Talk:Jerusalem

excessive length

shalom, the article needs to be leaned down, the History part is the easiest to start with, it's huge and there are plenty of sub articles, I'll give it a try, still that won't be enough, I'll check the other twins articles like East Jerusalem, and then examine which sections need expending, I say 'I' but not exclusive of every one's collaboration, enjoy, Hope&Act3! (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I visit theis holy city quite often. Its attraction only increases each time. Thus it has a magnet for most religions. Holy of the Holiest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.48.63 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

annexed or not ?

These 2 good faith edits removed the terms annexation/annexed and replaced them with control/took control of. Were these edits policy compliant ? I don't know. The second change referring to 1967 seems okay but the first change about the present day status seems problematic. I'm mentioning it because a) I'm staring at a CIA map of the West Bank [1] that says "Jerusalem city limits unilaterally expanded by Israel, 28 June 1967; annexed by Knesset, 30 July 1980; modified and expanded, February 1992." and b) I wondered if there was a consensus about it. It probably involves other articles too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue may be that Israel hasn't AFAIK used the term "annex". The Israel article uses "incorporate" in this context which may work, although of course if we have many sources using "annexed" then we can use the term here, too. --Dailycare (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is

it is vital in the interests of accuracy this is corrected with immediate effect - jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel but Tel Aviv is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.195.98 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You might enjoy this or this or many other discussions in the talk page archives. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Far better to be uncertain than to be sure and wrong." (source unknown). Hertz1888 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If only we could get the article to follow that advice... --FormerIP (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it was the capital of ancient Israel. Why not modern Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual capital of the Kingdom of Israel was Samaria and apparently there was at least one good Samaritan. Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem will remain united as it was when Israel was united. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in having a huge discussion garnished with some edit warring over this edit to the Western Sahara article yesterday that removed the capital entry from the infobox because El Aaiún is "claimed by SADR, but there is no international consensus in favor of this claim" ? No ? Oh well. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Chexdovi, Jerusalem isn't "united" except in two senses that I can think of: as the corpus separatum under UN jurisdiction or as two halves which are both separately occupied by a foreign power, Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Israelis, in terms of international law, have the right to define which city to be their capital. But East Jerusalem should not included in that right since it is a part of West Bank, whom legal status is disputed!! Maher A. A. Abdussalam (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no legal basis for including any part of Jerusalem in the West Bank.--Redaktor (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The UN would disagree with you since it does include East Jerusalem in the West Bank. But incidentally also West Jerusalem isn't within Israel's "right" (to use Maher's terminology) since it's not Israeli territory either and the international community rejected the notion of West Jerusalem as Israel's capital already before the six-day war. (BTW the legal status of the WB is "occupied", not "disputed"). But what edit, exactly, are we discussing here? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

These I/P territorial issues never cease to surprise me (and cause migraines). So is there a body of legal documents/political statements contesting the legal claim of Israel to West Jerusalem? I guess if it wasn't part of the UN Partition then someone is probably contesting it although I always thought it was legit. That might partially explain why most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv. Any sources? Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

'Israel' doesn't have a legal leg to stand on but it does have a claque of partisans to patrol pages like this. Your best bet is to correct the page then revert the revert.Keith-264 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a text describing the US position on Jerusalem, dating to 1963 (i.e. West Jerusalem) and speaking in terms of the corpus separatum. Here2 is another text relating to the matter. --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! And wow. I honestly had no idea that was the U.S.'s position on the matter. I'll put a "See Also" link to the legal status of Jerusalem page. (Nevermind, I am silly, it's linked in politics) Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

maybe that was the US position in 1963, but not today. in 1999, the Jerusalem Embassy Act called for the US to move its embassy to jerusalem, the capital of the state of israel. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

see Jerusalem Embassy Act Sean.hoyland - talk 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law, but isn't it also the capital of the State of Palestine according to the Palestine Basic Law? And shouldn't that be stated in the article? --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Err ... there is no such thing as "State of Palestine". Keith and other antisemitic loons can screech as much as they like. Go back to the LoN mandate's terms. There is no sovereign entity other than Israel with the slightest claim to Jerusalem incl. all its parts, east, west, south and north-by-northwest, AND to the whole of Judea and Samaria. Israel is the ONLY entity with the slightest right to decide where its capital is located. The UN, the State Department, the Arabist Foreign Office, the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, the NY Times and all other pathological Jew- and Israel-haters: Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel because ISRAEL says so. You don't like Jews deciding things for themselves? Tough cheese. Go take a walk down a very short pier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.7.226 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Joshua, in short, yes. There is a section in WP:NPOV_Dispute that fits this debate well, IMO:

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

so instead of embracing Israel's claim ("Jerusalem is the capital"), it should be presented as Israel's claim and placed in context, like so many reliable sources do. --Dailycare (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's not a "claim". Countries designate their own capitals. We've been over this so many times it's ridiculous. And there is a plethora of context given in the article, worded and structured by consensus reached only after prolonged and repeated debate. Newcomers may want to know that whole volumes on the topic may be found in the talk page archives. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Hertz, that is true for everyone BUT Joos. Joos must accept what antisemites tell them - including where their capital is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.7.226 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are about 20 countries (out of almost 200) which do not recognise Israel. For the State of Palestine the above IP editor claims does not exist, it is about 90. In other words, Palestine is recognised by over 100 nations, including Russia, China, the Arab League, and a lot of others. Just as Israel has the right to decide where its capital is, so does Palestine. And Palestine's Basic Law states that Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital. I am not proposing we remove any mention of Jerusalem being the Israeli capital, but that we also mention that it is the Palestinian capital as well. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Herz, it doesn't make a difference to my argument whether you call it a "claim" or a "designation". Israel says it's the capital. The UN says it isn't. The article shouldn't embrace the Israeli narrative but present the issue as a dispute. I'd be OK with "Israel has designated Jerusalem as it's capital, but this is rejected by other countries" instead of "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" +footnote. --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything new here that wasn't thoroughly considered previously. The UN has no say over designation of capitals. A modifying second clause (the "but" part) is inconsistent with the basic—and correct—statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The rejection aspect is covered in the article in several places and ways, probably well beyond "due weight". The Palestinian aspirations are also covered. (Hint to Joshua Issac: A capital should have government institutions.) Hertz1888 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

True, the UN has no say in capital designation. The issue is that, in the UN/international view, Jerusalem isn't in Israel. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital could be construed as recognition of Israel's annexation, lending it legitimacy. If it were in Israel no problem, but until the final status of Jerusalem is determined they can't recognize it. It's a little more nuanced then "The UN rejects the claim" as the UN is rejecting the law the claim is based on. Perhaps "Israel has designated Jerusalem as it's capital, but other countries don't recognize Jerusalem as a part of Israel." Or something along those lines. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Hertz1888:Countries designate their own capitals. If you're not convinced, there's the Orient House (inactive), al-Mokassad Hospital (apparently controlled by the PA), al-Quds University (a governmental Palestinian university), etc. in Palestine to fulfil the requirement you mentioned. If the presence of governmental institution is a requirement that overrides the right of the country to designate its own capital, then what makes the requirement for UN recognition of such any different? --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Governmental institutions constituting a "seat of government", to use the formal phrase. Rather than my endlessly rehashing prior discussions, let me refer you (& others) to these archives for further study and review. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat helpful although the conversation flutters back and forth between a)a state decides its own capital and B)a state can only have a capital once it's put its government there. Argument A doesn't hold up; if the state decides where the capital is then the PA have an equal right to declare Jerusalem their capital. Argument B undermines argument A and relies on a dictionary definition of 'capital' with no definite standards (how much government needs to be there?). It also blithely slides around the issue of owning the territory; much of the archived talk is predicated on the notion that Israel has a quitclaim deed to all of city except East.J'Lem. If you accept the Jerusalem Law, they own the whole thing. If you are the international community the whole city's legal status is undecided and no one can claim it. Please correct me if you feel these are unfair characterizations.

The one thing the archives were clear on is that this question has been raging on for years. Could we just put something in the lead sentence about it being disputed and the declared capitals of Israel and the future(present, whatever) Palestinian state? That seems like a fair accounting of the situation and you could probably leave the rest of it as is. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"There are about 20 countries (out of almost 200) which do not recognise Israel", we are told. So, by the absurd 'logic' of some of the Israel-haters here, the article should not claim that Israel is a country but say something like "Israelis claim that Israel is a country but this is disputed by the so-called 'international community'". You see where antisemitic 'logic' leads you? The UN is not a sovereign body. It is a corrupt club the majority of whose members are corrupt, totalitarian regimes. It has no say whether Jerusalem is in Israel. It has no say whether it is Israel's capital. End of story. Does anybody here really believe that Israel will give up Jerusalem because some corrupt and antisemitic regimes have voted in the UN that it should do so? Again, that is where the 'logic' of the Israel-haters here leads inexorably - but it will NOT HAPPEN. So, if you have managed to stumble through Logic 101, it follows from the last statement that Israel will also not declare that it's capital is NOT Jerusalem, merely because some corrupt and antisemitic regimes have voted in the UN that it should do so. Jerusalem is the capital. Live with it. As to 'Palestine': some corrupt and antisemitic regimes have voted in the UN that it exists. Doesn't make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.7.226 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is this template that might be applied inline to the statement we're discussing. --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@IP 92.3.7.226: most of the "corrupt", "antisemitic" "totalitarian regimes" (as you claimed) which recognise the State of Palestine are the same ones which recognise Israel (sans the Arab league). That Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine as as relevant to the article as it being the capital of Israel. Also, please read Wikipedia's policy forbidding personal attacks against other editors, and refrain from attacking editors in the future by accusing them of being "Israel-haters", anti-Semitic, etc. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see. Iran is not really corrupt, totalitarian and antisemitic. Malaysia isn't really corrupt, totalitarian and antisemitic. Syria isn't really corrupt, totalitarian and antisemitic. And so on. These are only my 'claims'. The world has been turning a gigantic blind eye to antisemitism, just as it did in the 1930s. I have no intention of participating in this charade. If anyone thinks that the objection to Jerusalem as Israel's capital stems from anything other than hating Jews who stand up for themselves, he or she is living in cloud-cuckoo land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.38.22 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Sadly, cloud-cuckoo land also recognizes the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, keeping their embassy in Tel Aviv. There's no point in trying to reason with you if your immediate reaction is to pull out the Anti-Semite card when confronted with the unfavorable. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Not recognising Israel's claim to Jerusalem has nothing to do with corruption or totalitarian, and neither does it imply anti-Semitism, which is prejudice/hostility towards Jews rooted in ethnicity/culture/religion. Moreover, anti-Semitism is totally irrelevant to this discussion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hertz, please read WP:NPOV_DISPUTE. It doesn't matter what you or I think is the "final truth" about the issue, what you or I think makes a city a capital or what you or I think of the UN's role in designating capitals. It does, OTOH, matter that a significant number of sources present this as a contentious point. --Dailycare (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it make any difference in this discussion to consider another historical example? Please read St. Petersburg. Newly won from Sweden during the The great northern war in 1703, and built by Swedish POWs (in part), St. Petersburg became Peter the Great's new capital of Russia in 1712, nine years before the war was concluded at Treaty of Nystad. So here's at least one other example of a state winning lands from a neighboring power, and establishing a capital on the newly acquired land. I don't suppose Sweden recognized St. Petersburg as the capital of Russia before the Treaty of Nystad was concluded! So, barring an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority regarding status of Jerusalem, I think Sol Goldstone's approach makes sense: insert some description of the dispute, that it is the declared capital of Israel, that embassies haven't moved from Tel Aviv, and that East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, See East Jerusalem for details of this. 74.109.16.57 (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC) DanBliss, db3593

The current lede wording violates NPOV by giving the minority position undue visibility. The footnote is nice but this isn't a David Foster Wallace novel where we hide relevant information outside the main text. Could we agree on just putting in "is the disputed capital of Israel" or "internally recognized" or "proclaimed" or really anything that hints at the major disputes over the area. This isn't the Palestinian view (which would look something like "Jerusalem is the occupied capital of the State of Palestine"), this is the majority international view. Sol 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol Goldstone (talk • contribs)

I concur with Sol's reasoning and think we can proceed with the edit unless policy-based counterarguments are offered. --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning is faulty, based as it is on the false premise that status as capital is a position or a view. We've been over this before. Non-recognition by refusal to locate embassies there is covered. The dispute is mentioned many times and covered by an entire section. Anything more would violate the policy called undue weight. Countries determine their own capitals, and the dictionary defines a capital as the seat of government. It is immaterial whether I (or you) happen to agree or not; that's what a capital is, by definition. Qualifying the term in any way, as proclaimed, disputed, internally recognized, etc. is what would be injecting a POV. Let's leave it be and stop beating a dead horse. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not that Israel can't decide it's capital, it's that it's proclaimed its capital in a city no one recognizes as its property (which in international law is the standard for legitimating annexations). Same thing goes for the State of Palestine. No one is recognizing any claim until the two parties resolve the issue. The only country who would agree with the introductory sentence is the government of Israel. This isn't a majority view. If the article needs to be rebalanced it can. If we want to open it up for RFC or take a straw pole we could give that a shot. Sol (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

After extensive perusal of the archives, I still can't find anything explaining why the international community's rejection of Jerusalem as sovereign Israeli territory/a part of the country is over-ruled in favor of the minority Israeli view. International recognition is the standard for legitimizing disputed territorial gains and that recognition has been explicitly denied. I would like to at least amend the footnote to include that this is why the capital designation is rejected, proper sourcing would be included. Sol (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is fact backed up by reliable sources. It is true that the international community refuses to recognise its status as a capital, but that does not stop it from being one. A sovereign state can decide what its capital is, and Israel is in full control of the territory, even if it shouldnt have. This article explains the situation very clearly with the status of Jerusalem as the capital. If we did not explain it i could understand your concerns, but it is there for all to read. I see no reason for any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't explain the connection between the rejection of sovereignty and the rejection of Jerusalem as capital. It mentions them but not the connection. It's important. If the only mention of the controversial status allowed in relation to the lede is the footnote then I would like it as informative as possible. If you live in the EU, US, Canada, or UN member nations, your nation probably doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital because they don't recognize it as part of Israel. Sol (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, it doesn't matter what you (or I) think is the "real capital" or what you (or I) think of states' rights to designate their capitals, so invoking those items repeatedly in this discusson doesn't move it forward. Since it's a disputed item, it should be presented as a disputed item, for example by simply changing to wording "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital, but this is not recognized internationally". A small edit for man, but a giant leap for Wikipedia. As a stopgap, introducing the template would seem to me a reasonable choice. --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, it certainly does matter. Do you need a simple analogy to understand this? If I have decided that a room in my house is my work office, but most people claim it is a bedroom and you cannot make a bedroom an office, it does not matter. I still make that room my office since it has a PC, fax machine, paper shredder and file cabinets in it. Understand? And you know what, if I turned my bathroom into an office, it would still be my office no matter what anyone else says. --Shuki (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the health and safety aspect of using electrical equipment in your bathroom, and assuming for the sake of argument that reliable sources reported the dispute you have described, what would be the policy based reason for your designation of the room types to supersede and result in the exclusion of other disignations ? If it is possession, i.e. because it's your house, then it's begging the question. What specifically is wrong with "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital, but this is not recognized internationally" ? It describes the situation according to reliable sources, it has no dependency on the definition of "capital" and it says nothing about the legitimacy of the views, it simply states them. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I will dig up the UN opinion on the territorial status of Shuki's bathroom-office later :P. I think Sean is right about the circular argument. A better analogy might be if you were in an estate/inheritance dispute with someone over a house and you declared your office to be in the bathroom. You don't own the house; it's still in probate. You might eventually but the other claimant also wants the same luxurious toilet-fax facilities of the abode. The court tells you to work it out between the two of you since you are both crazy enough to want an office in a bathroom. (Abbas and Netanyahu working in a shower-cubical in perfect harmony)Sol (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

what's wrong? it says jerusalem is just as much capital of israel as it is of nonextant palestinian state. on that article, it says proclaimed or declared. it does not make sense to make them seem equal. obviously jerusalem acts as israel (a real current exist country who controls the territory we talk about) capital more than palestinian (no country, no control of land) LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant what is wrong with "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital, but this is not recognized internationally" from a Wikipedia policy compliance perspective ? Are you able to exclude all arguments based on your personal views about Jerusalem, the legitimacy of claims and other related issues no matter how obvious they seem to you and just comment from a policy compliance perspective ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

yes from a policy perspective that this is encyclopedia that tries to teach people correct facts referenced by sources to improve their understanding, not harm it and confuse them. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

. . .which is why we should clarify Jerusalem's status in the lead. Sol (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand your concerns. What are the incorrect facts that concern you specifically ? It is a fact that Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital according to RS and it is a fact that this is not recognized internationally according to RS. These are correct facts, they aren't confusing at all, they improve people's understanding and they don't harm anyone or anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

jerusalem is the capital of israel by the definition. israel proclaimed it, means it is so. just like usa proclaimed washington, means it is so. other people don't recognize, it's another story. my concern is saying israel proclaimed jerusalem and palestinians proclaimed jerusalem. putting them on equal level. when obviously it is not that way in reality. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the lead of the East Jerusalem article says

• "East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian National Authority[1] although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital."

So, would your concerns be addressed if this article's first paragraph said something like

• "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital, and but this is not recognized internationally, The city serves as the administrative capital." Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is fact, although it is a fact that its status is disputed which gets explained throughout the article. To have the same wording as used for East Jerusalem with the Palestinians claim is unacceptable. There is a huge difference as LibiBamizrach has said. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference you refer to that isn't captured by the difference between a statement like "The city serves as the administrative capital" and a statement like "although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital" ? What if the difference were more explicit and one said "The city serves as the administrative capital" and the other said "The city does not serve as the administrative capital etc" ? These are the facts that distinguish the 2 cases, no ? If not, what is the difference that is not being described and what is the thing that is unacceptable according to policy ? Can you be specific ? Is there some kind of misrepresentation ? If so, what is it ? Can you describe it specifically in terms of inconsistency between content and sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, i oppose this being changed. Especially to a first sentence which gives it equal status to the palestinians proclamation. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the article Israel has Jerusalem as the capital. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, we understand that you believe it's a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. That, however, is irrelevant to this discussion. Please see WP:NPOV_DISPUTE :

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy.

We had a RFC about this where around 40 sources were presented that either denied Jerusalem is the capital, or said the capital status is a rejected claim. GoodDay, wiki articles aren't sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link & Incomplete Reference 57.

Ref #57 should read:

"The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their Avarice": Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 by Elliott Horowitz. Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, Society. Jan 1998, Vol4, No.2: 1-39. Correct Link: http://inscribe.iupress.org/toc/jss/4/2

My format may not be correct... perhaps someone else can edit it when updating the entry. Db3593 (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Daniel Bliss db3593

History Section Violates WP:NPOV

The history section is very long and also very biased. It would be easy to balance it out by making it longer (by adding all the missing history) but the article will become overweight on history. Anyone have any suggestions? I have a drastic suggestion - that we replace the entire section with a much shorter piece summarising the history from a neutral perspective, and then a paragraph on how the presentation of jerusalem's history is often subject to ideological bias on both sides given the current situation.

Below are my specific issues with the section:

• 1) It is confusing to introduce the ancient city as the "City of David", unless otherwise making clear that the city was not inhabited by the Jewish people for the first c.2000 years.
• 2) "Recent excavations of a large stone structure are interpreted by some archaeologists as lending credence to the biblical narrative" is misleading as the narrative it refers to is only King David, not the entire paragraph starting "in the biblical acount".
• 3) The words "according to Hebrew scripture" are used as if they only refer to "King David reigned until 970 BCE", when in fact they refer to almost the entire section entitled "Temple Periods". Also according to WP:RNPOV the religious-source history should be balanced with the archeological-source history of the period - the section as it stands is wholly unbalanced.
• 4) The section title "Jewish–Roman wars" is misleading as (a) these wars are not relevant until at least half way down the paragraph and 100 years after the start of the relevant period, and (b) the wars were a cumulative 13 years out of the 700 years referred to in the section. The section itself needs to address this imbalance also - for example it ignores the parthian war, jesus and saint helena
• 5) The section "Roman-Persian wars" is "overweight" given its relative length within the history of the city given the persian control was only 15 years.
• 6) Under Arab control, the sentence "Over the next four hundred years Jerusalem's prominence diminished as Arab powers in the region jockeyed for control." is not correct, this waning of prominence occured when the capital moved to baghdad and when the power of the abbasids started to wane following the death of harun ar-rashid. More importantly however, one sentence to summarise 400 years is underweight.
• 7) There is no mention of anything which occured during the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem period, other than the two battles at the beginning and the end.
• 8) The statement "However, for most of the 13th century, Jerusalem declined to the status of a village due to city's fall of strategic value and Ayyubid internecine struggles." is simply misleading (e.g. reference to village has no basis, nor does fall of strategic value given the views of the crusaders and mongols). The reference does nothing to suggest otherwise.
• 9) The second sentence of the following two sentences is midleading, as it only refers to the first 50 years of the period "From 1250 to 1517, Jerusalem was ruled by the Mamluks. During this period of time many clashes occurred between the Mamluks on one side and the crusaders and the Mongols on the other side."
• 10) The ottoman era section has a rather random picture of the Jews of Jerusalem in 1895, with nothing to balance it out.
• 11) The ottoman era section mentions selected census figures without proper explanation and context of a sensitive and complex subject.
• 12) The 1948 war section states "The Arab Legion also attacked Western Jerusalem with snipers", without mentioning that the opposite was occuring also.
• 13) The paragraph beginning "After 1948, Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places inside the old walled city" mentions the destruction in East Jerusalem but does not mention what happened during the period in West Jerusalem.
• 14) The paragraph "A strong longing for peace is symbolized by the Peace Monument (with farming tools made out of scrap weapons), facing the Old City wall near the former Israeli-Jordanian border and quoting from the book of Isaiah in Arabic and Hebrew." gives a warm fuzzy feeling but i am not sure it belongs here.

Also, in the introduction, the statement "due to the mentioning of 'The Farthest Mosque' in the Qur'an (Sura al-Isra) and the subsequent building of a mosque called 'the Farthest Mosque' on the Temple Mount, Islam regards Jerusalem as its third-holiest city" contains weasel words Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you bring sources or change propositions for each section you mentioned? --Helmoony (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

native name

Why is the Arabic "native name" in the infobox Yerushalayim (the Hebrew name transliterated into Arabic) rather than al-Quds (what it is called in Arabic by a large majority)? Sorry if this has been discussed ad infinitum before. Zero^talk 23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, al-Quds is much more common in Arab-speaking countries. I just hear Yerushalayim from Israeli media. Why should we put in the infobox the Arabic name that is used in just one country. The section Etymology is enough to talk about the singular Arabic name of Jerusalem (al-Quds) in Israel. If there is no opposition, I am gonna change it. --Helmoony (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, zero. And that is strange. A change makes sense. Sol (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Al Quds is the name used by Arabs, carried out the change. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proclaimed

It should be added in the first sentence of the article that its "the proclaimed capital of Israel", per npov as it is not recognized as Israels capital by the entire world and east Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, please provide sources that state a country must have permission of other states for what they decide is their capital? This article clearly explains that the international community rejects its status, there is no POV issue provided that is explained, which it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The CIA world factbook [2] says Capital: name: Jerusalem. There is no need to change anything in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Proclaimed" does not contradict if you believe its the capital of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If East Jerusalem can say "East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian National Authority" clearly there is a problem with us just stating Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel. The CIA world factbook states it as fact, but includes a note that Israel proclaimed it as its capital, but foreign nations keep their embassies in Tel Aviv. We do the same, we state Jerusalem is the capital, because that is fact, but we include a note which clearly explains the situation in the same way that factbook does, although our note is in more detail and information is repeated throughout the article about Jerusalems status. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One can always put disputed, which it is. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i would certainly rather it said disputed capital, than proclaimed capital. But we do go into detail about the status of Jerusalem in the note and in detail within the introduction itself. To put disputed there would still cause problems though. It would be a bit like starting the Northern Ireland article, "Northern Ireland is a disputed country that is part of the United Kingdom". An extremely controversial change that would never get consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A note will do, like the one at the Israel article. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am agreeing with BritishWatcher, no change is needed now. There was already long talks about this in past, including one section above this one. Maybe this discussion should take place there instead split it into two discussion about same thing. No need to say proclaimed, because it is not just proclaimed, it is really the capital of Israel. So this is what article says. LibiBamizrach (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I concure with BritishWatcher as well, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairly simple answer. The Golan Heights are considered occupied by Israel but NOT PART OF Israel by any nation or organization in the entire world, and the wikipedia article reflects that because that is the neutral whole world point of view. The same applies to their proclaimed capital: Jerusalem. Not one country or one organization, save for the zionist government, recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Therefore for wikipedia to fail to clearly and positively reflect that FACT from the very begining establishes a fringe view as fact and is a violation of neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be OK with "proclaimed". "Disputed" is a fresh idea, which while not perfect would in my opinion improve the wording. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not really "disputed" since no country in the world or organization recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. On the otherhand, almost every country in the world, and every major world political body (i.e.: United Nations) recognizes East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state but currently under military occupation by Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on some of the comments above i believe there is going to be no consensus to change the status quo. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, the details of Jerusalems status are clearly explained in the introduction and in the notes along with the rest of the article. There is no need for any change. "proclaimed" in the first sentence is very problematic thanks to its identical use on the East Jerusalem page. This has been heavily debated before, and there has been no new information provided this time. I think the only solution is to wait for a resolution to the Middle East peace process. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well consensus is built from discussions. In particular, I see there does appear to be a consensus at least in no opposition to "disputed". --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see opposition to disputed. I for one oppose it. Several editors today and there have been many other editors in the previous debates support the status quo, there is no consensus to change this long standing wording for the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can issues not be rediscussed? Just because the peace process discussions fail once, does not mean every gives up and doesnt discuss the problem again. The same should apply here. I see most editors who have commented support the change, but only one or two voice opposition. I certainly would say that there appears to be some sort of consensus or at the very least steps moving towards consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We are redicussing it now. There is no consensus for a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I could live with disputed, but proclaimed is better. Wikipedia entries come up within the top 10 listings of most google and yahoo searches, so information listed on Wikipedia must take great care to remain neutral and not take sides in political battles. So, not clearly defining the city as being "occupied", "proclaimed" or "disputed" from the very start, gives the zionist position legitamacy, when in fact Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We are neutral. Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state. The introduction, a note after the first sentence and the article itself all explain Jerusalems status. There is no neutrality issue as long as that note and the other text remains. I would like to see sources that say a country must ask permission from other countries about what it decides is its capital city. The fact foreign powers dont place there embassies in Jerusalem, does not stop the city being Israels capital. We do not define a capital city because it has foreign embassies in it, generally (although not always) foreign embassies go to the capital. I should also point out, what about countries like Wales and Scotland. They have capitals (Cardiff and Edinburgh) which do not have international embassies and there is no official international recognition of them as capitals. They do not come with massive disclaimers. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We do tend to define a country's cities by them actually being in the country. Only a footnote for the majority view is misleading and the foot note itself doesn't cover why other nations don't recognize Jerusalem. We've kept the "Cities in Israel" cat even thought that's not quite right. I'd settle for a lead sentence that says "Capital of Israel but a not an internationaly recognized part of the country" or something to that effect which might actually be a bit more accurate. Sol (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But it is not only a footnote. There is a huge paragraph on this matter within the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true, in fact some countries and organizations do not even recognize that Jerusalem is even part of the Jewish State, let alone the capital. It is not neutral for Wikipedia to state point-blank that Jerusalem is the capital without a prominent qualifier stating the viewpoint of the whole world. A notation such as an asterisk is not sufficent and by outwardly presenting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Wikipedia is taking a political stance supported by the zionist regime but not that of the whole entire world. This is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The state of Israel may decide what its capital is, if needs permission from international organisations or nations i would like to see sources stating it is required. The fact other countries do not place their embassies in Jerusalem is in the introduction there is a whole section on it, its also in the note right in the first sentence and its within the article. We are not ignoring the international view, we detail it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I could live with disputed, but proclaimed is better. Wikipedia entries come up within the top 10 listings of most google and yahoo searches, so information listed on Wikipedia must take great care to remain neutral and not take sides in political battles. So, not clearly defining the city as being "occupied", "proclaimed" or "disputed" from the very start, gives the zionist position legitamacy, when in fact Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. The neutral term is to express the one supported by the whole wide world, not the one supported by one entity —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole paragraph on the status of Jerusalem as capital in the introduction, and there is a note on it after the opening sentence. That is perfectly neutral. This is not about one side having the upper hand over the other, we are just stating fact. Talk of the "Zionist position" will not help resolve this. The present wording has remained in the article for a very long time, theres a huge archive of all the debates. There is never consensus to change it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem's status as contested property is [WP:LEAD] worthy. If something is worth a subsection it's definitely worth mentioning in the lead. We can avoid the problem of "proclaimed" etc with a sentence: "Jerusalem's ownership is still disputed (by the international community)" "The annexation of Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized." Or any combination thereof. It's true, neutral, avoids the wordgames and relates directly to a subsection. Sol (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is in the lead. There is a whole paragraph in the introduction of this article that goes in to extreme detail about the matter.

Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Israel annexed East Jerusalem and considers it a part of Israel, although this has been repeatedly criticized by the United Nations and related bodies.^[12][13] Placing most foreign embassies in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem, the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.^[14][15] Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.^[16][17] Israel, however, considers the entire city to be a part of Israel following its annexation of East Jerusalem through the Jerusalem Law of 1980.

The information is provided in great detail. However until someone provides a source showing a country needs permission from the international community to decide what its capital is, there is absolutely no justification for additional wording to the first sentence or any need for changes to the first paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea "The annexation of Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized." . It s a fair and intelligent way to avoid edits war and the most important for the reader, introduce in the lead the next paragraph which deal with the complex history of the city. --Helmoony (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is already covered in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats not satisfactory. It must specifically state "proclaimed" or "disputed" or some other direct qualifier. To state otherwise is misleading the reader and flys in the face of the entire world view. SyrianKing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

BritishWatcher, please see my comment in the earlier thread, timestamped 20:00, 27 September. You say that you oppose "disputed". Could you explain why you oppose it? If you present your view in terms of wikipedia policies it makes discussion easier. In detail, that you feel something is a fact, that something has been that way for a long time or that other wikipedia pages say something are not policy-based arguments as far as I can tell. --Dailycare (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i gave an example above. The status of Northern Ireland is disputed, there is no official international recognition of Northern Irelands capital (or other UK capitals for that matter except London). We would not start the first sentence on those articles as.. ***** is the unrecognised capital of ****** or ***** is the disputed capital of ******. Until those demanding change provide evidence that shows a country does not have the right to declare its own capital, i fail to see the problem. There is a note explaining the status is disputed within the first sentence. There is an entire paragraph in the introduction explaining the status of Jerusalem in detail. There is plenty of mentions of it within the article itself. We give plenty of Weight to fact the status of Jerusalem is disputed. There is clearly going to be no consensus for a change to the first sentences of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

SyrianKing, please provide a source that states a country needs permission by the international community to decide what its capital city is. The introduction mentions very clearly in a full paragraph the status of Jerusalem, we are not trying to mislead anyone here. There is also a note in the first sentence linking to the note explaining it in detail. It is hard to miss! So the introduction covers it, a note linked in the first sentence covers it, the article text covers it. We give plenty of weight to the fact that the status is disputed. There is no justification and no new information has been provided to show why we must change the first sentence of this article, which has existed for a long time and been debated endlessly with no consensus to change it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep coming back to this idea that people are arguing that the international community gets to tell Israel where their capital is. They don't. But they do get to legitimate annexations. That's the problem. I'm trying to work something into the lead that expresses both of the ideas. The lead section leaves out the tiny detail that this city is not recognized as a part of Israel. That's massive. By including it we can leave the "Jerusalem as capital" sentence unchanged while still recognizing the politically unique situation of the city. The footnote is awkward. It's not that the information would be confusing or difficult to work into the section (per WP:FNNR). We can get the jist of it in one sentence while explaining that it's not a rejection of Israel's ability to name its capital but an overlapping territorial issue. Sol (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead = the whole introduction. There is a detailed paragraph i posted above that is in the introduction and explains all this. There is a controversy over the status of Jerusalem, this is rightly mentioned in the introduction and to fail to do so would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. However there is no policy that says we must state in the first sentence other sovereign states reject its status as a capital. No evidence has been provided that shows a country needs permission from the international community or its recognition. The first sentence includes a link to a detailed note. The issue of the first sentence describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has been this way for years. Long before i arrived in the debate. I did not decide on the wording, but i agree with it and see no reason or justification for changing it. Some others appear to feel the same way, i can not see there being consensus for a change to this introductions first paragraph. Also i mentioned previously the CIA world factbook, that does what we do. It states Jerusalem is the capital, but it includes a note. It does not say "Capital: name - proclaimed Jerusalem". BritishWatcher (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The CIA have their style guidelines and we have ours. There's consensus in the past and consensus can change. The frequency with which this headache topic comes up is a good sign that the wording might need some tweaking. The reason for placing the suggested sentence near the beginning is because it's very easy to be mislead into thinking that Jerusalem's status is a done deal. I certainly thought so until I did some recent background reading. It's in the "Cities in Israel" cat, it's listed as the "Capital of Israel", it has the Israeli version of its flag in place; I want those to stay. But it needs to be very clear that this isn't just another city in Israel. Hence the suggestion. We could go back to the "disputed/claimed" line of thinking if that's more acceptable to you. If you have any sort of possible compromise you'd accept please let me know. Sol (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The present wording has been in the article for years, i fail to see anything new that justifies change. I do not think a compromise on this matter is possible as i cant see that consensus has changed, the number of people requesting change now is probably the same level as in the past. Whilst only a few other editors have so far commented, plenty of others would pile in if it looked like the wording was about to be changed. I believe the article explains in detail Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the fact its status is not recognised by other members of the international community. As for being misled, provided people read the introduction, or the note, or the information within the article they will not be misled. We do not have to include everything in the first paragraph. I also think if we did change the first sentence, to include a term like disputed or proclaimed we would get regular requests for its removal by the other side. The fact its remained for years despite regular debates highlights it continues to have support. One compromise i would be prepared to support if it resolved the problem is to change the [iii] after the sentence saying Jerusalem is the capital, to state [note], so it stands out more easily. I dont think that is necessary, but its a change id have no objection to if it eases concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered that editors being unable to see a reason or justification for changing it is part of the problem ? Appeals to the persistence of subjective beliefs and the consistency with which people's bias in information processing manifests itself over time are hardly convincing arguments. Citing what the CIA factbook says is like citing what Britannica says, which is to say "Capital (proclaimed) Jerusalem; the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition". So, which is it ? That single source should be enough to make editors who are unable to see a reason or justification for changing the lead realise that there is a mismatch between the simplistic slogan 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' and what sources have to say on the matter when they need to use very few words. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Or let's look at another CIA source, File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map .jpg, which says "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the United States, like nearly all other countries, retains its Embassy in Tel Aviv". Again, we see the use of the entirely uncontroversial word "proclaimed" by an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the Palestine article is able to use exactly the same term about Jerusalem being its proclaimed capital, there is absolutely no way id be prepared to support a change to using that term, even if i accepted the principle of changing the introduction, which i do not, it could not possibly use the same term as Palestines proclamation in its article. The situations are so very different, use of the same word is highly problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this: past arguments were predicated on the idea that either Tel Aviv should be called the capital (which would be patently silly) and/or did not address the territorial status of Jerusalem as not part of Israel. The Palestinian and Israeli relations to Jerusalem are different (one actually has control of the city) but the basic claims are the same. I don't understand flat-out rejecting using similar wording for similar claims. The issue of imperfect title to Jerusalem deserves high visibility to balance the overwhelming amount of other information leading readers to think that the city is Israeli owned. A footnote is not sufficient and the information does not meet the criteria for content displayed thus. In fact, the footnote makes it sound like the international community is rejecting Israel's ability to declare a capital. That's not correct. If we stick with "Jerusalem as capital" with no modifiers we have to change the footnote to reflect the actual position, the rejection of anyone's ownership of Jerusalem pending negotiations. Currently it's illogical. And as the information does not belong in a footnote it needs to be placed in the lead for reasons given above. Sol (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Past debates on this have not just been focused on a Tel Aviv vs Jerusalem. Wording has also been debated. The fact one is in complete control of the city and uses it as its capital is a significant difference to the Palestinian "proclaimed capital" which is under the control of another sovereign state. The footnote addresses concerns about the first sentence. There is a whole paragraph in the introduction which details the status of Jerusalem, if that paragraph was not there i could understand these concerns. As for the note, i have no problem at all agreeing to some changes to that if they are needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the fact that both Britannica and the CIA say "proclaimed", I believe is enough for that Wikipedia also should say that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For interest, Britannica for kids says "Israel claims the city as its capital. However, the Palestinians have protested that claim." Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, we do not have to copy those two. Besides, the CIA world Factbook says Capital - Name - Jerusalem. At the bottom of the capital section it includes a note. That is what we do. We say Jerusalem is the capital, and include a note. They do not say Capital Name - proclaimed Jerusalem or disputed Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As for Britannica, despite its lovely name i am not very impressed with their online material which i find a complete nightmare to navigate. Could you give me a link to their page on Jerusalem which says proclaimed? Because all i can see is the one mentioned by Sean. But just because Britannica says something does not mean we must. For example wikipedias article on Scotland states it is a country, Britannica makes no such statement. If you can convince the editors of Scotland that it is not a country because Britannica doesnt say it, then i will drop my opposition to a change to this introduction and support any of your proposals here. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter i see the Capital proclaimed is on the Israel page. The Palestine article on Britannica makes no mention of Jerusalem being its proclaimed capital, should we delete all mention of it from Palestine? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Having worked in Aberdeen I'm going to say Scotland is not a country from the safe position of several thousand kilometres away... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

lol the Tartan Army do not mind travelling long distances. But you have to think of the locals too, you dont want to spark a small riot. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful, sean, the Black Watch is always watching!!! Back on topic, if we have reliable sources saying "proclaimed", doesn't that meet the criteria for inclusions? It's certainly notable, it's well sourced and it matches the view of every country on earth save one. And the footnote just isn't going to cut it one way or the other for the previously given reasons. We can add in "proclaimed" or we can add in the suggested sentence. If you have a policy based argument beyond "we can't treat them equally just because reliable sources do" I am all ears. Sol (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you take a look in the article East Jerusalem you ll see in the introduction < East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian National Authority[1] although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital. > but in this article its said < Jerusalem is the capital[iii] of Israel >, with no precision such as the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.^[14][15] or something like foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem. Are we in the same encyclopedia?

Of course no one has to ask Israelis what capital to choose, but how many Capitals we know that are not recognized internationally ? Probably none.. So it s a relevant information to know from the lead that although Israelis have chosen their capital, quite none except their self recognize it. The name of the article is Jerusalem not Israel. It makes the information relevant in the lead and not in the footnote. --Helmoony (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

People keep on mentioning this needs to be mentioned in the lead. Can i just confirm that everybody has seen that there is an entire paragraph on the status of Jerusalem in the introduction? To not mention the status of Jerusalem in the introduction would clearly be a violation of WP:NPOV. But there is nothing that says it must be mentioned in the first sentence or the first paragraph of the introduction. Simply saying Israel is the capital of Jerusalem with the note has been the start of this introduction for years. No new arguments have been put forward to justify change. Unles a country needs permission from the international community to decide what city is its capital, there is no reason why it must be mentioned in the first sentence or paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So if a palestinain state is proclaimed. And if the palestinain law will say that the Est part of Jerusalem is the capital of the state, then the sentence will change because that palestinian state doesn t need permission from the international community to decide what city is its capital? if yes? It's Ok for me, I understand what you mean. --Helmoony (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If a Palestinian state is in control of East Jerusalem and it declares it the capital of their country, then the introduction may state that in the way this article does. I have no problem with that all. The only neutrality issue is to be sure we include in the introduction the status, we do that.. there is a whole paragraph here. It is control of the territory that makes the two situations very different. Legality or international recognition by where they put their embassy is minor compared to one state (or entity) proclaiming someone elses controlled territory as their capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, if I understood correctly you don't have a policy-based reason for opposing "disputed". An argument based on what another wiki page says fails since wikipedia isn't a source, and in this case also since the other page named discusses a different topic. Concerning your other point, you don't mention any sources for your claims. However even if you did, it wouldn't change the fact that a significant portion of the best sources present the issue as a dispute, which is what we should to here, too, and do so in neutral terms without taking sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy based reason for us having to include the fact the international community keeps its embassies in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem in the first sentence of the introduction. To comply with WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD we must of course state clearly the status of the city, we do that. There is a whole paragraph in the introduction, there is a note in the first sentence and it is stated very clearly throughout the article. This article has not been violating wikipedia policies for the past few years whilst the first sentence has remained the same. No new reasons have been provided to require change. There is no consensus for change. The status quo there for should stand. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets see here. There are numerous countries and major international organizations that recognize East Jerusalem as the Capitol of or Future capitol of Palestine. How many countries recognize Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel? None. Zero. Zilch. Heck, how many countries even recognize the legitimacy of Israeli control of the land Jerusalem occupies? None. Sifar. Nein. Nada.

Not even their staunchest ally, the United States, recognizes that Jerusalem is the Capitol of Israel or that the Jewish State has a legitimate claim to the land upon which Jerusalem sits.

BritishWalker, you are beating a dead horse. Reliable sources, the entire international community, the United Nations, and even the United States all currently say that Jerusalem is not the Capitol.

What makes or breaks a country is its international recognition, otherwise you are left with just words. I could declare the pasture land my cattle live on as being the resurrection of the United Arab Republic, but unless members of the international community recognize it as such then all I have is a field of grass. I could raise a flag on it declaring its independence, but that still wouldn't make it a independent nation. The same is for Jerusalem. The zionist government can call Jerusalem whatever they want, but that does not make it so. In the end, it is and a city whose occupation and status is questionable at best.

Wikipedia must represent a neutral, reliably sourced, world wide view; right now it fails to do that. SyrianKing (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, this isn't about embassies. That's a separate issue. This is about who owns Jerusalem. The footnote doesn't follow the policy on them. No where in the article does it state that Israel's ownership of Jerusalem is not accepted. The closest it gets is "The United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital,". That's not the full explanation, they don't recognize it as Israeli-owned and that non-recognition is why they don't recognize it as the capital. That's a big difference. If there's confusion over what's being suggested we can move to WP:BRD but this stonewalling isn't constructive. Sol (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I read WP:BRD and have made the change based on it and the above suggestion by Sol Goldstone. Stonewalling by a small minority of editors and their POV is not resolving the situation. SyrianKing (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You've implemented the 'B' part of WP:BRD, and I've just done the 'R', as I see no consensus for making this bold change. Now discuss. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HupHup for your edit. You seem to be following my edits in rapid succession, almost as if hounding me. SyrianKing (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRNC A consensus version of this article doesn't exist at the moment. You made the change, let's hear the reasons. Sol (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

One, you have the chronology wrong. The long standing consensus did not have the "proclaimed" qualifier in it - SK added it, without consensus - He/She needs to give the reasons. Two, WP:DRNC is an essay, someone's personal opinion, it has exactly the same weight as an argument that says "because I say so", even though it may be dressed up with fancy wikipedia acronyms.HupHollandHup (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

HupHollandHup is following my contributions list and reverting every edit I make in rapid succession. There certainly must be some rule against this. SyrianKing (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, HupHollandHup, for your constructive voice in the matter. The essay is expanding on a specific section of the Consensus policy. If you would like to be helpful you can discuss your reasons. And there isn't current agreement on the article, hence why we are here. SK, what you might be thinking of is WP:HOUND but it could simply be a matter of common interests and different views. Sol (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The essay, whatever it is expanding on, is doing so as a personal opinion of an editor. It has no weight comparable to the wikipedia policy it is supposedly expounding on, and is, just like I wrote above, equivalent to saying 'because I think so'. There are many examples of essays that are diametrically opposed to one another, and if you think so highly of essays - here is one for you: WP:EANP. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How adorable. I must have missed the large disclaimer at the beginning. WP:CONS I'll let you find the relevant section. If you want to be constructive, tell us the why of the revert. You don't have to but that doesn't actually help anyone. If you'd like to continue fighting over this or leave me more gifts please keep it to user talk pages. Sol (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you why - there was a long standing consensus, which was changed with a BOLD edit that falsely claimed a consensus exists for the change. No such consensus exits. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think appeals to a long standing consensus are going to really help resolve this issue. They haven't in the past. There isn't a long standing consensus and even if there were, it's reasonable to say that it would be irrelevant in this case per WP:CCC because editors have raised legitimate, policy compliant concerns based on reliable sources in good faith. There are some small but significant mismatchs between what we say and what sources say. Maybe a change isn't necessary, maybe it is, but there's no avoiding addressing these mismatchs properly using policy based arguments. Even if editors go away, the sources and wiki policies aren't going anywhere. Consensus decisions have to be policy compliant after all so at some point this issue has to be resolved to the satisfaction of sensible editors who have raised policy compliant concerns (and have completed the mandatory deprogramming course required for all editors who wish to edit in the I-P conflict area...okay, I made that bit up). Apparently that is not the case at the moment. Any content change is likely to be tiny word-wise but significant policy compliance-wise. Even if we could just ensure that this issue is dealt with consistently across related articles it would be an improvement. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yall people have to understand something. This is not going to change. You will never establish a consensus to change this. I think it may be possible, maybe even likely, that even if a country named Palestine takes full control of the entire city of Jerusalem that this article will still say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (though it may say "Jerusalem is the capital of occupied Israel"). Just give up. No matter what argument you bring, whether it be garbage or brilliant, "policy compliant" or made up nonsense, there are enough editors who will emphatically and unequivocally oppose any change to the article that you will never establish a consensus to change the article. Never. Ever. Ever. There is no point to this and if anybody is interested in improving the coverage of Israel and Palestine there are many more important things you should spend your time on. nableezy - 05:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like "proclaimed" because it implies that it's not the real capital. There are obviously subjective issues, like whether or not Jerusalem is legally part of Israel or not, but there's also important objective considerations, like the fact that Jerusalem actually functions as Israel's capital - it's where parliament, most government ministries, and the Supreme Court are located. Saying it's just the "proclaimed capital" implies a situation where its status as capital is purely titular. I wouldn't object to saying it's the "proclaimed and de facto capital." john k (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I still strongly oppose any alteration to this articles first sentence, the present wording which has stood for years should remain the same. At the very least before anyone makes a change to the intro there should be agreement here and it should have been agreed to over a few days to ensure other editors have a chance to join the debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, that isn't a policy-based objection either. Or if there is a policy according to which long-standing content shouldn't be changed, please let me know. In your earlier comment you mention WP:NPOV, and I agree that we should clearly state what the status of the city is. That is, that Israel claims it's the capital but the rest of the world rejects that. --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The introduction goes into full detail about the status of Jerusalem. This articles introduction does not violate wikipedia policies. The first sentence about it being the capital of Israel has been the same for years. No change is justified or needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't go into full detail. The footnote isn't policy compliant. The information proposed is well sourced, NPOV, notable and true. A lot of editors disagree with you about it being ok as is. I'll work on it this evening. Sol (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is fully policy compliant. It is not just the footnote in the first sentence but the fact there is a whole paragraph on the status in the introduction. I wouldnt object to the status paragraph being moved up slightly if it resolved concerns, although i think the present flows well. A lot of editors also agree with me, there is certainly no consensus for the first sentence to be changed. If it is changed without agreement here the status quo must be restored which has been in the article for years. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually i take that back, i would object to the paragraphs being rearranged, because at present it makes sense to deal with history and then the status of the city today. I just would not be as opposed to such a change as i am to these proposed alterations to the first sentence/paragraph of this introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I only see you making the case to not change the lead paragraph to the correct, neutrally worded, entire-world-supported version that states: "proclaimed capitol". HupHollandHup did not give a reason as to keep the current biased Israel POV version except to cite some sort of "past consensus" that myself and others have agreed never really existed. In light of that fact, unless you can present a compelling reason to not make the change or others come forward with valid reasons to keep the Israeli biased version, the change will need to be made. SyrianKing (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yiddish

Hi, Can any one tell me why is it relevant to add the Yeddish name of Jerusalem in the introduction part? And why not the Russian name or the Aramaic one. I mean it's not the official language of neither Palestinians nor Israelis. The section Etymology or the article Names of Jerusalem is probably enough. --Helmoony (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Any reply? --Helmoony (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the intro. Zero^talk 03:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the needed change. --Helmoony (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Category: Capitals in Asia

Currently this article is in the category "Capitals in Asia". The whole wide world view (every country and every NGO) is that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. SyrianKing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Yawn, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, then why is no one else arguing that position in the discussion above? Why does no country in the world, or organization in the world recognize it as the capital. There appears to be consensus that states otherwise. SyrianKing (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion above you will see other editors have stated they see no reason to change the introduction. You can also take a look at the extensive previous debates in the archives linked about. This article has stated for years, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. No new evidence or information has been provided to justify changing the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support the addition of the word proclaimed or disputed before the term Capital in the introduction. The reality of the situation is that not one nation in the world recognizes Israeli soverignty over the land in question nor does any nation recognize the city as the capital or maintain diplomatic offices there. Bulgarwheat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Please provide sources that state a country needs permission from the international community to decide its own capital city? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)