." and "the CS decision was held in abeyance, but it has not been withdrawn. It really amounts to the General Assembly having its say in approving the final settlement. The old statute never really entered into force. The partition plan called for a plebiscite to decide the status of the CS. ...I suspect the CS would never amount to anything more than international oversight of the local municipal governments management of the Holy Places and antiquities." If the "the armistice occupation is de jure" that means that areas that were meant to ben under the CS are part of Israel proper, legally. Chesdovi (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus to remove the Palestinian flagicon, Hertz is edit-warring over it but it remains the long-standing version until there is consensus to revise. Chesdovi, are you using another wiki editor as a source? According to WP:NPOV we must present all significant viewpoints. According to the UN, EU and several countries the CS is the current legal status of the city. Listing just the Israeli flag is as "neutral" as saying in the infobox "All Jews are terrorists", and later in the text explaining that in fact almost everyone considers that an illegal and completely wrong view that is universally rejected. For the record, I think Israel+Palestine is better than just Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, D.C. "Hertz is edit-warring over it"?? If you mean me, please withdraw that statement. Though I have been following this interminable discussion, I hadn't said a word, let alone edit warred over any icon. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Coming from you, talk about "the long-standing version" and the need for "consensus" is simply hypocritical, considering your actions prompting this discussion.
"Palestine" can't be listed, as no such thing actually exists (a Palestinian state has not been established yet, as acknowledged by basically everyone). "Palestinian territories" might be listed, as before. The UN has no bearing on this. Again I explain - we're not discussing the "legal status" of the city, and so the viewpoints about this are irrelevant. okedem (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The may be dispute about which country it should be in, but in reality in is in Israel. Israeli police physically determine who is allowed to Friday prayers at Al Aqsa. Jerusalem is in the country of Israel, whether it should be or not and whetehr one likes it or not. Chesdovi (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hertz1888 I do mean you, as you're the editor that last removed the long-standing version without consensus to do so. However now that we're all here, we can agree on the version. Whether the test says "Palestine", "State of Palestine", "Palestinian Territories", "Palestinian Authority" or "West Bank" I frankly don't think is much of an issue. Okedem, I feel that in this discussion I've expressly been trying to build consensus once it became apparent that some editors were opposed to the UN flag, which took me by surprise since to me it's the most bleedingly obvious thing to put there. Chesdovi, this really is an issue to which there is more than one view. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
None of the entities you listed above are countries. Therefore, it is inappropriate to list them along with Israel in the infobox. This is misleading and unencyclopedic. Dailycare, thank you so much for starting this discussion and helping us realize that we erroneously had the Palestinian territories listed. The article is much more accurate now that we have fixed that mistake. Breein1007 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Breein, at least myself and Tiamut have said on this thread that we oppose removing the Palestinian flag, so you don't have consensus for removing it. If we invite broader participation, you can't seriously believe that the end result would be to present exclusively the Israeli POV, since that's against core policy of the project. --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not remove anything. You edit warred it back into the article after it was removed. It would be nice for you to be a big man and strike out your lies. Breein1007 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
D.C., I am still waiting for an apology. You accused me of edit warring—a serious allegation—when I made one reversion because your repeated reversions seemed contrary to the sense of the discussion and, at best, premature. Now you have put a controversial icon back in yet one more time. One can only wonder who is the real warrior here. And by the way, whatever else may be said, "West Bank" is not a country. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't hard to make a principled argument that the country of Palestine should exist. However, no such country does exist, let alone with sovereignity over Jerusalem. Therefore, there should not be a flag of a notional country in an article about some other country's capital. IronDuke 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hertz1888, Breein accused me of edit-warring after one revert (IIRC) to the extent of posting a warning on my talkpage, so I presume the same criteria apply to you and s/he has also warned you. I was originally under the impression that the flagicons had been there for a while, but as an editor pointed out they're in fact very new. Since there is of yet no consensus on them, I've restored the actual longstanding version with no flagicons for the time being. The flagicon combinations I'd be comfortable with, and the ones I'd not be comfortable with, are detailed in the discussion above with reasoning. Happy Mayday, --Dailycare (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


The article says: "According to Hebrew scripture, King David reigned until 970 BCE." This isn't actually accurate - the scriptures don't give any date for David, or for anyone else. The 970 date is a modern inference made by Thiele and other scholars. The article needs to be a bit clearer on this. PiCo (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted PiCo. Chesdovi (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Third holiest site

The article said jerusalem being the third holiest islamic site is a mainstream islamic viewpoint, but this is clearly false. Shias consider Najaf the third holiest place. Salafis disassociate from any shrines. Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudis, initiated by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab continues even today, to prevent, what some consider to be the practices of grave-worshipping and revering the deads and ask favors of the dead buried there. So there is no way any Salafi scholar calls Al Aqsa 'holy' considering islamic prophets are buried there. Plus, Quranists do not accept hadith so Quranists wouldn't accept Bukhari interpretations of Jerusalem being holy either as there are different opinions on 'Al-Aqsa'.

I think i have demonstrated that Jerusalem being the third holiest site is NOT the view of 3 major denominations of Islam and is thus not a mainstream view of Islam.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Jebusites built the city

The Jebusites were a Canaanite tribe who inhabited and built Jerusalem prior to its conquest by King David; the Books of Kings state that Jerusalem was known as Jebus prior to this event. According to some Biblical chronologies, the city was reconquered by King David in 1003 BC, or according to other sources 869 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CantorFriedman (talkcontribs) 09:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why the biased presentation ?

the first line states that Jerusalem is the captial of Israel. Not even one single country in the world recgonizes it as a capital for Israel. I know there is a footnote that explains this. But this is biased in presentation and most readers would think that it IS the capital of Israel. This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I second this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdefrezz (talkcontribs) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Later there are assertions with incorrect citations: "In 1998, the Jerusalem Development Authority proposed expanding city limits to the west to include more areas heavily populated with Jews.[126]" I just read the cited source and couldn't find anything referring to 1998 or expansion to the west. So the assertion is apparently unbased and may be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I think now is the time to fix this? isn't? Wikipedia lacks neutralism in some aspects. We all need to work together to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"modern Jerusalem" picture is misleading

The picture whose title is "modern Jerusalem" actually shows mainly the Arab, east Jerusalem neighborhoods with west Jerusalem only appearing in the far background. I think it's misleading and doesn't really show the beauty of modern/west Jerusalem. There are so many pictures depicting the beauty of west Jerusalem, I really have no idea who decided to put a [picture of an Arab neighborhood as an example of "modern Jerusalem". I've attached a better picture of modern Jerusalem: modern Jerusalem —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Street scene" image for collage

File:Oslo city in 10 images.jpg has a nice example of a street image. I provide a selection, all needing to be cropped. Chesdovi (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as a panoramic image is included, I vote for Jaffa Road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenem (talkcontribs) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say that, of the four, the only one with sufficient visual appeal in reduced size is the third (Mamila). The others are too dark, or cluttered, or nondescript. Continuing to search for additional candidates. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think also the second from the left is good and has a nice atmosphere. I think this was considred too dark by Herz, but I'd be OK with that one as well. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what about:

-- Avi (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Even better with the bottom 20% (foreground) cropped off. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think all the pictures are actually awful. Please find better ones! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit queries

I'm going through this and related articles very gradually, mainly to fix language and formatting. I see a raft of references supporting the "Jerusalem is Israel's largest city". Fine, but I see no need to include a NYT travel writer's assertion when there are already several sources of greater authority. Tony (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got Friedland's book at hand? Sorry to be fussy, but three dots... like that are not the way MoS says to do it. Is it the end of a sentence in the source.... or is "this city" in the middle of a sentence ... in which case three dots with space. I've assumed the latter. Best to get it right. Tony (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC) And the Hoppe "without it" I've assumed is a sentence end, by instinct. Please check. Tony (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that the end of the lead is a bit odd. Branches of government ... zoo ... football stadium. Comes to a clunking halt. I am too distant from the topic to know how to end it more smoothly, but I can certainly say that it's not yet right. Tony (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"EA287": this appears cryptic to anyone but an expert, and readers should not have navigate down to the linked website to learn what EA stands for. I presume it's "El something letters" (I've already forgotten). What on earth are they? I think a very brief glossing in parenthese or within commas is required, on the spot, yes? Ref 28: the website looks voluminous and informative, but the publisher/owner of the URL is unclear. Is it the "California Institute for Ancient Studies"? Often, the stated institute is not the owner of the site, as I've learnt as a reviewer at WP:FAC. Is this organisation affiliated with a university? I shouldn't have to ask these things ... they should be in the ref.) Tony (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

capital of Palestine

Jerusalem has been declared the capital of the State of Palestine, which declared its independence in 1988 (see Palestinian Declaration of Independence). Me thinks this merits mention. Something along the lines of "Jerusalem has also been designated the capital of the State of Palestine in its 1988 declaration of independence. Palestine exercises no sovereignty over the city." nableezy - 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wishful thinking for a non-existent state is of little importance. Anyway, we already discuss this, in the last paragraph of the lead: "Arab Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state". More than enough. okedem (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You have made this argument elsewhere, but a state that has been recognized by over 100 other states is no longer a "non-existent state". And it is not just foreseen as the capital of a future state, it is the declared capital of an actual state. nableezy - 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You have made that argument elsewhere, and it is just as irrelevant here as it was there. I keep trying to explain this to you - political recognition isn't the only criteria for statehood, and as all world leaders and Palestinian leaders speak of the Palestinian State in the future tense (stuff like "we need to establish a state", "if we unite we can make the state a reality in two years", etc), it's clear there is no state. And, of course, the meaning of the word "capital" is seat of government, and that is clearly true for Israel, and clearly false for any Palestinian entity with regard to Jerusalem. okedem (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And it has repeatedly been shown to you that only other states have the power to determine whether or not a state exists. And they have done that by recognizing that a state of Palestine does in fact exist. And is it clearly false that Jerusalem has been designated the capital of Palestine, which is what my proposed edit says? nableezy - 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
In fact, this is the contrary - a State existe even if not recongnised, like Somaliland exists right now, and Palestine does not. Benjil (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Palestinians' aspirations with regard to Jerusalem are already covered here, and nothing else is needed. And, again, I'm not interested in your interpretation of what is needed to make a state, as you fail to actually produce evidence that recognition is sufficient in this case (meaning - experts saying that such a state exists, purely due to recognition). Furthermore, the opinion of leaders means about infinity times more than yours, and they all concur no such state exists - I'm afraid we can't ignore them (including the opinion of the president of that supposed state) in favor of your OR interpretations.
Oh, and do tell me - did a State exist back in 1988? Even then many states recognized it, but it had absolutely no control over anything, and was declared by leaders in exile. okedem (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are some world leaders clearly discussing the Palestinian State in the future tense. You can find plenty of such statements with a simple google news search.
  • [4] - Salam Fayyad: "The Palestinian government... in order to establish a de facto state apparatus within the next two years"
  • [5] - Mahmoud Abbas: "We will not alter our demand to end the occupation in full and to establish a Palestinian, with east Jerusalem as its capital, on all of our national land."
  • [6] - Saudi king: "I can honestly tell you, brothers, that even if the whole world joins to found a Palestinian independent state, and if we have full support for that, this state would not be established as long as the Palestinians are divided."
  • [7] - Khaled Meshal: "We will accept a Palestinian state within 1967 lines"
  • [8] - "Speaking at Khan Younis mosque, Hamas' prime minister in Gaza says 'we won't serve as an obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders'"
  • [9] - Improving conditions for West Bank Palestinians shows that a Palestinian state can be "built from the bottom up while it's being negotiated from the top down," Quartet Mideast envoy Tony Blair said Tuesday.
  • [10] - "Turkish President Abdullah Gul Friday cast doubt on a European Union call for a deadline for the creation of a Palestinian state, warning such a move could be counter-productive." okedem (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Without recognition a state is not recognized as an international Person, it has no legal rights or responsibilities under international law. See here. There is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision. States can "exist" without recognition in that they have a defined territory and government, but if they are not recognized by other states that "existence" is meaningless in international law. Palestine does exist simply because other sovereign states say it does. But all this is avoids the issue. Why would we not say that Jerusalem has been designated the capital of Palestine in the Palestinian declaration of independence? (hows this for evidence Okedem?) nableezy - 08:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, you're presenting your own analysis, which flies in the face of all statements by all leaders involved.
As for your suggestion - the problem with it is that it's meaningless - designated, great. It was also designated as capital by Israel - but it actually is Israel's capital, whereas it doesn't serve any Palestinian role. The current sentence is much more informative - the Palestinians want it to be their future capital - so it's not so now. More informative than a simple "designation", and makes clear the current situation. okedem (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Funny that you say I am presenting my own analysis when I give you one of the highest quality sources you will find on the topic saying the same thing. But I am curious to see what others have to say about the proposal so Ill just sit back now. nableezy - 09:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Your quote says nothing of "Palestine". And you continue ignoring all of the leaders saying the opposite. Don't these people know what you know? Are they that ignorant? okedem (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Nableezy is merely proposing to include a notable fact. It doesn't make any difference whether the thing recognized by 100 nations is a state or an icecream (like I'm eating right now); the fact that 100 nations think it is notable means that it is. Zerotalk 09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact Nableezy wants to include is already in the lead of the article. okedem (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't. I'm not necessarily in love with Nableezy's wording, but the fact he mentions is true and notable and should be mentioned somewhere. Zerotalk 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed notable, relevant to a page on Jerusalem and actually required per WP:NPOV. Israel may think it haas a monopoly on claims over Jerusalem, but there are other significant viewpoints on the issue which should be included as well. Tiamuttalk 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it might be notable that Palestinians want Jerusalem to be their capital, which is why that's written in the lead. okedem (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
What's notable is that they have declared it the capital of Palestine, not that they merely want it to be. Stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Tiamuttalk 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And why did they declare it? Because they want it as capital. Even if there was no formal declaration, the aspiration is the same, and the meaning is the same. They'd like it to be the capital of a Palestinian state, when such state is established. Both facts ("want" vs. "declared") are true, but the former gives more information (it isn't so now) than the later. okedem (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. -- The Lead
Already mentioned. Already given due weight. Already discussed ad nauseum. Tiamut, it's incredibly ironic that you're citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- tariqabjotu 19:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is mentioned. What is not mentioned is that it has already been declared the capital of the current state of Palestine. nableezy - 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a difficult balancing act because there are several points that may confuse readers. The simple point is that Palestinians have declared Jerusalem the capital of the State of Palestine. But then the first caveat is that no part of Jerusalem is under Palestinian control. The second caveat is that Jerusalem is not the seat of government of a Palestinian government, so it's capital in name only (if even that). The third caveat (not so much a caveat, but a clarification) is that "state" does not mean what most people think it means -- i.e. that state does not necessarily include control over any territory (that's country).
Basically, what I'm saying is that, although Palestinian aspirations regarding Jerusalem are notable, this point is far from simplistic. And if we're going to begin by saying that Palestinians have declared Jerusalem the capital of the current (as future is insufficient for you) Palestinian state, we're going to have a lot of explaining to do. A footnote, perhaps, could be in order, but I think, should someone not read the footnote, they would almost certainly come off with a false impression (and so it should be put inline).
And, yes, I know that was a long-winded answer that didn't say much concrete. I'll try that in a moment (I have to move to a different location.) -- tariqabjotu 19:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You raise important points, and we indeed should not be confusing the reader. I think if we can agree that this is a notable fact we can work out how it should be in the article. And your point about footnotes is well taken, as I feel quite the same regarding the footnote about Jerusalem being Israel's capital. nableezy - 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I knew you would bring that up, which is why I tried to head you off at the pass. Obviously, I was unsuccessful, but I'll leave it there. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to change that footnote, I know that isnt going to happen. My point is that I dont think footnotes should be used to explain crucial pieces of information, which looks like your point as well. And even if the one on being capital of Israel does that I dont think we should do that for capital of Palestine. One boneheaded decision does not mean we must make another one. nableezy - 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hows this: Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, in the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, declared Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine. Whole story without undue weight. nableezy - 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The second sentence is redundant. It's simply a sort of affirmation of the first. okedem (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No it is not. Even if you think that Palestine does not exist (I love how that idea plays with demands for recognition of a right to exist) the second sentence clearly gives information not in the first, it cannot be redundant. Does the first actually say it has already been declared the capital, or just that it is hoped that it will be. Does the first say anything about the declaration of independence? How exactly is it redundant? nableezy - 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
How's this: Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, in the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, declared Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine despite never having sovereignty over any part of the city. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, the second adds some information - but information of little meaning. They want Jerusalem as capital. One of the things they've done for that end is declaring it as such in 1988. But this isn't an article about the Palestinians, about the declaration, or about the SoP or the PNA. It's about Jerusalem, and we can't give so much space to a single point regarding future aspirations only. If you want, you can place the "declared" bit in a footnote, following the existing sentence - the declaration is the clear formal manifestation of the aspiration.
(Oh, and it's not just me who thinks no current State of Palestine exists - it's also Fayyad, Abbas, Fahed, Blair, Meshal, Hanniyah, Gul and countless others. Who can you present to support your position?) okedem (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, the 100+ states that have recognized it as a current state? You know, the entities that actually have that authority? nableezy - 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
According to your own personal opinion. But why doesn't any Palestinian or world leader share your views?
Let me just add French president Sarkozy - back in 2007 - Sarkozy: Lack of Palestinian state an injustice, and in 2009 Creating their own state is a "legitimate right" for Palestinians. I can find so many others... okedem (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The question isn't about whether the Palestinians have a state. The question is whether it's necessary to go beyond what is currently said -- that the Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future country -- to also state that Palestinians have already declared East Jerusalem the capital of their [current] state, even though that designation means just about nothing. I'm increasingly becoming convinced that it's not important to also mention that (in the lead, to say nothing about how it's handled in the remainder of the article). The declaration is really, as okedem said, just a manifestation of what is already mentioned in the article and nothing more. If the problem is that the lead refers to a "future state" when a State of Palestine already exists, we could change it to "future country" or maybe "future independent state". I really don't care either way, though; I think it's clear enough as it is. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes: Jerusalem is the offical capital for the State of Palestine according to The Palestinian Basic Law Ahmad2099 (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the fact that it's recognized as Palestine's by over 100 nations capital is worth mentioning somewhere in the article, and I don't see it anywhere right now. Don't try to write that it IS the capital of Palestine alongside where it says it is the capital of Israel, but it should at least be mentioned, Just make sure there's a source with a link to a list. -- (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Palestine is not an independent state and it has no capital city. Even the Palestinians do not recognize their independence. They recognize only their right of independence.Eddau (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

HOW can this entry say that Jerusalem is the capital, and that IF East Jerusalem were included.....when the hypertext link to wiki's East Jerusalem page says East Jerusalem IS part of Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine both recognize the city of Jerusalem as their capital; thus, isn't it NPOV to consider Jerusalem the capital of both? — Rickyrab | Talk 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree we need more NPOV in this article. And since one previously stated "Without recognition a state is not recognized as an international Person.", Jerusalem is NOT recognized as the Israeli capital by any state other than Israel itself. The PNA recognizes Jerusalem as its capital. So why on earth does the first line say that Jerusalem is Israel's capital? (forget about the footnote. Why not have a foot note for Palestine and explain it likewise?). In fact, if anything, Jerusalem should be stated as the Palestinian capital because there ARE other countries that recognize it as the Palestinian capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Please consult a dictionary regarding the definition of capital; it has absolutely nothing to do with international recognition, but is defined as the "seat of government". Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, not the Palestinians'. And you second sentence is clearly irrelevant: "Without recognition a state is not recognized as an international Person." - okay, but we're not talking about a state, but about a capital city. okedem (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to jump between topics here but countries do not REQUIRE recgonition to become ones (is what I learned after consulting a few dictionaries, thanks to someone). Anyways, so we are saying forget about recognition in terms of capitals. If we do so, then what defines a capital? I assume it is how the governing body regards it, correct? Israel, without doubt, considers Jerusalem as its capital but so does the PNA.
Israel is a country. The PNA is not. What exactly does the PNA govern? Breein1007 (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, while flipping through the dictionaries, you forgot why you were there in the first place - to look up "capital". Had you done so, you would have learned it is defined as "seat of government"; meaning, a country's capital is where its government is located. This is true for Jerusalem in the case of Israel (has its parliament, government offices, supreme court, etc. there), but false for the PNA (government offices are mostly in Ramallah). Thus, Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but not the PNA's capital. okedem (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, we had a long discussion about this issue in the Israel article and in the end decided to say there that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but that that is not recognized internationally. Let's do the same here? --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No, there we decided on that phrasing because we didn't want to waste more space on it. Here the lede contains an entire paragraph on the subject, and the article discusses it extensively. okedem (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, the amount of space wasn't an issue in that discussion so much as NPOV, namely the question of presenting all significant points-of-view. Here the lead does not contain the information that israeli claims to having their capital in Jerusalem are not recognized internationally. We decided to include that in the Israel article, so back to my original suggestion: here too? One option would be to not mention it in the beginning of the lead and mention it in the paragraph on the status dispute. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
No, we've already seen the not a single source makes any claim that a capital has to be recognized, but only that it be the seat of government. That means it is the capital, and all other issues (non-recognition) are secondary. We discuss the political status of Jerusalem at length, in several places in the article, including in the lede - "Because of the disputed status of Jerusalem, the embassies of most countries have been kept in Tel Aviv and its suburbs...". The word "capital" has a big fat footnote link on it, impossible to miss, that contain a lengthy explanation. This is too much weight, if anything. okedem (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, we discussed that point of yours several times in the RFC and in the end decided to say that it's Israel's unrecognized capital (which is being very generous to Israel). Do you have grounds why you feel the reasons behind the result of the Jerusalem RFC on the Israel page wouldn't apply here? As far as I can see it's the exact same issue. --Dailycare (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing "generous" about that phrasing. Throughout the discussion, no one was able to present sources to contradict the ubiquitous definition of capital as "seat of government", and undoubtedly, Jerusalem fulfills that definition for Israel. The RfC on Israel was one thing; this is another. Here we already have a big footnote on the word "capital", and we already discuss the issue at length in several places in the article. To write anything more about it would be undue weight for one issue. This isn't the "political status of Jerusalem" article. okedem (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. How is the issue different, except that since this is the Jerusalem article and not the Israel article, the issue should probably be given a bit more space here? Concerning the point you now raise, that too was repeatedly discussed in that RFC (and here, like there, I'd also be OK with substituting "capital" with "seat of government" in addition to being OK with the agreement reached in the RFC), and concerning the point on the footnote, there was (and still is) also a footote on the issue in the Israel article. --Dailycare (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not that long ago, there was an RfC on this question, for this article; the suggestion to emphasize the controversy failed by a margin. Please don't try to abuse the willingness to compromise on that page, to have your way on this page.
I've proven, very conclusively, what the meaning of capital is, and how Jerusalem fits the definition. You, on the other hand, failed to show any sources saying that recognition is somehow a requirement for a city to be capital. Thus, the wording "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is, without a doubt, 100% accurate. Now, you claim the issue of non-recognition is important, and I don't disagree. It is, however, extensively covered in the lede, and in the article, as I have shown before. Just to prevent confusion, we have a big footnote, impossible to miss, on the word capital. The sum of all these things is more than enough on this topic, and further emphasis is redundant. okedem (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This argument, as I wrote above, was discussed at length in the RFC I mentioned above. If you feel you've developed some new musings about national capitals, I encourage you to publish them. This talkpage isn't the place to discuss them since this is reserved for discussion on article content. --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it was actually not really discussed, as you never bothered trying to refute this simple fact; it has nothing to do with my "musings" as you mockingly call them, but with the dictionary definition of the word "capital". Unless you call Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Webster's, etc. my "musings" (which might be flattering in a new, I suppose), your above comment is very foolish. When using words, we have to use them accurately; for that we need to know their definitions; for that we go to dictionaries. As there is no dispute that Jerusalem serves as Israel's seat of government, the answer is clear. okedem (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Okedem, I don't think calling other editors' thoughts "foolish" is constructive. We've been through this particular issue several times recently. That Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israel's capital is a significant viewpoint (in fact it's the majority view), therefore according to WP:NPOV it must be "fairly" represented "in proportion to the prominence". Presenting only the minority view in the lead and the majority view in a footnote isn't "in proportion to the prominence", and in the Israel article we just agreed on a wording that also includes the majority viewpoint in the lead. I don't see how what individual editors feel makes a "real capital" is at all relevant. --Dailycare (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You fail to understand that your point is irrelevant as to the question of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. International recognition is irrelevant to the question. A capital seat is not decided by international recognition. Jerusalem is Israel's capital because it is the seat of government of the country, because it functions as Israels capital on the ground de facto. That's all. The rest is politics and ideology and should be irrelevant. Benjil (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
When you call something my "musings" or "feeling", when in fact it is extremely well sourced, it's a foolish and childish evasion. This has nothing to do with how I "feel" about a capital, but with what the sources say, and they say that a capital is the seat of government, and not a single one of them says, in any way, that international recognition is needed. You are, of course, unable to provide sources to counter this definition, so you try to evade it. okedem (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
A capital does NOT need to be the seat of government in order to be a capital. AFAIK, The Netherlands has it capital Amsterdam but all of its offices are in The Hague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does. The Netherlands case is "the exception that confirms the rule". This is a very particular case and there even need an entire paragraph to explain it in the Amsterdam article. And once, again, international recognition is entirely irrelevant.Benjil (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Once more, that Jerusalem isn't recognized as the capital is indisputably true (which can't be said of the claim that Jerusalem is the capital), extremely well sourced and it is also as noted the overwhelming majority view. We could agree, arguendo, that what you say is 100% true and that Jerusalem is the capital. It still wouldn't change one bit what I wrote above. --Dailycare (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
May I ask what makes Amsterdam a special a case? i.e. why can't Jerusalem be one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Holland's history. The difference being that Jerusalem *is* the capital. De jure and de facto. There is not even a question about this. The issue is : do international recognition of all of Jerusalem as being part of Israel a factor here ? And the answer is no. This has nothing to do with Jerusalem being Israel's capital or not. Benjil (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Benjil, whether it is or isn't the capital de jure or in any other way isn't relevant. The lead currently endorses the Israeli POV by saying it is, and we're not discussing changing that. What is relevant is what sources say, namely: 1) Is the non-recignition a significant view? 2) Is it verifiable? 3) Is the issue a major controversy? The answers to all these questions are "yes". --Dailycare (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly the contrary. Whether it is the capital is the only thing relevant. You three questions are not. Benjil (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to be more explicit: the first two points are from WP:NPOV and the third is from WP:LEAD. Your argument is of the type discussed here: WP:I_just_don't_like_it --Dailycare (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you don't understand English. Once again your points are irrelevant to the issue. That's not what I like or not. International recognition is not a criteria for the establishment of a capital. You can continue one hundred times with this line it will still be irrelevant. Benjil (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We're discussing this change: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although it isn't internationally recognized as such." where the bold-face text is added. We're not discussing the first part. At least, I'm not. --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Exaclty, there is no need to hide these crucial facts in a footnote. Move it up to the first lines and stop the biased in presentation of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This issue appears to have cleared up, so I'll implement the change in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Cleared up?! You don't have anything vaguely reminiscent of consensus, and you just push ahead? I'm reverting you. This information is already in the lede, per prior compromises. Don't abuse them, and don't keep pushing for your own version. okedem (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If something remains unclear to you, identify it but read the discussion above first, since the issue is thoroughly discussed already. Presenting exclusively the terrorist POV in the lead and the international framework in a footnote is not what we agreed on Israel, and it's furthermore completely ridiculous. If you're now withdrawing from the agreement we have, let me know. --Dailycare (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, I am sad to see you finally transition from well-meaning user to POV pusher. There's so much wrong with your comment that I have trouble deciding where to begin. Let's do it by the order you wrote it:
  1. "If something remains unclear ... the issue is thoroughly discussed already." - discussed, and you failed to gain consensus. You simply used the fact I had some other work to do for a couple of days to push your own version in, knowing full well you don't have support for it.
  2. "Presenting exclusively" - repeating a lie does not make it true. The entire third paragraph of the lede is dedicated to the conflict and status of Jerusalem.
  3. "the terrorist POV" - do I really have to say anything about this one?
  4. "the ... POV" - as I (and others) have shown, the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is objective fact, stemming from the unambiguous definition of the word capital as "seat of government", combined with Jerusalem's function as such for Israel. This is not anyone's POV; to say that Jerusalem rightfully belongs to Israel, or such moral judgments, would be POV. International opinion regarding the city is POV, on the other hand (a not-insignificant POV). The question of where to place it is not POV, but due weight. International opinion would be relevant from a POV standpoint only if we were to say "Israel maintain the whole city rightfully belongs to it". We clearly don't say so, even separating East Jerusalem in the first sentence for largest city purposes (taking the position opposite the Israeli one).
  5. "not what we agreed on Israel" - As I said above, you're trying to abuse the goodwill and willingness to compromise on one article, to have your way in another. This won't fly.
  6. "withdrawing from the agreement we have" - we had no agreement for this article, as you know full well. This article is very different from Israel, and is in no way subject to any understanding or compromise there.
To surmise - basically every word of your comment is POV pushing lies. Go try it on someone else. Perhaps someone illiterate, or suffering from amnesia. okedem (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, see my comment timestamped 20:12, 1 June 2010 in this thread. Do you have a policy-based reason for opposing the inclusion in the lead of the text? If so, what is it and why wasn't it relevant in Israel? And spare me the fake indignation. --Dailycare (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If you can't restrict yourself to claims that are true, there's no point discussing this, or anything else, with you. okedem (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Now that we've sorted out that you don't consider yourself restricted to the agreement reached on Israel, I will likewise not consider myself restricted to it and we can move to the thread below. Of course, your participation is voluntary.--Dailycare (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As was explained to you earlier, the understanding there never applied to this page (otherwise, you couldn't have started your demands for changes here). okedem (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)