Jump to content

Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Collage voting results

Alright, so the voting results have been on for several days, and have shown that consensus wishes for the following:

These are the top voted results, so I think that its time to make a new collage showing these.--RM (Be my friend) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I think we can add per the discussions, a particular street scene, the Mamila. That makes seven—just about right. I agree that it is time. I would put them together if I knew how. Chesdovi, would you be so kind? Hertz1888 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the following any good? The shuk may be too dark? Chesdovi (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Its not too dark, its a night shot but its easily legible. PERFECT!!!!!!!!!--RM (Be my friend) 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a hideous idea: it is cluttered, the detail-rich pics are tiny, and it lacks any sense of composition. It resembles a kitchen accident. Better FEWER pics, simpler. Just an awful start to a rich article. Tony (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Better pictures for the "Economy" section of the article

Again, I have to wonder who chose the pictures for this article. It seems like the most unattractive and unsuitable pictures were chosen. You want to shopping centers in Jerusalem so you show Hadar mall? Please... A much more suitable pictures will be of Malha mall or Mamilla. Again, here are a few examples:

Malha mall Malha mallMalha mallMalha mall Malha mall Mamilla Mamilla Mamilla Mamilla

I hope someone will replaced the existing pictures with the ones I've attached! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.75.156 (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We can't just take any picture from the internet. Photos, like many other things, are copyrighted. We can only use material that has been released for free use by the creator. Such pictures can be found in Wikimedia Commons, like this page for Malha mall. You linked to two of them, but frankly I think they really won't look good in the article (they become incomprehensible at small size). okedem (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't know how the size of the pictures in the article is set. I see that the pictures in it are larger that the small version of the pics I suggested. Anyway, Hadar mall looks just as incomprehensible as the pics I suggested. It still seems weird to me that good pictures of these 2 main shopping centers - Malha mall and Mamilla can't be found. The article about Tel Aviv has some great pics. Why should Jerusalem fall behind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.75.156 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For us to have good pictures, somebody needs to go, take good pictures, and then release them for public use. I guess no one has done so for these places... okedem (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bahai

I'm reverting an edit by User:Iwanttoeditthissh regarding the Baha'i Faith. His edits do not abide by undue weight. He is using a single source that among it's 209 pages relating to the significance of Jerusalem to three world religions mentions the Baha'i Faith in passing with "appointed by a Council of the religious leaders of the three Abrahamic Religions (and possibly the Baha’i)". It's a very weak source. The signficance of Jerusalem to the Baha'i Faith virtually never comes up in any discussion of the religious significance of Jerusalem to any religion, and Baha'i scripture also do not place any significance to the city, other than the signficicance in the larger three religions. In fact, mentions of 'Jerusalem' in the Baha'i writings are symbolic and mean the "Law of God". See [1][2].

So to abide by the policies, and to not exagerate by the importance of Jerusalem to the Baha'i Faith as well as the importance of the Baha'i Faith to Jerusalem, both of which are miniscule compared to the other religions mentioned, I'm removing it again. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. okedem (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
okay, i see your point. I presumed the 1st edit was too long but im going to assume good faithIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Compromise for capital of Israel

How about a completely new idea? Like with the State of Palestine page, have Jerusalem (Proclaimed) and Tel Aviv (Administrative), I mean that's just plain true. Rab777hp (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Israel is not "administered" from Tel Aviv. The knesset and most ministries are in Jerusalem. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, not true. And sadly, not completely new, either. IronDuke 19:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to be rude to Rab777hp but if people have no idea what they are speaking what are they doing in this discussion page ? Benjil (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually Israel IS administrated from Tel Aviv, all of 3 gov buildings and like 2 embassies are actually in Jerusalem, all the admin is from Tel Aviv, looks like YOU guys don't know squat about this Rab777hp (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The Knesset is in Jerusalem, as are all government ministries save the Ministry of Defence, and the High Court is there as well. That's the three branches of government for you. Police HQ is in Jerusalem, as is the Israel Broadcasting Authority, the Bank of Israel and plenty more. Seriously, don't embarrass yourself any further. Poliocretes (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
good thing you can name a single country or international body that recognizes it as such. Oh wait.... Rab777hp (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Really ? No country recognizes that the Knesset and all the government ministries are in Jerusalem ? Where do you think these buildings are ? Indeed you have no idea what you are talking about. Benjil (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Frankly, I don't think we need to indulge in any WP:OR about this. A list of sources was compiled for an RFC in the Israel article on this exact issue, which is available here LIST. In short, what the sources say is that the Israeli regime claims it's the capital, but this is universally rejected. (West) Jerusalem does serve as an administrative center, wherefore we could say something like "serves as a seat of government for Israel" to avoid the charged "capital" term altogether. --Dailycare (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, as has sadly becomes his custom, presents a false picture. In fact, in those discussions, a long list of sources was presented, calling Jerusalem the capital, without qualifications. On top of that, as "seat of government" is the only definition of capital, there's no justification to avoid calling Jerusalem the capital. Dailycare has never shown international opinion to be necessary, or even important, to a city's role as capital. okedem (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That isn't true, since whereas a few sources did present Jerusalem as Israel's capital without qualification, most of the sources, and in detail most of the secondary sources, said something along the lines of Israel claims it as capital, but this is not recognized/is rejected internationally. There is a summarized list of over 40 sources behind the link I provided above. Okedem's WP:OR as to what makes a true capital is once more in the wrong forum. We report what reliable secondary sources say. What the pirates in Jerusalem say is just their viewpoint. The rest of the world has another viewpoint, and we can't present a disputed minority viewpoint as fact. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You have just disqualified yourself, with your "pirates" remark (yesterday it was terrorists) from being taken seriously as an objective, dispassionate editor acting in a collaborative spirit. It has been shown over and over that recognition is irrelevant to the common dictionary definition of a capital. At some point continued challenging of that definition becomes disruptive. I think you have long since reached that point. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, piracy is a term applied to the Israeli government in the past week by e.g. the Financial Times and members of the UN Security Council. As to the capital issue, there is no Wikipedia policy according to which reliable sources can be sidestepped the way you're suggesting. WP:NPOV says that all significant viewpoints must be presented, and that specific viewpoints from among disputed ones shouldn't be endorsed in an article. Saying in the article that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is endorsing one from among disputed viewpoints. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You tried to claim that list means something in the past, but it didn't then, and doesn't now. It's just a long list of things like official government positions (which are RSs for the specific official position, and nothing more), non-RSs ("Prospects: the UK's official graduate career website"), and articles dealing with the conflict, which naturally emphasize the dispute. On the other hand, I've shown a long list of sources simply calling Jerusalem the capital, without qualifications. We had an RfC about this 10 months ago, and the suggestion to "highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital" failed by a wide margin (6 vs. 17). Not a single thing has changed in this matter, and so your current actions are simply harassing the community to get what you want.
Oh, and calling Israel "terrorist" and "pirate" helps a lot, thanks. okedem (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's start from the beginning. I'll number this reasoning so we can discuss in detail which part is difficult: 1) WP:NPOV states "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". 2) Israel claims Jerusalem is it's capital, and this is supported by WP:RS. 3) The rest of the world does not recognize that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and this is supported by WP:RS. 4) WP:NPOV states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves". 5) Saying "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" and relegating the opposing viewpoint to a footnote is asserting the Israeli viewpoint, therefore it's a violation of WP:NPOV. Do you disagree with any of the above (1-5), and if so which one(s), and why? --Dailycare (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
As has been explained ad nauseum, it simply is the capital, by the standard definition of capital. That is not a "viewpoint" (nor a claim, nor an opinion). What you call "the opposing viewpoint" may be prominent, but does not merit proportionate representation. Per compromises worked out here it is nevertheless given significant exposure. There's no violation of NPOV. Let's not "start from the beginning" over and over and over... Hertz1888 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, starting from the beginning isn't my preferred choice but Okedem has clearly indicated he doesn't want to use the wording we recently agreed (after very long discussion) to use on the Israel article, therefore we'll start from the beginning. I'll cite here a section from WP:NPOV_DISPUTE:

How can one disagree about NPOV?

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. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

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.

This is text that should be read with thought. Here are a few sources selected from the list behind the link above:
  • 2("Jerusalem is not recognised internationally as the capital of the Jewish state" (BBC))
  • GA resolution 63/30 ("the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (is) null and void" (United Nations General Assembly))
  • 21 ("Jerusalem is not recognised as the legitimate capital of Israel by any foreign country" (Inter Press Service))
  • 22 ("Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital")
  • 26 ("Capital: Tel Aviv" in an infobox on Israel. (El Pais))
  • 27 "(Israel) claims the entire city as its capital but the move was never internationally recognised" (Daily Telegraph)
  • 28 ("Israel has declared all of Jerusalem its indivisible and eternal capital, a claim not recognized internationally (Reuters))
  • 30 (""Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries" (page 2) (LA Times))
  • 31 ("he welcomed the pope to "the capital of Israel," a status that does not have international recognition" (LA Times))
  • 32 ("Jerusalem, the capital recognized as such by no government but Israel itself" (USA Today))
  • 41 ("The battle for Jerusalem has always been a battle that Israel has waged alone, since even the United States has not recognized the city as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
  • 42 ("Israel has declared all of Jerusalem its indivisible and eternal capital, a claim not recognized internationally" (New York Times))
  • 43 ("No major foreign government has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
In conclusion of this long entry (sorry about that), saying that a prominent viewpoint "doesn't merit" proportionate representation is in direct conflict with WP:NPOV, which specifically says that viewpoints must be represented in proportion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not hearing me and others. Status as capital is not a viewpoint. Recognition is not a determining factor. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is contesting the fact that Jerusalem isn't recognized as capital, but that does not change the fact that it is the capital, as recognition plays no part in a city's identity as capital. It is just another detail, which is already covered at length in various places throughout the article - 3rd paragraph of the lede, the history section ("Division and reunification 1948–1967"), the very long "Political status" section (five paragraphs!), and in the prominent footnote linked from "capital". The suggestion to further emphasize Jerusalem's contested status failed by a wide margin at the last RfC; there has been no change in circumstances, and so no justification for another discussion. okedem (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, why don't you re-read the section I copied from the WP:NPOV_DISPUTE article. It doesn't matter how convinced you are that something isn't relevant or that Jerusalem is the capital. Okedem, currently the lead is entirely silent on the international rejection of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. --Dailycare (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Completely silent, aside from dedicating an entire paragraph to the topic... Come on, try not to "misrepresent reality" about such obvious things. okedem (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Where in the lead does it say that Jerusalem isn't recognized as the capital? I looked again and I couldn't find it. There is a paragraph on the disputed status which doesn't mention the issue, whereas the very beginning of the lead claims that Jerusalem is the capital. I once more refer you to the section I cited from WP:NPOV_DISPUTE. I also refer you to the 5-point plan in my post timestamped 16:01, 8 June 2010. Do you disagree with any of the points, and if so which one? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Right there where it explains that most embassies were kept in other cities, with more being moved after UN resolution 478; the location of embassies is the only relevant point countries can take to recognize or not recognize a capital. The flaws in your claims have been explained to you ad nauseum, and you repeatedly refuse to provide any sources to show that recognition is needed for a city to be capital; without such sources, we are left only with the simple definition of capital as "seat of government", a requirement Jerusalem very clearly and objectively fills. Now, please stop bothering the community with a question that was settled in the previous RfC. okedem (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, that the city isn't recognized as the capital is well a sourced and a significant viewpoint. You don't get to decide it's not relevant. You also don't get to tell other editors to either stop editing the article or to stop discussing it's content. I ask you again, do you disagree with any of the five points I mention, and if so which one, and why? As to the paragraph you mention, I'd be OK if we change it to include an explicit mention of the non-recognition, for example "Because Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv." The suburbs or Messareviet Zion aren't IMO lead material. If we agree on this, it would be a fast resolution to this thread. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've explained to you the issues, and will not repeat myself yet again. To say "Because Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv" is inaccurate. There is no formal meaning to "recognition" of a capital city by foreign nations. The only step one nation can take to "recognize" another's capital is the act of placing its embassy there. Thus, the location of embassies elsewhere isn't due to non-recognition, it is non-recognition. Thus, the explanation of the location of embassies is the discussion of non-recognition. However, perhaps we can find a better phrasing of the 3rd paragraph of the lede. okedem (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have sources for those ruminations on the content of recognition? At least the source mentioned here contradicts you and states that the US could move it's embassy to Jerusalem and continue to not recognize it as Israel's capital. However regardless of that issue, we can accomodate your point (even if not correct) and re-phrase as e.g. "Placing most foreign embassies in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem, the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." --Dailycare (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There is East Jerusalem. If the government buildings are in West Jerusalem, then perhaps the reference could be something like, "Most of the government buildings are in West Jerusalem which acts as the capital of the state", and this can be followed with questions of recognition and embassies. Politis (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There are government buildings in both parts, and there is no distinction between the parts, even though there's a dispute over some or all of the city. okedem (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, are you OK with the text I proposed in my entry timestamped 09:33? --Dailycare (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The conflict paragraph of the lede needs some work. If you want the "don't recognize" bit, that's fine, but we need to shorten the paragraph which is quite overloaded. Basically, we can remove the two last sentences there ("Because of..." and "In the wake..."), and replace them with one sentence about the current status (with explicit mention of recognition, if you wish). Otherwise we're just piling on redundant information. okedem (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
okedem, you just trying for nothing. This people are acting for nothing but their political point of view. No matter what you say, they still think the if palestine president claim the Jerusalem is it's capital, it is. The dont understand what "Seat of the government" means. Tomorrow Jordan will claim London as it's capital, does it makes it to be? no!! capital = seat of the government. as long as Jordan won't have thier seat of the government in London, they can claim how much they want. --Sipio (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Regrettabley as I read the page on Jerusalem I altered some of the wording to conform to reality without checking the discussion page since it didn't seem questionable. Now my correction has been reverted and my reasons impugned. I find it incomprehensible that this matter can be allowed when the page has an extensive discussion on political status further down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Political_status. Given the illegal occupation of Jerusalem surely the UN ruling should be followed here?Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose to remove the words in the Introduction which make an unwarranted claim that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and relegate such claims to the section lower in the body of the page. Would anyone interested in the point indicate their views here please?Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith, this is a contentious issue that's been discussed quite a bit both here and in the Israel article, most recently in this thread here. In the Israel article we had an RFC a while ago and agreed (in a compromise) on the wording that's currently there. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
RFC, que? I see no grounds for compromise in a mater of fact.Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What you call a "claim" is amply warranted, per the volumes of discussion that have taken place on this page and, above all, per the mundane definition of what makes a capital a capital. As a review of the record, including the archives, will show, the present structure and wording represent a compromise that has been hammered out through lengthy, vigorous discussion and consensus building. The change you propose would violate that consensus. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The section on the status of Jerusalem contradicts your claim. I am not bound by a consensus arrived at without me. I suggest that this requires an effort to arrive at another consensus which accommodates the facts that Israel is a member of the UN and the UN doesn't recognise Jerusalem as an Israeli capital.Keith-264 (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you read the record, which repeatedly explains why status as capital is not dependent on recognition. It's not "my claim", it's the way a capital is defined. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but repetition is no substitute for facts. Who owns the (or a) definition of the status of 'capital city'? At the moment it seems to be past contributors to the page. Surely it's on this question that a definitive answer is most needed?Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The doctrine of obligatory non-recognition doesn't mean that non-recognition would "mean nothing". It also doesn't mean that legal rights created by an illegal act would become void by the act of non-recognition, but rather that no legal rights whatsoever can be created by illegal acts to begin with. This is the meaning of e.g. resolution 478, which declares the Jerusalem law to be null and void. In other words, Israel cannot make Jerusalem its capital city by declaring it so or by moving government offices there. To make it a capital city would require some legally valid action. Israel however disagrees about this, and the Israeli viewpoint should also be included in this article. What change, by the way, are we discussing here, Keith's earlier edit? --Dailycare (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, I jumped in without looking at the dscussion page since it seemed an elementary mistake or some zionist stoogery. I agree that as a member of the UN Israel can't deny that 'no legal rights whatsoever can be created by illegal acts to begin with'.Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"is the capital[iii]" Why is the tendentious claim that Jerusalem is the 'capital of Israel' linked to a footnote (iii) with no bearing on the matter? If the wording is to stand is needs a citation tha is a citation.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Positions on Jerusalem page does have sources to the effect that Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital, which is rejected by the rest of the world. I know it's not the same thing, but we don't yet have consensus to edit the lead to follow the sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Keith-264, the word "capital" has only one definition - "seat of government". Despite extensive searches, I have been unable to find a single source supporting the notion that international recognition is in any way needed for a city to be the capital, nor has any such source been presented here. As Jerusalem unquestionably serves as Israel's seat of government, we can safely call it the capital. Anyone disputing this use of the word "capital" would have to present a source supporting the importance of recognition to a city's capital designation. okedem (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is such an obnoxious, repetitive argument, because nobody is arguing to each other. Does lack of international recognition mean that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital? I have no idea. But nobody is advocating anything of the sort. The non-recognition is a significant fact which is generally reported alongside Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as it's capital, and it should be explicitly mentioned in the lede, and not shut off in an intrusive footnote. And given that the UN has passed resolutions saying that it doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, I don't see how you can then say that location of embassies is the only for countries to recognize a capital - in this particular case, various foreign governments and international organizations have explicitly said, "we don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." And, BTW, the location of the seat of government really is not the only way to define "capital." Amsterdam is one example, but there's also, for example, Porto-Novo and Yamoussoukro, which are not really the seats of government of their respective countries. john k (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
john k, you know what's annoying? When people make claims on the talk page which are clearly, demonstrably false, and show they never bothered reading even the lede of the article.
The lede contains an entire paragraph discuss the disputed status of Jerusalem, which includes the disputed annexation, the non-recognition and location of embassies, and the Palestinian aspirations regarding the city. At some point in this discussion, Dailycare said the phrasing wasn't clear enough (it said embassies are placed elsewhere, but didn't say explicitly that this is non-recognition), and suggested we change it. I had no objection, and so he changed that phrasing to something he found clearer.
And so, your entire comment is based on not bothering to read the lede. Good job. okedem (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm...yes. I did not see that paragraph at all when I made my original comment. My apologies That being said, I didn't say the "intro", but the "lede," and I meant the first paragraph, not the whole introduction - I think at least some mention of the dispute ought to appear in the first paragraph, not merely in a footnote and a later paragraph. john k (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The lede is the first section of the article, before the table of contents. It serves to summarize the article. Not all information can be pushed into the first paragraph. okedem (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not being completely familiar with the (wikipedia specific?) jargon you are using. "Lede" in journalism generally means the first sentence or the first paragraph. john k (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Why is the tendentious claim that Jerusalem is the 'capital of Israel' linked to a footnote (iii) with no bearing on the matter?"Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See my comment timestamped 16:42 for the meaning of non-recognition. It's a matter of viewpoints: the international community doesn't condsider Jerusalem Israel's capital, Israel does. That's what the best sources also tend to say so a WP:NPOV wording here could be something along the lines of "Israel has declared Jerusalem to be it's capital city, but it isn't recognized as such internationally". That reports both viewpoints neutrally. --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename article to West Jerusalem and the problem is solved. Hcobb (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And Hcobb wins the award for "worst solution." john k (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarly there's an element of justice in Wiki contributors not wanting Israeli crimes to be endorsed by association and an equal element of reluctance for other contributors to accept that the wording is inaccurate. A past 'consensus' on this was really a fudge because the differences are irreconcilable. Jerusalem is a city and it is claimed by some to be a capital city. The partisans of this point of view deny that there are moral and ideological as well as epistemological aspects to this. I suggest that the wording be altered and then reverted as needed.Keith-264 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, if, as you say, "capital" means "seat of government", then why are you so averse to writing in the lead "seat of government" instead of "capital". I have proposed this before, and you and others claimed that the term capital has some additional meaning, but you now seem to no longer hold that view. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As have I. That is the simplest, cleanest solution to the conflict about that word. It is not like this is the Israel article where the infobox has a "Capital" field. nableezy - 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I also support "Seat of government", as I have before. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it the other way 'round? Namely, that "seat of government" means "capital". Hertz1888 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
If they mean the same thing, with a few exceptions, what difference does it make? nableezy - 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is about making a substitution. Capital is the usual, commonplace, and better-known term. There is no need for obfuscation. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
But it is not obfuscating anything. If you say X=Y, then Y=X. Replacing X with Y in no way diminishes or hides the meaning of a sentence Z is X. That sentence is equivalent to Z is Y. nableezy - 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I take it you would be willing to change half the other WP entries for capital cities to say "seat of government" instead. Which is it going to be, pure logic or clarity? Don't bother answering. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hertz, you are right that other Wikipedia articles say "capital" and not "seat of government". But there is a difference: in the case of other articles, there is not a significant group of editors who - rightly or wrongly - contend emphatically that the city in question is not the capital.
If, as you contend, the terms "capital" and "seat of government" are synonymous, then your only argument seems to be that you want to be like everyone else. That seems a pretty weak argument, in my eyes. On the other hand, were you to acquiesce, you would put an end to a longstanding source of contention over this article, and give it a level of objectivity that would only enhance it in the eyes of other editors.
Bear in mind, too, that your vigilance in defending the word "capital" is based on your contention that there is no consensus for changing it. On the other hand, there is also no consensus for keeping it. There is no consensus, period. Were you to agree to a change which, by your own statement, is entirely without significance in meaning (and which would be completely unnoticed by the vast majority of readers), you would achieve that consensus.
Respectfully, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You have missed the irony and misinterpreted my words. I never said the change was without significance, nor that the terms are entirely synonymous. If you recognize that a seat of government is a capital, as you apparently do, then there is no reason not to call it a capital—like anyone else's. Wanting to use words consistently is not a weak argument, nor necessarily the only one at issue. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
What, then, is the difference? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Jerusalem is not part of Israel it is corpus separatum; at the moment it is stolen property under illegal occupation in which rightful occupants are being expropriated. Calling it a captal city because of a coincidence in the placement of some governing institutions as part of the expropriation is a sophistry. It's like holding the victims resposible for the costs of Kristallnacht.11:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was asking Hertz, not you. Your opinions, Keith, have already been expressed with a zeal which, perhaps, has not contributed to the reasoned atmosphere necessary for an agreement. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for mistaking a comment in the public domain for a public comment. I haven't felt zeal, only tedium and a desire to rectify a mistake. Are analogies unwelcome in your reasoned atmosphere?Keith-264 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Twin towns

It's famously known in Israel that Jerusalem have only one twin city - New York. Only Jerusalem Municipality can signed a twin towns treaty in the name of Jerusalem, and not others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.24.239 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct names for the First and Second Temples

Discussion about the correct names for the First and Second Temples at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple discussion at ANI

In response to #Correct names for the First and Second Temples above, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves where you may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Overview of Jerusalem's historical periods

Hi, Can any one change the color for Israel - Jordan period from blue to bleue and green or a neutral color. From here and every where the overview exists ? Plz see here for discussion. --Helmoony (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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[neutrality is disputed] 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 [neutrality is disputed] 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
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)

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. Zerotalk 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)

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. Zerotalk 03:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I made the needed change. --Helmoony (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Show of hands

Who supports and who opposes the use of the neutral and whole world accepted terms in the lead: Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, although this has not been internationally recognized. The international community recognizes East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian Authority and future palestinian state, however the land is currently under illegal military occupation by Israel.

  • 'Support' Bulgarwheat (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - simply saying proclaimed capital is highly problematic, and many editors above have stated they oppose changing to that. If the text is to be changed, which is still far from clear that it will get enough support, it must be to the neutral middle ground. Saying Jerusalem is the capital but not recognised by the international community. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't vote about this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better if we can try and get to a compromise above. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Voting on such a subject is like 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what's for supper. It happens that Israel is surrounded by nations 50 times its size and 50 times as numerous who do not want the ancient Jewish capital controlled by Jews. A wiki "UN" vote on the matter is just not going to get an acceptable result for one side. Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 3 October 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)

I cannot support removing the category. Regardless of the discussion about the zionist government's illegitimate claim of Jerusalem as its capital, we should not lose light of the fact that Jerusalem is internationally recognized as the capital of Palestine. SyrianKing (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of arms.

The Flag and Coat of arms are Israeli proclaimed symbols. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why i oppose "Proclaimed capital". It will be seen as justification to demand proclaimed be added to all sorts of things throughout this article as well as other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it should be added that these symbols are israeli proclaimed and not the citys official symbols. SyrianKing added a good template here [2], this should be re added as the entire article is written from an Israeli point of view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Shall we add "proclaimed Mayor" - Nir Barkat? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. "Israeli proclaimed mayor" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, I have now found that there is actually a Palestinian mayor for east Jerusalem: Zaki Alghol [3], this should be added next to the Israeli. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Lmao so the palestinian mayor in the infobox. If it turns out there is a flag, will that have to be displayed in the infobox too? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
We can ad the Palestinian flag and coat of arms if we find any, now we have the Palestinian mayor, so we can ad it now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Lets get more opinions. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess proclaimed Mayor sounds wrong. Maybe elected is appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But SD wants us to highlight the fact the position has no legitimacy just like the capital and the flag and the coat of arms. There for we must go around sticking "proclaimed" in front of everything possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? The jews want to create aa false reality by proclaimitng jerusalem as theirs while renaming arab foods like Palestinian Rural Salad to Israeli Salad. At least proclaimed is neutral and accepted by the whole world. Bulgarwheat (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


How about this for the local government section?

The proclaimed Jerusalem City Council is a body of 31 elected members headed by the proclaimed mayor, who serves a five-year term and appoints six proclaimed deputies. The former proclaimed mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski, was elected in 2003.[147] In the proclaimed November 2008 city elections, Nir Barkat came out as the winner and is now the proclaimed mayor. Apart from the proclaimed mayor and his deputies, Proclaimed City Council members receive no salaries and work on a voluntary basis. The longest-serving proclaimed Jerusalem mayor was Teddy Kollek, who spent twenty-eight years—six consecutive terms—in office. Most of the meetings of the proclaimed Jerusalem City Council are private, but each month, it holds a session that is open to the public.[147] Within the proclaimed city council, religious political parties form an especially powerful faction, accounting for the majority of its seats.[148] The proclaimed headquarters of the Jerusalem Municipality and the proclaimed mayor's office are at Safra Square (Kikar Safra) on Jaffa Road. The new municipal complex, comprising two modern buildings and ten renovated historic buildings surrounding a large plaza, opened in 1993.[149] The city falls under the proclaimed Jerusalem District, with Jerusalem as the district's proclaimed capital.

Any good? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

SD and BW score one point each, applause. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Im simply highlighting the implications of what SD is proposing, if we followed the process throughout the article. It is totally unworkable and unacceptable, and its one of the reasons why "proclaimed capital", is very problematic and should be opposed. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
All right, I think we've all been pretty civil about this and that's pretty amazing. But we've put out a lot of well-researched, well-documented comprises only to have them shot down by variations on three arguments:
  1. It's still the capital because my dictionary defines capital that way/show me where it says they need permission to name their capital. That's great. Go show your dictionary to the UN and everyone's Foreign minister so they can agree/ask them why. Until then it's not the majority view and doesn't get prime billing. This is actually the only policy argument on the matter.
  2. The wording is fine because it's been fine. WP:CCC
  3. Proclaimed isn't ok because that's the wording used for the Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem. So go with "disputed", "internationally unrecognized", "internally recognized", "seat of government of Israel", "Self-declared and unrecognized" or any one of the suggestions proposed or synonyms thereof. Just please don't stonewall suggestions that remedy your stated concerns or shift the goalposts.
"Proclaimed"* is a good deal. It let's us keep all of the stuff about East Jerusalem, the Israel cats, the flags, everything that would lead a reader to think that the Old City is in Israel. If you want Jerusalem to be the recognized capital of Israel, write your Foreign Office. We aren't legislating reality we are describing it as best we can. *(Confused!)

Sol (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"proposed"? Israel is the proposed capital of Jerusalem? Lmao, im sorry but i think that is even worse than proclaimed. And the problem with proclaimed is where does it all end. This section on the flag and coat of arms highlights the problem perfectly and is one of the reasons ive been opposed to "proclaimed capital". People will want proclaimed flag, proclaimed district capital, proclaimed coat of arms, proclaimed mayor, proclaimed council... etc, because they do not want this article to reflect fact. I dont know how else to say it, i suppose defacto, but again attaching that word to capital and every other issue ive just mentioned simply will not do. As ive said before, i strongly oppose changing to "proclaimed capital", and several editors have said the same above. Ive suggested a compromise that clearly explains the international view in the first sentence, which is what people are meant to be concerned about, but that makes no difference. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If we go for proclaimed the defense to what your describing is "Yeah, we know it's controversial, that's why it's stated up front" so putting proclaimed in front of everything is redundant and the editor would still have to find a source saying "proclaimed flag". Somehow I doubt they can. You put the proviso up front and no one can whine about it later. We keep maximum content with the addition of one word and this issue is finished. Sol (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with BW. Do we have to view Jaffa Road as "proclaimed" since it was named so by an "internationally unrecognized" entity? The fact is that Jerusalem functions as Israel's capital, whether the world likes it or not. And facts is what counts here. Whether it is "recognised" as capital by Bolivia doesn't really have any bearing on how the city or Israel functions. Political views should be given scant mention and not determine every point of dispute throughout the article. Chesdovi (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with BritishWatcher and Chesdovi per arguments articulated by both. Incidentally, when was a Palestinain mayor elected and by whom? What is his/her term of office? What voting procedures were implemented? Were Israelis residing in the eastern sector allowed to vote for this phantom mayor? Who was eligible to vote in this phantom election, if in fact one was even held. What were the geographical voting parameters of this election? What powers does this so-called mayor have and where are they vested from? Where does he/she meet with dignitaries, foreign or otherwise. Does he/she have the authority to collect taxes, enact ordinances, build or invest in infrastructure? Is there a city council that this mayor consults with?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The Israeli mayor is illegitimate according to the world-view of Jerusalem being a city under occupation by Israel, especially since the international community recognizes the city as being the capital the future Palestinian state. It is not neutral to list only the Mayor and city symbols as designated by an occupying power, when there also exists public figures and symbols which were established by the internationally recognized owner of the territory. The Israeli Mayor and symbols should either be listed as "proclaimed Mayor" or "Israeli-installed Mayor" SyrianKing (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, could you specify what territory we are talking about? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The land upon which all of Jerusalem sits. SyrianKing (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I hope you don't mind the minor blank space formatting I've added before your comment. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybey SK can tell us who the "internationally recognized owner of the territory" actually is? It is not the Palestinians; (and why has he not provided us with the existing PA symbols?) Chesdovi (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll field that one; the answer is no one. Until the two sides quit fighting and agree on it, most countries ain't recognizing a thing. Sol (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Flag and Coat of arms?

Basic al-Quds star

Do Palestinians also have flag and coat of arms for Jerusalem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The city name is actually Al Quds. This is the closest I could dig up - alQuds Star, a star representing 'alQuds' (Jerusalem). The logo of the 2009 Arab Capital of Culture, chosen to be al-Quds, under the Cultural Capitals Program to promote and celebrate Arab culture and encourage cooperation in the Arab region.[citation needed]. This is Kingdom of Jerusalem coat of arms, but I'm not sure you would consider it relevant, though it pops up upon querying Jerusalem coat of arms on Google so I guess it is notable ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, I found that, too. But we all know that the right one is that of Baldwin, Leper King of Jerusalem! That's a lie, I just like his name. Anyhow, can't find anything on a flag/coat of arms. Not too surprising. Sol (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Strange. I would have thought there would be one. In fact, I'm sure they have concocted something. Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

first qibla

"there is no dispute because it doesnt, this isnt in the quran". Is that your opinion? Some would suggest otherwise, (I think...) Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, have reverted Nableezy's POV edit, and added references. Chesdovi, to your point re the dispute, mainstream Islamic scholarship is united on the interpretation of the location of the First Qibla being the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and has been so since at least the Umayyad period. Counter proposals exist on this topic, exactly as they do on every possible topic with a vague connect to the Arab-Israeli Conflict - they are of course primarily from political commentators. A quick review of the available sources will illustrate clearly that such counter-interpretations are very firmly fringe theories (WP:FRINGE). As a corollary, the page does not raise the dispute over the interpretation of the word Zion, for exactly the same reason.Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Quran that actually says that the first qibla was al-Aqsa. The verse is 2:143, which is translated by Yusuf Ali as follows: Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful. The verse only says that a qibla was appointed, it does not say what it was. The source that was provided that supposedly backs the idea that Jerusalem is named as the first qibla in the Quran does no such thing. That source is discussing the chapter al-Isra which is about the isra wa miraj. The verse that the source is discussing is 17:1 which says that Muhammad was transported from the masjid al-haram (in Mecca) to masjid al-aqsa (commonly believed to be a reference to the site of al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem). Various hadith identify what the Quran calls masjid al-Aqsa with Jerusalem, but that doesnt really matter for this discussion. That verse, and that source, have nothing whatsoever to do with the location of the first qibla. The Quran does not say Jerusalem was the first qibla. This entire argument is silly anyway. Some people would like to claim that because Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran that it is somehow not important to Muslims. That is a stupid argument that does not require a response, and to distort what the Quran says to respond to it is just as stupid. That phrase should be removed from the article as both being unsupported by the source provided and, more importantly, for being patently untrue. It is a well documented fact that the first qibla was Jerusalem, but it is not true that this fact is listed in the Quran. nableezy - 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then it looks to me like we basically agree - i.e. the key point being "It is a well documented fact that the first qibla was Jerusalem". Personally i disagree with you, because the Quran is universally interpreted as saying this, and interpretation of the holy texts is a central part of all the Abrahamic religions. Either way, the clause should be replaced not deleted - if you delete it the paragraph becomes unbalanced (see the symmetry with the Jewish- and Christian-related preceding sentences. So what would you suggest replacing it with - "according to Islamic sources"? It seems weak to me.Oncenawhile (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the first qibla was Jerusalem can be sourced to a thousand different sources. That isnt the phrase that I have a problem with. The phrase I have a problem with is that this is according to the Quran. The Quran does not say that the first qibla was Jerusalem. If it were me I would just say it was the first qibla, there is no need for any "according to" at all. nableezy - 20:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Nab. Since there is no clear ref to J in the Koran, an it is only by way of interpretation, we have to be careful how these things are addressed. Chesdovi (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Can i urge you to read this paragraph in its entirety:
In Judaism, Jerusalem is the holiest city and has been the spiritual center of the Jewish people since, according to the Torah, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE, and his son Solomon commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city.[5] In Christianity, Jerusalem has been a holy city since, according to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified in c. 30 CE and 300 years later Saint Helena found the True Cross in the city. In Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city,[6] and has been a holy city since, according to the Quran,[7][8][9] it became the focal point for Muslim Salah (prayers), known as the First Qibla, in 610 CE, and Mohammed made his Night Journey to the city ten years later.
Note the use of "according to the Torah" and "according to the New Testament". Let's not spend a long time debating this - keeping these in keeps the paragraph in line with WP:RNPOV, and it keeps all three sides balanced. If you take out one of the three, you will just open a much bigger debate for no reason - it works fine as it is. We are all agreed on the technical point - let's change it to "according to Islamic sources", unless you have a better suggestion.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, that isnt quite right. The verse from al-Isra usually (I think universally, but I cant be certain) interpreted as discussing Jerusalem and there are hadith that say it was a reference to Jerusalem. The point is that the Quran does not say that Jerusalem was the first qibla while our article says that the Quran does say that. Oncenawhile, "according to Islamic sources" is inaccurate. The Cambridge History of Islam, edited by P. M. Holt, Ann Lambton, and Bernard Lewis (none of whom are Muslim if I am not mistaken) contains the following:

(volume 2, p. 703):In the first two years of the Hijra the qibla or direction of prayer was on the north side of the building, that is towards Jerusalem.

If you insist on having something say "according to Islamic sources" or "according to the Quran" then have that clause be part of the next phrase where it discusses the "Night Journey". But the first qibla is not Jerusalem only according to "Islamic sources". It is simply a fact that can be said as a fact without any attribution. nableezy - 21:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Nableezy but i still disagree. I agree that it is a fact that the first qibla was Jerusalem. But the fact that it became the first qibla in 610 (i.e. immediately after the Wahy) requires an "according to Islamic sources". By the way, can I suggest that you have a look at the Qibla and Al-Aqsa Mosque articles re this topic too.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
But it isnt just "Islamic sources" that say that the first qibla was Jerusalem or even that it became that in 610. That is an undisputed fact and watering it down with an "according to Islamic sources" when there are a multitude of non-"Islamic sources" that support this fact is not necessary and in fact is misleading. nableezy - 21:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
610 refers to the Wahy. This was a religious event - there is no archaeological evidence. All sources which discuss this event base their underlying facts on Islamic sources, by definition. Please let's not debate this further - there are so many things wrong with this article (see my post earlier up the page), we shouldn't be wasting time debating such a theoretical point.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand what the reference is. There are indeed no secular sources that say that an angel came to Muhammad in the mountains surrounding Mecca and revealed the word of God, I realize this. There are however a large number of secular, non-Islamic, sources that say that the first qibla was in the direction of Jerusalem. That is an undisputed fact. Most importantly, that fact is not in the Quran when our article says it is. nableezy - 00:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess Nab is right, it is notable that first qibla was in Jerusalem direction for a short period of months, after all Islam is Abrahamic religion ;) However we need a clear attribution here and we need to treat all three religions flavors equally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That is not what I said and if you dont understand the discussion you should not join it. nableezy - 13:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm just saying, Nab, that we need to treat all three religions flavors equally. ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. That completely misses the point here, but thanks anyway. nableezy - 16:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
, No problem, what is the point, do you mind to share? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No. nableezy - 16:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There remains a factual error in the article. The Quran does not say what the article says it says. Ill remove that once more. nableezy - 16:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Oncenawhile, Either way, the clause should be replaced not deleted - if you delete it the paragraph becomes unbalanced (see the symmetry with the Jewish- and Christian-related preceding sentences. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And what exactly does "balance" and "symmetry" have to do with factual errors? nableezy - 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nab, no one suggested factually wrong wording. I'm only second guessing "balance" and "symmetry" are matters of neutrality. Bottom line the clause should be replaced not deleted. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Why dont you let somebody who understands the topic make the argument as you clearly do not. nableezy - 17:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That's just my understanding of this discussion. No argument I might be wrong. Maybe some other editors would like to contribute. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How about changing it as follows:
In Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city.[6] It was the First Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (Salah) in the 7th century, and Islamic tradition holds that Mohammed made his Night Journey there. Tiamuttalk 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it. We state First Qibla as a fact, which it is and use Islamic tradition holds which sounds symmetric to language we use for other of Jerusalem's religions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Can I suggest two small amendments - (1) that we add back the specific dates in to the sentence, as we have them in the sentences for Judaism and Christianity, and (2) that we add back the reference to the Quran for the Night Journey piece of the sentence, as otherwise we should talk about Judaic tradition and Christian tradition instead of the Torah and the New Testament? It would therefore read:
In Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city.[6] It became the First Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (Salah) in 610 CE and, according to the Qur'an[3], Mohammed made his Night Journey there ten years later.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great to me and makes things overall more neutral and symmetrical. Don't be shy Once, I don't want to silly self revert myself ;) though I guess you can also edit this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I happy with the progress being made. However, i am a bit wary about "jerusalem is the third holiest city." I understand that Isalm is an Abrahamic religion which makes veneration of Jerusalem a must, but by making such a bold assertion, we are in fact ignoring 15-20% of global Muslims who view Najaf as #3. We are also whitewashing the fact that there is a dispute in the sources as to whether this holy attachment is an intrinsic part of the faith, or a recent political tactic. Chesdovi (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Do the sources say "third holiest"? Three RS use the phrase. That's pretty good. And you'd need to elaborate on that last bit, I've not heard of it but it sounds like a revisionist canard unless I've totally missed the scholarly debate on it (very possible!). Sol (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, most Shia Muslims place Jerusalem ahead of Najaf or Karbala. For example, this book reports that Iranian President Khatami said that "The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, the site of Islam's third holiest shrine." Regarding your last sentence, that is ridiculous. There are many sources that pre-date the very first Zionist arriving in Palestine calling Jerusalem the third holiest city in Islam. nableezy - 04:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That of course is because of he was using J as a political tool, precisly what I mentioned above. this source is more NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
And talking of zionist arriving, this 1921 source nominates Karbala. Chesdovi (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
There is even a hadith inplying Najaf is holier than Quds: "our sixth imam, Imam Sadeg, says that we have five definitive holy places that we respect very much. The first is Mecca, which belongs to God. The second is Medina, which belongs to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the messenger of God. The third belongs to our first imam of Shia, Ali, which is in Najaf. The fourth belongs to our third imam, Hussein, in Kerbala. The last one belongs to the daughter of our seventh imam and sister of our eighth imam, who is called Fatemah, and will be buried in Qom." Chesdovi (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
That isnt a hadith. The sayings of the Imams of each of the different branches of Shia Islam are not hadith. The source you gave is weak. I have sources but they are in Arabic. Let me see what I can find in English. nableezy - 15:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We can not use primary sources. Also, secondary sources have no doubt jumped on the bandwagon in calling J 3rd while not really investigating the claim. We will have to use the RS which rank J 3rd. But I am sure that shias view Najaf as 3rd. I suggest stating "the majority of Muslims view J as their 3rd../ Chesdovi (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggests the ranking Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Jerusalem [4]. I suggest that the existence of such minority views (i.e. minority over all Muslims) be mentioned in the citation footnote. Zerotalk 06:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We might want to quickly expand on the shared reasons for seeing Jerusalem as holy - home of Old Testament prophets everyone reveres, supposed place of the Binding, etc etc. Sol (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Our cousins believe the binding happened in Mecca. Chesdovi (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, here another item for the list;
The third holiest antique site for Muslims well known in Europe: the tomb of Umm Haram (Hala Sultan in Turkish); In the south is the city of Lamaka (Cyprus, Greek). Larnaka is the site of an ancient port and fort. The city has six archeological sites and cultural monuments. Three historic churches and monasteries are within the city. Just outside the city is the location of the Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque, the third holiest place for Muslims in the world.
Professor George E. Bowen, a senior Fullbright scholar at the University of Tennessee.[4]
There might be some more though, anyway we need to be careful since some family members tend to be too embracing, they conquered Jewish Medina and exterminated its inhabitants, so that's nb 2, presently they occupy the Temple Mount (the only actually occupied part of the city and it has been so for far too many centuries, the Jews' holiest site still, surprise, surprise, no UN condemnation!) nb 3 -among others- as a good pretext to make Jerusalem judenrein too, cheers, Hope&Act3! (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK to try to close this one, I have made the style changes suggested above and added the word Sunni ahead of Islam. Hopefully we're done now.Oncenawhile (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

New wording in the intro using illegal

Sol changed part of the introduction with no debate in this edit [5] Changing the previous wording from..
"Israel annexed East Jerusalem and considers it a part of Israel, although this has been repeatedly criticized by the United Nations and related bodies."
to
"Israel annexed East Jerusalem and considers it a part of Israel, although the international community has rejected the annexation as illegal and considers East Jerusalem occupied territory."

This change was made with the addition of this BBC source. The source says:
"The international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. Building on occupied land is illegal under international law." and "Israel captured the east of the city during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, during which it occupied the West Bank. It later annexed East Jerusalem, in a move not recognised by the international community."

Israels annexation may have been illegal under international law but no where in the source added does it say the annexation was illegal, simply building on occupied land is illegal. "illegal" is presently only used in the introduction now, as the "illegal" term is not anywhere else in the article does it belong in the introduction?

Changing it to
Israel annexed East Jerusalem and considers it a part of Israel, although the international community has rejected the annexation and considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. would be far more neutral and in line with the additional source added along with fitting with the rest of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Israel believed it was acting legally. If subseqeuntly the IC rejected that move in court and label it move "illegal", it cannot not be said Israel illegally annexed it, which implies Israel broke the law intentionally. Chesdovi (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Resolution 2253, issued by the General Assembly on July 4, 1967, considered "all the Israeli activities in Eastern Jerusalem illegal" [6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we have the text of the full resolution ? Is it just this [7]? Id like to see the exact terminology used rather than take Al Jazeeras wording which clearly is not a neutral news source on the matter. Using the term "Illegal" in the introduction is very controversial, especially if not backed up by clear sources using the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
My link is the full text of the resolution in question, they do not use the term illegal. "Simply invalid". Use of "illegal" is news organisations interpretation of the resolution. "Invalid / Illegal" sound very different to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I see Al Jazeera use the same term "illegal" for resolution 252, which again actually says invalid rather than illegal. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


I have changed illegal to invalid. If people insist on readding illegal without clear reliable accurate sources the article text in that paragraph should be restored to the previous stable wording before Sol made his edit. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A/RES/ES-10/4: "Reaffirming that all illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, especially settlement activities, and the practical results thereof, cannot be recognized irrespective of the passage of time" [8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It says nothing about the annexation illegality. All it says is that the illegal actions (specifying none except settlement) in the occupied territory (including E. Jerusalem) are illegal. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Invalid is just fine by me. The previous wording used "criticized" which is a bit like describing Noah's flood as "inclement weather". If people would prefer illegal then they can use Al Jahzeera or any number of other sources. Sol (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
See Security Council resolution 478, which calls the annexation a "violation of international law" and "null and void". --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I see. "illegal" would be ok then. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
That resolution says Israels Basic law which declared the city its capital was a violation of international law. I think the annexation in that sentence is referring to when Israel took control of the place, not the 1980 act which gets mentioned in the final sentence, otherwise it makes no sense. Although that final sentence is rather repetitive of whats said previously. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's referring to the Jerusalem Law and not the 1967 beginning of occupation. Taking control of a place during a war is occupation. Attempting to formally incorporate it into your country is annexation. Occupation is A-ok if you are still at war, annexation is not. Sol (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Resolution 478 makes reference to a "Basic Law", and the Jerusalem Law is known as "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" (see the wiki article). The resolution was passed in August 20 1980, in response to the Jerusalem law (July 30, 1980). --Dailycare (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What is to be done about the tags

We now have a tag in the first sentence and a globalise tag at the top of the article. It seems that some people are only going to be happy with this article when we add the term "proclaimed" before every statement of fact and that we must add things like the "Palestinian mayor" that no one has heard of or knows how was selected.

It is not the contents that is a problem with the article, its the tags that are making it a joke by a small number of editors who appear to refuse even a moderate compromise to address the problem. If there can be no consensus then status quo should remain and these tags should be removed. A few radical proposals being refused do not justify tags. Do people honestly think that "proclaimed mayor" "Proclaimed flag" "proclaimed district" , "proclaimed coat of arms" is going to make this article more stable and better for the reader?

This issue clearly needs more input so i have posted a message on each of the wikiprojects of this article to try and get some more contributors to join the debate. We should not allow this debate just to go on endlessly or fizzle out which will mean the tags remain on the article tarnishing its contents. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as this article is written from an Israeli point of view and not representing a worldwide view of the subject, then there is no reason to remove the globalize tag, the tag is perfectly suitable for this article. People object to "capital of Israel" so there is no reason to remove it either. Who is the one who refuse a moderate compromise? You refuse to compromise on the clearly minority pov "capital of Israel" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This is sadly not just about the first sentence, although it was the spark. A tag on the first sentence whilst this debate is under discussion is one thing, but having the globalize template there because at present we do not say "proclaimed mayor", "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, is clearly a problem. As for the compromise, ive gone from saying i oppose any change to offering a compromise if it will resolve the matter. But the reason why i strongly oppose "proclaimed capital" is because of the debate above, some want proclaimed added everywhere else as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The tags can go. They have served their purpose and a discussion is underway. Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No the tags can not go, the article is still written from an Israeli point of view and not representing a worldwide view of the subject. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The tags don't "tarnish" any contents, they're part of the content. I think the practice with many tags is that they're removed once the underlying dispute or deficiency is resolved or rectified. --Dailycare (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
but the problem is with people demanding that proclaimed be added to things like the flag and mayor along with other things i do not see how those tags will ever be removed, they are infact likely to spread. You atleast have supported the compromise which whilst not perfect trys to deal with the concern about the international point of view. others appear to be saying this article will never be acceptable unless proclaimed is everywhere because it reflects Israeli POV. I think that is an impossible change which means the tags would be stuck there for ever unless we address this once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
First off, slippery slope.Second, the point of the "proclaimed capital" is to head off exactly what's happening right now; I don't want this article shredded by edit wars. Your suggested compromise isn't a compromise; it gives the minority position undue weight. Correcting that was the original aim. And did you really need to post a less than neutral canvass notice to eight different wikiprojects? "Cry NPOV and let slip the hounds of edit war!" Sol (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I posted to all the wikiprojects listed on this page including Islam and Palestine, and highlighted the issues. I explained the reason people wanted proclaimed added to the first sentence and that now the issue has spread to the flag, the coat of arms, the mayor among other things again for the same reason because the international community does not recognise Jerusalems status, i also explained the other side who want the status quo which has lasted 3 years and that there has been a couple of compromises. And also pointed out this had been debated many times in the past. I even changed my initial post straight away to make it more neutral by putting the international view in the second sentence. My post covered the main positions. I want this matter resolved one way or another and we clearly need more contributors. otherwise these tags will be left on this article potentially for years simply because some editors demand proclaimed be used and i think the tags do tarnish the article content, which is not biased in the way some seem to think. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are you saying is the minority view here? That countries have a sovereign right to select their own capital? That Jerusalem functions de facto as Israel's capital, including tacit recognition by countries that have their embassies in Tel Aviv but send their ambassadors to submit their credentials in Jerusalem and their foreign dignitaries to carry out their business in Jerusalem? Has any country actually refused to carry out their diplomatic business in Jerusalem due to not recognizing it as Israel's capital?
The article currently correctly states the majority view that countries select their capitals, and notes that in this case it is not recognized (actually, united Jerusalem is not recognized due to the annexation of East Jerusalem). Pending someone providing some sources that say that recognition is needed to make a city a capital, it's you who's trying to push a POV minority view that somehow Israel is the only country in the world that doesn't have the sovereign right to select its own capital. I'd ask why Taipei and Nicosia are simply stated as capitals when both have limited recognition as capitals of countries with limited recognition, but I think the answer is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read the rest of the debate which answers all of your questions. If you like "de facto" capital that works for me. Sol (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Did someone provide a source that says recognition by other countries is necessary for a state to decide what its capital is? I must have missed it. Please repost. I object to any qualifier, including but not limited to "proclaimed", "de-facto", "so-called", "or so they say", etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk)
So the tags will stay. Per the pov problems with the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear, beyond the first sentence issue. What else is POV and justifies the tag. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Israeli mayor not presented as a proclaimed mayor, no mention of the Palestinian mayor, Israeli proclaimed flag and coat of arms presented as the city's official symbols, Israeli proclaimed twin town with New York presented as official, Israel centric map in the infobox, there are probably many more things in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou. This is why i think the tag is unfair, you are asking for such a radical change to this article that even some of those who are demanded proclaimed be used for the first sentence would not insist on for the other matters.. but it highlights why saying proclaimed is simply not a good idea. It will be used to justify proclaimed being used throughout the article in the way you want. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize editors had to explain why the world holds the opinions they do. But if it helps, I'll try. The reasons are many; UNSC Resolution 478 invalidating the basic law, lack of Jurisdiction over East Jerusalem (or lack of jurisdiction over all of Jerusalem if you are the UK, US, etc.), etc, etc ad nauseum. Things are represented in proportion to how common the view is. No one accepts Jerusalem as Israel's definite, quitclaim, no modifiers capital. The objection is that the article's current lead sentence's wording is only accepted by one nation in the world and leads the reader to the bizarre conclusion that Israel's capital extends into occupied territory. It also nips the "proclaimed mayor/flag/coat of arms" issue in the bud: if it's stated up front no one can claim confusion. Sol (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
But you did not provide a source saying a sovereign state needs permission to decide its own capital, if it doesnt control the territory then i see the problem.. hence why i strongly oppose proclaimed when the same term can be used to describe Palestines position on East Jerusalem. People have to accept there is a difference between something not being officially internationally recognised and fact. Taiwan is a country, just because only a small number of countrys in the world officially recognise it, does not mean it is not a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
And I don't have to. That's not the article's topic. I can paraphrase various countries reasoning if that's helpful but that does not change the nature of the majority viewpoint and I've no wish to retype it. You're asking me to regurgitate the source material so you can see if you agree with UN/US/UKs reasoning. Sol (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The majority viewpoint is that a country gets to designate its capital. The fact that in this case it is not recognized (whatever that means) is already noted in the article right after the fact that it is the capital of Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in your opinion but would like a source to go with it. The Jerusalem Law was internationally rejected as both an attempted illegal annexation and an attempt to dictate laws beyond Israeli jurisdiction. Trying to change the laws of occupied territory is expressly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions. So if you'd like talk about West Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel you'd be on better footing (not perfect as the territorial issues are still murky, believe it or not) but you can't extend it to East Jerusalem which is what the article is doing. Hence "proclaimed". Sol (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you want me to post the list of sources defining the word "capital" again? It's in the archives at least 3 times that I'm aware of. It does not include "if recognized by other countries", as I'm pretty sure you know already.
Who wants to take a guess as to why there isn't a similar discussion on the Nicosia page that says unequivocally that Nicosia is the capital of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, despite this not being recognized by any country other than Turkey? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please show your dictionary to the US, the UN, the UK and every other government in the world. There's a dispute over it's status. It is, as far as I know, the only time since GC4 passed that a country has attempted to establish its capital outside of its boundaries. Your interpretation is nice but you've failed to establish why it's better than that of the international community. A dictionary is not an international law reference. You have to argue why Israel's perspective is not being given undue weight in the lead sentence. I've told you why they say what they say. Sol (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The German Democratic Republic established East Berlin as its capital even though all of Berlin was technically under four power control, and not part of either the FRG or the GDR, until 1990. So that's a possible example. john k (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like NMMNG is winning.... Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this a battle? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Things that seem obvious usually aren't. For example, it's not obvious to me why people need to provide "some sources that say that recognition is needed to make a city a capital". Why not ask people to provide some sources that say recognition isn't needed to make a city a capital ? I don't know which of those arguments is the right one but they both seem irrelevant because we have sources that say it is the capital in some sense and sources that say it isn't the capital in some sense. That's it. It's both so we can say that somehow (which is what we got close to agreeing). Also we're discussing Jerusalem and no where else. And why do people keep talking about rights anyway ? What does that have to do with anything ? The only thing that matters is what the sources say. These things don't get resolved because too many people here make unsourced statements like "it's (not) the f'ing capital dimwit, it's obvious" (I'm paraphrasing) and ignore sources that say something different. It's not too much to ask that everyone accepts that their personal opinions about the real world mean nothing here. Surely at least some editors are married and are familiar with the simple concept of your opinion having zero weight on an issue. Apparently it's not even obvious what the term the capital means (e.g. The Capital Cities of Jerusalem Chad F. Emmett Geographical Review Vol. 86, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 233-258), not that it matters to us, but it's a reminder that everything must come from RS. Don't assume anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well i know wikipedia is not a reliable source but i notice the article on capitals makes no mention of needing international recognition. It simply says: "A capital city (or just capital) is the area of a country, province, region, or state regarded as enjoying primary status; although there are exceptions, a capital is almost always a city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and is usually fixed by law or by the constitution". It is commonsense and standard practice for a sovereign state to decide its own capital, that is what happens in every other nation. So sources need to be provided to say the norm is not true, and that a country must have international permission and recognition for it to be a capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope, nothing you said there matters because nothing you said comes from an RS and talks about Jerusalen. You assume that Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem. Why would you assume that ? This is my point. We just need to go by the sources (a large number of which say it is the capital) and things will work out fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Which is what we have in the article now. It says it is the capital and notes that this is not recognized. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, and that simple change, mentioning the recognition in the first paragraph immediately following "is the capital of Israel" rather than not mentioning it until the 4th paragraph as it was before is enough for me personally. I would prefer to say something closer to "is the capital of Israel...proclaimed in 1949...not recognized" as I've said, but I can live without the detail in the middle bit in the first paragraph. The rest of the lead can cover it. At the moment it doesn't. The article says proclaimed, sources say proclaimed, we don't mention it. It can be included in the 4th paragraph of the lead with the rest of the related details but it should be in the lead somewhere. The addition of the recognition aspect at the beginning was the important/necessary change to provide due weight and balance for me. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that the capital issue is one thing, we have a long list of sources saying that the capital status is denied, but I haven't seen any list of sources discussing how a mayor's office would be denied internationally. Therefore I don't see a reason to involve the coats-of-arms or mayors in this discussion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I cant see a compromise happening on the lead if the globalize/neutrality tag is still kept because people demand proclaimed capital be stated, and the fact people are saying proclaimed mayor/proclaimed flag etc should be added otherwise this article is Israeli POV highlights the problem wit proclaimed. The two things are linked. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So is this settled then? We rely on RS and the lead notes both opnions, while still refering to "capital of Israel". 109.156.218.102 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is settled whilst some are demanding "proclaimed capital" "proclaimed flag" "proclaimed mayor" "proclaimed coat of arms" are needed and it sounds as though they want to keep the tags on the article if those things are not changed. I cant support a compromise if others will still demand the tags remain and the idea we have to add proclaimed everywhere else. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, we're nearly there. Sean has highlighted that it is RS what counts, (basically other peoples opinons in published form) and NMMNG has noted that both opinions are already cited in the lead. Dailycare has said no need to extend this to mayors, etc. So, unless we hear from SD or Sol, (hopefully agreeing with the conlusion) we should be done with this. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Great. I have RS saying everyone thinks the Jerusalem Law is invalid and that East Jerusalem isn't in Israel. Sol (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I wish i had your optimism lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality tag behind Israel and the Global tag at the top are two separate things, the first tag is only about the first sentence, which after agreement about that one sentence can be removed, the Global tag on the other hand is about how the entire article is written, involving many things, it cant be removed as the article is now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both tags need to go if there is to be a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The sentence specific tag is being misused. The current wording is the result of very long discussions and consensus that was not easily come by. That some editors are not happy with this consensus and keep trying to chip at it until they get a result they want is not a good reason to use a tag that is meant to produce discussion. I'm going to remove it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I back you. (SD, please list all the things you think need dealing with and we will go through them 1 by 1.) Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the most bad faith move I've seen in this debate so far. Bravo. Sol (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean putting up a tag that's supposed to produce discussion when discussion was already ongoing (and even noting that in the edit summary)? That's exactly the sort of badge of shame misuse the template warns against. I agree, that does have a whiff of bad faith. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going to leave this right here. If you'd like to come back and discuss why your dictionary is better qualified to rule on international conflicts than the world's governments I will be happy to listen. Sol (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The template I removed was this not the one you posted above. As for your appeal to authority, world governments can't change what the word "capital" means, nor does their non-recognition change the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Perhaps you could inform us what you think Israel's capital is if it isn't Jerusalem? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for getting the wrong template. Fortunately, the removal rules are the same. Please look at what's already been discussed; no one is redefining capital, they are rejecting the methods and legality by which Jerusalem, including occupied territory, was declared the capital. It's as if the law never happened. I don't think I'm surprising anyone by revealing that you can't apply your laws to land not under your jurisdiction. Sol (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look more closely at what the purpose of the tag I removed is. Anyway, it's not as if the law never happened, it's as if other countries don't recognize it. Since recognition is not necessary (pending a source that says it is, which I doubt anyone will be able to produce), Jerusalem is the capital, but not recognized by other countries. That's what the article says now, both in the actual text and in a note. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I did. You remove the tag once the discussion is over. Why do you assume recognition isn't necessary? If you unilaterally annex territory you need international recognition; you can't annex land by force and expect everyone to agree with you, especially if that land happens to be the center of three world religions and an ongoing property dispute. Until the land is yours you can't apply your laws to it. As is, the article tacitly recognizes claims the world rejects. And it matters not one jot nor tittle nor parsnip what an editor's interpretation is. You can't impose your standards on information and no one has to make you change your mind. The majority view gets top representation even if it's wrong or patently insane (this is neither, just pointing it out). I can try to explain the why of it, you can accept or deny the relevance but it doesn't change WP policies or that the majority of people who's opinions shape international relations don't accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Sol (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You insert the tag to produce discussion, not when it's already ongoing, and you don't leave the tag as some kind of leverage to get your preferred version into the article.
It's you who needs to show that recognition of a capital is necessary for it to be a capital. I can't prove the negative. The onus is on you to provide positive proof that it is. I agree that an editor's opinion doesn't matter. The majority view is that countries designate their capitals, as any dictionary will show you. Until you provide some proof that non-recognition invalidates the accepted meaning of the word "capital", you are just giving us your own opinion which matters not one jot nor tittle nor parsnip. "Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but is not recognized by other countries" is a policy compliant statement that meets WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Your interpretation of what non-recognition means is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And you leave it up while discussion is going on, you remove it when "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." I'm not trying to insert my definition of non-recognition, I'm suggesting the best way to approach a difficult topic within the proper guidelines. The last word is all yours. Sol (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the onus argument really works and I don't think we need to care about majority views on who gets to decide and what words mean or dictionaries say either. Sol doesn't need to prove that recognition of Jerusalem as the capital is necessary for it to be the capital and you don't need to prove that recognition isn't necessary. Imagine if either of you found a source that addressed those points, it wouldn't change what all the other RS say about Jerusalem or make them vanish. There's still going to be lots of RS that say it's the capital and lots of RS that say it isn't or rather, something more complicated than it is the capital. We're can't prove that it is/isn't the capital. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the IC, what is the capital of Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, there's the rub. They reject the validity of the Jerusalem law/Jerusalem as capital and return to the back-stabbing scrum of international politics. That's why I've lobbied for some modifier in "Jerusalem is Israel's capital": no nation agrees with that statement but deleting any reference to it as Israel's capital would be absurd. An unmodified "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" along with pictures of/references to the Old City tacitly implies that E. J'Lem is a part of Israel which is definitely not correct. Rather than rip out the Old City references (which is probably what most people are interested in) let's give the majority view the top billing entitled under WP:WEIGHT and move on. We can used "proclaimed", we can use another modifier, the BBC guidelines or pretty much any other palatable suggestion that avoids opening the article with the single phrase the squabbling majority of nations agree is incorrect. Sol (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors have already explained they strongly oppose use of proclaimed. It is an unacceptable term with massive implications throughout this article and others. As the debate above shows. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
But the problem is that it doesn't really matter what editors object to when reliable sources use terms. It's not about us. If RS say something, we can say something and often we're obliged to by policy. Objections can't be raised on the basis that editors think reliable sources are wrong to use certain terms or that we know better than them. That's even the case for highly contentious terms e.g. WP:TERRORIST. Policy absolutely overrides concensus. What the reliable sources say absolutely overrides what editors say. So, if editors want to convince perfectly reasonable, policy minded people like Sol they will have to come up with arguments based on what sources say and do. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
We disagree on what is or is not in line with policy. We provide a note in the first sentence and a whole paragraph on the status of Jerusalem, which some of us believe was enough. The wording and "not internationally recognised" has now also been added to the first sentence. If that is not enough to get the globalise tag removed and editors are demanding even more radical changes which would make this article a joke, then the previous wording should be restored because we are back at square one. I only supported the compromise if it resolved this matter. The template suggests its not resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you're new to editing IP articles, otherwise you'd have seen that coming. I agree that the previous wording should be restored. The new wording doesn't bring us any closer to solving this issue and will only be used as a new starting point for more POV changes. Not to mention the note already included this information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If that globalize template still can not be removed despite the change that has taken place to the first sentence of this artice, then the previous long standing wording will need to be restored. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the problems with the article is how the entire article is written from an Israeli pov instead of a world view, so the tag removed from the first sentence does not fix the problems with the rest of the article, so there is no reason to remove it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Either the new wording is better or it isn't. The presence or absence of tag doesn't change that. For the record, I don't support the entire article having a globalize tag. The disputes aren't over the entire article. Given its size, approximately nothing in the article is disputed. There are a few very specific statements that are matters of dispute so if anything is going to be tagged it's better to just tag those specific things preferably with inline tags. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
How is the article not written from an Israeli pov? For example: Mayor, flag, coat of arms, infobox map, twin city, nickname, motto? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
How can you ask that after you failed to find alternative mayors, flags, coat of arms, etc? The POV here isn't these facts, it's your wanting there to be some alternative you can't find. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If you had read the discussions above you would see that there is a Palestinian mayor. The map can easily be fixed. And absence of other flags, coat of arms, twin city, nickname, motto etc doesn't make Israeli proclaimed symbols and other things legal or authoritative. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean the 10+ year old article that says that another article announced that a Palestinian mayor was proclaimed? Do you seriously consider that RS material appropriate for the article? We don't even know who made the proclamation. That was 10+ years ago. Who's the mayor right now? Also, what's the problem with the coat of arms, twin cities, etc? I mean other than the fact you don't like them? You are not a RS for what is legal or authoritative as I'm sure you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Dont misrepresent what I said, I never said that I didn't like them. It has to do with that these are Israeli proclaimed symbols, mayor, motto's, twin citys, Israeli centric map etc, and Jerusalem is not regarded as the capital of Jerusalem by the entire international community, its not even clear that any part of Jerusalem is accepted as part of Israel as all countries keep they're embassy's in Tel Aviv in Israel, therefore this article is written from an Israeli perspective, not a world perspective. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I understand, since 1967 there were at least two attempts to establish a shadow city council. None of them ended with a creation of a functioning body of any type. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As the user who inserted the POV-Statement tag in the first place, I feel that tag was appropriately used and it's removal is warranted once the discussion has ended (i.e. now). The tag is supposed to remain for the duration of the discussion to invite participation by other editors, see Template:POV-statement. I don't see an active discussion concerning any deficiencies associated with the global tag, so I'd presume it can be removed by any editor. --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Has the article been re written from an Israeli point of view to a world point of view? Until that happens, there is no reason to remove the global tag. It invites new people to edit the article to a worldview perspective. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The tag was rightly removed. There is never going to be consensus for "proclaimed mayor", "proclaimed flag" or "Israels flag" "Israels mayor" etc BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't know what will happen in the future, maybe someone will see the tag and can help to edit the article into a worldview, the article is still written from an Israeli point of view, is it not? So there was no reason to remove the global tag. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
BW, I'm not sure which policy you think you've been arguing from. My whole point with the "proclaimed" is from NPOV subsection WP:UNDUE, specifically the passages regarding "prominence of placement" and the weight given to majority vs. minority views. To use the well-worn example, we don't start the "Earth" article with the statement "The earth is flat but the international community has rejected this." Every country that's spoken on the matter rejects the Jerusalem Law/Israeli jurisdiction to declare Jerusalem the capital/Jerusalem as Israeli and the majority of news sources do not speak of it as the unmodified capital. So why should WP? The idea that footnoting somehow sidesteps the NPOV policy doesn't seem to have any basis in the guidelines. It's interesting how the "facts on the ground" strategy shapes discourse, i.e., "The seat of government is in Jerusalem so its the capital even if no one accepts this". If its explicitly rejected by everyone then that's the majority view and deserves treatment as such. Many thanks to sean for the compliments (little does he realize my true aim to have the article declare Baldwin the Leper King as true ruler of Jerusalem!). Sol (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't start the Earth article with "The earth is flat" because the word "flat" has a certain meaning which we know does not apply to the earth, whether the international community rejects this or not. According to your logic, if the UNGC had a vote that said the earth was in fact flat, we'd have to start the article with that. For the nth time, unless you can show that non-recognition makes a city not a capital, we should go with what the word "capital" actually means in English. The view that it is not recognized is currently represented (twice) in the very first sentence of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of if you accept the legality of the Jerusalem law and unilateral annexation. If you live in the 18th century then there is nothing wrong with it. If you'd like to learn why read the rest of the conversation. For more fun, look at a definition of "planet" and then look at why it doesn't apply to Pluto. Sol (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether I accept the legality of the Jerusalem law or not is irrelevant. The reader can draw his own conclusions from the WP:V information we present to them. Telling the reader that non-recognition means a city is not a capital without providing RS that say so does not meet WP:V standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a distortion of what I suggested and the situation. Surprise. I'd be fine with letting the reader decide for themselves something like "Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital but this has been rejected by the international community." That would be fine. Stating one side as fact and then presenting the views of the international community (as is currently), isn't. Sol (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
NNMNG, I believe that's a strawman argument. I don't recall anyone proposing to change the wording to say that Jerusalem isn't the capital. I for one am OK with the current wording as I wrote above. --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence is now fine, there is no need to make another alteration to that sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd love for this to be over and despise sounding like a broken record but a balanced first sentence doesn't state one side's opinion as a neutral fact; that was the cause of this debate and is still a violation of WP:NPOV even consensus couldn't overrule. "Jerusalem is considered by Israel to be its capital although that status is not internationally recognized." It's a variation of one of sean's older suggestions and it's policy compliant. This lets the reader decide. Sol (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is based on the arguments, not votes, there can not be a "consensus" that violates npov. The current lead violates npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's simply wrong. FromWikipedia:Consensus#What_consensus_is: "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken.". A major step has already been taken to revise a long standing consensus to move even further in the direction you're pushing for, but a clear majority supports this current wording. As NMMNG says, it seems your side is just using every new consensus as a basis from which to then push for even more concessions. Not going to happen. The lead currently states two facts: Jerusalem is the Capital, and the international community does not recognize it. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Why are you cherry picking from that policy? "All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." so: "capital of Israel" is a violation of npov due and undue weight [9]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You said it was not about a majority, and that is plainly wrong, based on policy which I quoted. There is no violation of NPOV here. Stonewalling, as you and Sol are doing, in order to get your way, may lead to both of you being sanctioned. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Friend, I think you're misreading the situation. This isn't stonewalling. Refusing to consider any change on the basis of "past consensus", rejecting compromises based on shifting your requirements and refusing to discuss based on a fictional consensus, these are stonewalling and (you might notice) pretty popular around here. The new wording is an improvement; that doesn't mean it's correct, the product of consensus or that it's set in stone. I've tried very sincerely to make policy arguments, assume good faith and explain the specifics of my rationale, even to editors who don't care to read the actual debate. I'm still trying to do that despite it being an essentially sisyphean task. You are countering with threats and rejections. If you want to take it before some tribunal, go for it. If they think logical and valid counterarguments have been offered and I'm wrong, so be it. We can continue this later. Sol (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference to King David

The statement "Under King David, it was known as Ir David (the City of David)" seems to assume the existence of a historical King David as a matter of fact. There is scant evidence of this. Perhaps adding something like "According to the biblical tradition, ..." would be more factual. Also, it is not clear what the evidence for this claim (that the city was known as "Ir David") is...the reference was not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Holden Caulfield (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with "tradition names it": see diff. Still missing sources. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:04, 10 October 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 [10] 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)

Two editors above said they agreed with me and i am confident if i had not wasted my time debating this matter with you all over the past couple of days, others would have stepped in. As i said before, this matter has come up many times in the past (this is the first time ive been involved i think, so ive dedicated a reasonable amount to it), but nothing has changed. There is no need to change the first sentence. This article does not violate wikipedia policies and has not done. If it did do you honestly think it could have kept the same first sentence for atleast 3 years? You need consensus to change the status quo. It is clear at present that consensus does not exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that there is clearly disagreement here, so the pov tag added by Dailycare is correct.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording has been in the article for over 3 years. Daily himself held a RFC on it but clearly was not satisfied with the result. The consensus is despite a couple of vocal editors here the current introduction is neutral. And no evidence has been provided to show this is not the case. If the introduction did not clearly state the status of Jerusalem, it would be a problem. But it goes into huge detail about the matter. There is also a note in the first sentence to ensure its covered. We should not mess the article up with tags just because some editors here can not get agreement to make controversial changes to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you disagree with that there is a large portion of editors here who disagree with that it is the capital of Israel? (besides reality, in which no country on earth see it as Israels capital), this disagreement is enough to at least have the pov tag. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I see a small number of editors who are demanding change to a sentence that has been debated for years and has remained in the article. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is fact. There is no consensus to change the introduction, Dailycare has for some time been trying to change the first sentence, there has been no support for it. I dont mind us debating this matter endless on the talkpage, but the article itself should not be messed up with tags that are not accurate or needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Please provide sources that state a country needs permission from the international community to declare its own capital? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has to. We have to provide reliable sources saying it, which has been done in spades. I've suggested a compromise where we sidestep the issue with a sentence on the territorial claims. You don't like that either. Leading the article with a viewpoint unique to one country is prima facie NPOV; you and other editors disagree, hence the tag. And we need to deal with "In Israel" cats at some point if everyone hasn't smashed their computers after this is over =X Sol (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact the status of Jerusalem is disputed is why there is a note in the first sentence and infobox along with an entire paragraph in the introduction explaining the situation, if we did not mention this within the introduction or article of course there would be a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And what is this about the cats? Jerusalem is not allowed to be stated as in Israel in categories now as well? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This discussion or debate has been perennial, with editors old and new always trying to "resolve this issue", or (perhaps more to the point) making an issue of it. The discussion inevitably comes up against the same realities: 1. Countries designate their own capitals, whether or not "the world" approves. 2. By the dictionary definition, the official seat of government is the capital. No one has shown these to be other than objective (NPOV) statements. WP policy does not call for editors to rewrite the dictionary. As Jerusalem meets both of the criteria, it simply is the capital (without modifiers like "proclaimed"). Despite that, the article devotes considerable space to the controversy. I am glad to see that some editors here recognize the important difference between a functional capital and an aspirational one. The existing wording and structure of the lead already represent a compromise carefully crafted through lengthy discussions. I see nothing new presented to justify altering the status quo, even to the extent of tagging the lead. All capitals are proclaimed. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not have access to the State Department, the UN, or the CIA's dictionaries. All I know is what these sources say. I don't get to make the call. If the world calls it a proclaimed capital and WP does not you can guarantee that this issue will spring up once a month from now until the Internet is banned in the 2nd Robonixon Administration. I've proposed a solution of stressing that the rejection of the capital is not based on any explicit power of the international community to do such but on the underlying issue of Jerusalem's ownership. That would allow us to keep the wording as, delete the footnote and add a short sentence to the lead, maybe tweak the "Political Status" section a bit. It's more complicated than "proclaimed" but it's an alternative.
Britwatcher: sure, I figure I'd raise the issue since we are tackling all of the thorny bits. If you take territory by force and annex it it's not yours as both of those are illegal under international law (this portrayal is the subject of much debate). If enough people recognize it anyways, it's yours. Territorial sovereignty isn't achieved by unilateral proclamation or exercise of force, other people have to agree it's yours. Hence why South Korea is on maps and not called "Occupied North Korea" or whatever the current party line is. That's the quick and dirty summary and an argument a lot of Foreign Ministers accept. So for Jerusalem not many, if any, countries recognize its annexation, they think it should be an international city per the UN or worked out by the two sides. Hence why neither of our countries' consulates' addresses have an "Israel" after "Jerusalem": to them, no one has sovereign rights to Jerusalem. That's part of the reason so few countries had to withdraw their embassies from Jerusalem after the SC resolution telling them to, because no one was actually there to begin with on the basis that it isn't Israeli. And that is also why they consider it "proclaimed" and why you have people arguing that the Palestinians should also get equal billing on the lead; if they both have the same claims then they should be treated equally. So no one's really recognized it as Israel's and legitimized the annexation. I'd prefer to keep it in the Israel Cats if for no other reason than it's simpler (not a strong argument, but meh) but that's the background on the capital issue and why you'll see cat changes pop up from time to time. Holy wall of text, Batman! Sol (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
But the CIA world factbook does not put "proclaimed" before Jerusalem. It includes a note explaining it, just like we include a note here, it simply says Capital - Name: Jerusalem. They then go on to mention geographic coordinates , time difference and daylight saving time before including the note on Jerusalem status [11]. A country is able to select its own capital which it is in control of, the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is clearly far different to the claim Palestinians have which has no control over the territory. There is nothing incorrect about "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This is clearly fact, if it is not fact then what is the capital? i totally oppose the idea of adding wording like "proclaimed" or claimed to the first sentence. I do not believe any change is needed and i cant see consensus for a change but would "Israel is the declared [iii] capital of Israel" resolve this? You mention the categories, but that is just the start, even if people become satisfied with the introduction, demands will then shift to controversial alterations to matters relating to Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"A country is able to select its own capital which it is in control of, the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is clearly far different to the claim Palestinians have which has no control over the territory." And that is the heart of the matter. The international community disagrees, claiming that Israel cannot unilaterally change the status of the city (UNSCR 478) and/or, similarly, don't own the city (nicely supported here). Whether or not they are right to do so is up for grabs but that's the majority view. Even if the majority view is unreasonable or flawed in various ways it still gets top billing in articles. How about we use proclaim in the lead and footnote the Israeli view? I think that's still a misuse of footnotes but at least it's not violating undue weight. If you want to include bits about how the international community is wrong to not recognize it as the capital then that seems fine but I don't think we can argue on talk pages about it being wrong and come to our own conclusion on the matter. If you accept that Jerusalem isn't sovereign Israeli territory then you simply cannot recognize the laws declaring it the capital while ignoring the lack of jurisdiction. No one recognizes those laws. Sol (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't accept that Jerusalem, at least the Western part, isn't sovereign Israeli territory, and I suspect that this position is a rather minority one. We note in the article, at length, that the international community does not recognize the annexation, but that does not change the fact that Jerusalem is the capital. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to agree that it's not worth using that approach by virtue of most nations remaining silent on the topic. The ones that do mention sovereignty reject it (UK+US+ our non-government pals the UN) and the rejection of the capital designation makes no sense unless a country either a)thinks it can nullify Israeli domestic laws it doesn't like (bizarre) or b)doesn't accept Israeli jurisdiction over the whole area (some sources argue this so it's supportable but still not as strong). I'm not quite comfortable with it though. What about using "internationally unrecognized" instead of "proclaimed"? It fits Britwatchers criteria of not matching the Palestinian claim, acknowledges the views of the world while avoiding legal jargon with possible secondary/unwanted implications. Sol (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I can not support "internationally unrecognised". That may be different, but its horrible wording to put in the first sentence of an article. These are very radical changes to an articles first sentence which has lasted over 3 years, im also concerned about the implications a change in this first sentence will have on other articles. As soon as you add what ever term here like "proclaimed", certain editors will be demanding that term is used everywhere the capital is mentioned in other articles, it could have a big knock on effect. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed and i note the wording that comes on after saying it is the capital of Israel, " and, if including the area and population of East Jerusalem," the fact it says "If" there highlights there is a difference between Eastern Jerusalem and West Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I cant accept the term "proclaimed", the fact it can be used in exactly the same way to describe Palestines proclaimed capital is clearly problematic. Things do not need international recognition to be stated as fact. It is Israels capital, the sovereign state has decided to use it as their capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we have get past that because it's not about what we can accept, it's about what the sources say. While I share Nableezy's cynicism on this issue to some extent I think it is possible to find agreement. The issue isn't anything to get excited or defensive about. We aren't talking about new information or dramatic changes. The information is already present in the lead, the footnote, other articles. This is about minor adjustments and moving things around to improve NPOV and due weight. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is consistent with tonnes of sources. I don't see a policy based reason to change that statement but it's not enough by itself. It needs something right next to it to tell the rest of the story. Something like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." + "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950..or was it 1949" (like the CIA source, File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map .jpg and the Political status part of this article) and then something short and to the point about "the international community does not recognize etc" or something similar to what is already in the lead but needs moving up. To me, something like that is all that is required. It doesn't seem controversial, it's easily sourced and it's based on what is already in the article. I confess to not understanding the fuss over the word proclaimed especially if it is preceeded by "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". It's used by sources and it's already in the article. Perhaps I'm missing something. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"proclaimed" does not define the situation clearly enough, the fact it can be used for the Palestine article saying the same thing highlights this. I have far less of a problem with adding on something to the sentence or a second sentence, than i do about adding wording like "proclaimed" before capital. But its far from clear there will be consensus for any form of change to this. The fact it has been debated so many times in the past and still kept highlights this. I dont accept there is a problem with the current wording, i dont see how it could have lasted over 3 years basically unchanged if it was unacceptable and a violation of policies, especially as there has been several RFCs on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think your proposal - "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" + "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1949"+"the international community does not recognize it" could be workable, provided we correspondingly reduce the current paragraph in the lead that discusses the political status, so as not to allocate undue weight to this point. 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, a bit of the status paragraph in the introduction may have to be removed to avoid repetition. "Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel" is a little short for a first sentence though, id still rather "proclaimed" be avoided after the capital bit too. If its going to be in a second sentence or at the end of the first, could it not be "declared" or mention the legal declaration of its status then go on to say although this is disputed. We should not go into too much detail as international recognition will have to still be explained in the status paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
How about this: let's not discuss the capital issue in the first sentence(s) at all. Later on, we can say "internationally unrecognized capital". Saying upfront "Jerusalem is the capital is Israel" is wrong for reasons already discussed above, timestamp 20:00, 27 September. --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not. If the present introduction is to be changed the first sentence should still read "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", then go on to explain its international recognition. And this is part of the problem with even considering a compromise along the lines Sean has suggested. Will it satisfy Dailycare and others, along with the IPs and fresh accounts that always come along to this article and repleace Israel with Palestine. If adding on an extra sentence is not going to deal with that, then there is little point in us changing the present wording at all. If we did something along the lines Sean suggested, do we think people will still demand the disputed tag remain? or endlessly challenge it again as there has been repeated debates on the current wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable. Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel according to every nation and source. It must say proclaimed or disputed.

It should also be mentioned in the first paragraph that Jerusalem, or East Jerusalem is the internationally recognized capitol of the future palestinian state.

Both are important facts that have numerous reliable sources and should be clearly stated for the reader in the first paragraph. Bulgarwheat (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well we agree on one thing, Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel. It is in fact the capital of Israel though and plenty of sources showing this exist. Why exactly must disputed or proclaimed be used before mentioning capital? If your concern is neutrality which i do not accept is a problem, then surely saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. In 1949 Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital but the international community does not recognise its status." would solve that problem? This is why i dont think any change is needed, because the regulars and SPAs will still not be happy and demand more change which is not justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, I think we can take some ideas from other wikipedias. I was wondering how this article is treated in other wikis. Take a look at the French Wiki < Jerusalem... is a city of Middle Est. Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its -eternal Capital - since 1949, designation that is not recognized by any member of the international community. The plestinian authority hopes by its side to make Est Jerusalam ( considered by UN as an occupied territory )the capital of a future palestinian state.> But I don t know how to create a beautiful introduction with all that stuff... We can say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel since its declaration in 1949 but none of the international community has recognized it... what do you think ? By the way, I think that the first sentence must end with is a city of middle east. That help us to introduce the second sentence -the most discussed- clearly. --Helmoony (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Id be prepared to support (if it resolves this dispute and editors are prepared to defend the wording in future) : "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized. When including East Jerusalem, its Israel's largest city[1] in both population and area,[2] with a population of 763,800 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[3][4][iv] Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond the boundaries of the Old City. That would address those with genuine concerns about the introduction and also mean we dont have to start removing bits from the paragraph on status which flows well. Although i still do not think a change is needed when there is a whole paragraph on this, especially as it appears some will still not be happy even if we compromised with wording like that and when this has been the wording for 3 years, most of that time i presume without tags claiming its not neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I object BritishWatchers unneutral suggestion as it suggests that the city is the capital of Israel. This is enough and neutral for an introduction: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East. Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, but this is not recognized by any member of the international community. The Palestinian authority hopes to make East Jerusalem (considered by UN as an occupied territory)the capital of a future palestinian state." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How is that not neutral? That proposal states a fact, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but the international community doesnt recognise that. My wording should completely address your concern.. but oh no, even that major compromise on the present wording is not enough which is why ive said from the start i didnt think a change was needed, when its obvious some wouldnt accept any reasonable compromse. The Palestinian state bit belongs in the status paragraph and oh look its there. Some potential future use of Jerusalem is not as important as the fact its the capital of Israel and the size/main information about its location. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe to you it is a "fact" that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", but not to the entire international community. Why create our own "wiki reality" here? We can ad "proclaimed" or "unrecognized" before, which doesn't contradict if you believe its the capital of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It is fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that it has not been internationally recognised. So i do not see how you can object to the proposed wording i said. It addresses the claimed "Neutrality concerns" people have. If Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok guys, let s work step by step to find a compromise. Is there any objection to change the first sentence in < Jerusalem ... is a city in the Middle East. > Then the second one will begin like this < It is the capital ... > or < Jeruslame is the capital ... >. Can we work step by step ? --Helmoony (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If it brings about stability and editors who oppose the present wording are prepared to defend such a change, id accept: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East and the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized." Or "although its status has not been internationally recognized". BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, in my previous suggestion we can remove the last part so: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East. Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, but this is not recognized by any member of the international community." do you accept this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No i strongly oppose that. All that tells me is Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, it does not tell me it is infact Israels capital, serving as their seat of power like other country's capitals do. The fact the East Jerusalm article can say Palestinians have proclaimed it their capital too, shows that is simply not good enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but jerusalem is not the capital according to all reliable sources. Israeli and Jewish sources are not reliable in this instance because naturally they would push a pro israel pov. Bulgarwheat (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA world factbook, a source used for a huge amount of information on wikipedia, says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm really impressed that this current discussion has been going on for almost two months now and without an edit war :P Nice. Hmm, looks like we are getting somewhere . . .maybe! I'm tempted by the version of Sean's suggestion BW has offered but we still have the minority view "Israel is the capital" and then the majority explanation as opposed to "Israel is the proclaimed capital" and then the minority explanation. I propose we all adjourn to the pub and come back after 2-11 pints when we are at our best. Sol (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the international community does not recognise this fact. If we have to change this introduction it seems like a reasonable compromise. I still continue to strongly oppose "Israel is the proclaimed capital". That is highly problematic and an extremely controversial alteration to long standing wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that the majority view does not see Israel as the capital but BW wants the recognition that it has the seat of power what about "Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government but it is not internationally recognized as the capital." That fulfills both of those requirements and now the footnote makes sense as it's directly expanding on the information it's linked to instead of containing introducing new facts. Sol (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I strongly oppose changing the wording to that. I have suggested a compromise that addresses the claimed concern about the sentence, but oh no.. its not enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sol Goldstones suggestion is good. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If you think changing "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to ""Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government but it is not internationally recognized as the capital" will satisfy many editors who have supported and continue to support the status quo then you are having a laugh. If a reasonable compromise is not possible then the status quo which has lasted for 3 years should remain. Id rather that silly tag remain in the article than change it to an awful sentence like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If the choice is between a sentence that is not true for 99.5% of the world and a sentence that is slightly awkward I think we go for the slightly awkward sentence. You objected on the grounds that SD's wording didn't tell you that the seat of power was in Jerusalem. This does while still sticking to the majority view that it's not the capital. The problem with saying "Jerusalem is the capital" is that the UN and the member nations have rejected any laws passed by Israel changing the status of the area and the Jerusalem Law explicitly. To say "Jerusalem is the capital" is to say "we are going to legitimize something the rest of the world rejects" It sure looks like a capital but everyone ignores that (as a side note, more of them could do me the favor of saying why exactly and scholars don't seem to much care). Sol (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
But it is true, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it is fact. It is also fact that the international community does not officially recognise Jerusalems status. I believe the present introduction is perfectly neutral as there is a whole paragraph on the status. But i suggested a change to the first sentence, which clearly mentions the international view.. but its simply not enough for people. There for the status quo which has lasted for 3 years seems to be the best course. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Take this example at Republic of China. "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, is a state in East Asia located off the east coast of mainland China. Subject to an ongoing dispute with the People's Republic of China (PRC) that has left it with limited formal diplomatic relations, the government of the Republic of China currently governs the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and other minor islands."

The objection to my suggestion is it places "Israels position" (which is fact because it serves as their capital, what is their capital if Jerusalem is not its capital?) first and said the international official position second. Well the above states reality first and then in the second sentence mentioned it has limited diplomatic relations. (Which is just with 23 countries). So the overwhelming majority of countries on this planet dont officially recognise Taiwan is a state, yet its not mentioned until the second sentence. And rightly so because it states the obvious first before going onto "official recognition" which is a secondary issue to what the actual entity is or serves as. Country's go to war all the time and do not bother to officially declare themselves at war with another nation. Should that lack of "official declaration" cause us to add caveats to articles on wars? "The... was an (Unofficial) war in..." I do not think so.

And on the specifics of Taiwan, lets look at what their capital article says.

"Taipei City (traditional Chinese: 臺北市; simplified Chinese: 台北市pinyin: Táiběi Shì; literally "Northern Taiwan City") is the largest city of Taiwan and the capital of the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan"). The entire introduction makes no mention of the fact that most of the world does not officially recognise them as an independent sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BW's suggestion in his comment (21:49) would bring this article in-line with the current wording of the Israel article, where we had a long RFC and ended up using that wording. While it's still not correct from a policy point-of-view, it's better than the current wording. Concerning Taiwan, wikipedia is not a source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Would something like that be neutral enough for the tag to be removed and for you to support it as the consensus and as a stable version in case it all comes up again? Because there is not much point in a compromise on this if someone else in a months time is going to come here and demand it changed again and we go through all of this again, causing instability. It seems like the middle ground between the two views in my opinion, and you make a good point about it basically being the wording in the introduction of the Israel article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input BW. We have reached a point where your stonewalling is not allowing consensus to be reached.

We know your minority view position. We also know that the false and non neutral Israeli view cannot remain.

Therefore I am asking those of us in the majority to come to an agreement on whether we are going to use proclaimed or disputed for the identifyer of Jerusalem and if we should include that jerusalem is the recognized capital of the future palestinian state.

BW, i hate to put you aside, but it is clear you are being disruptive in this discussion on how to take away the pov and make the intrro neutral. 108.116.98.211 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you Supreme Deliciousness? Ive suggested a compromise wording which addresses the issue of the status of Jerusalem. That seems like a reasonable compromise and the middle ground from the current wording which has its supporters and those who want to add proclaimed or disputed to before Jerusalem. Those demanding that be added are also preventing a consensus from forming. Several editors have explained the problem with "proclaimed". BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the IP is not me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
agh ok sorry. How do you feel about the compromise i suggested: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East and the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized.". I know you would rather we said proclaimed capital of Israel, but several editors have clearly said they oppose that and i cant see how there will be consensus to go from simply "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to proclaimed capital not recognised by the international community. Saying it is the capital of Israel and not recognised by the international community is in line with what is said in the Israel introduction and its the middle ground. It addresses editors concerns about the international view not being mentioned, by clearly stating it in the first sentence, and it recognises the concern those supporting the status quo have about the "proclaimed" bit being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Or with ",although its status has not been internationally recognized." BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I cant endorse anything that say that its the "capital of Israel" as its against the international community view. How about: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East that Israel has declared its capital, although this has not been internationally recognized.". ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"Israel has declared its capital" does not tell the full story. It is the capital of Israel, that is fact, but the international community do not officially recognise this. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is like the Taiwan example i mentioned early. The first sentence says it is a state, then it goes on to say that it has limited international recognition. The proposed wording i suggested deals with te claim we ignore the international communities view, although personally i still think its fine that we only mention the status in full in the paragraph within the introduction, and not the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I have an idea. How about if we have the article on Elvis Presley say, "Elvis is proclaimed to be dead." The article on the Holocaust could say, "The Holocaust is proclaimed to have happened." The article on Earth to say, "The Earth is proclaimed to be round." etc. Every indisputable fact that is denied by bigots and pseudo-historians can have the word "proclaimed" next to it. Would that be a fair compromise? --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
But an RS like CIA don't say "Elvis is proclaimed to be dead.", "The Holocaust is proclaimed to have happened." and "The Earth is proclaimed to be round" but they do say here File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map .jpg, "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the United States, like nearly all other countries, retains its Embassy in Tel Aviv". It's from a government agency of Israel's closest ally. There is a difference. It isn't a problem that there's a difference between these cases. That's just how it is. There's no reason to ignore it or talk about bigots and pseudo-historians. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Compromise on the first sentence

How do other editors who have previously commented feel about changing the first sentence wording to..

"Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East and the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized." or ",although its status has not been internationally recognized".

I think this is a reasonable compromise that meets people on both sides of the debate half way. We address concerns editors had that the first paragraph did not mention the international view, at the same time we avoid using a term like "proclaimed capital" which several editors have clearly stated they oppose and which would be a radical shift from the current wording which has existed for a few years that has simply stated "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the "compromise" in your suggestion is when it still says "capital of Israel", which people object to. My suggestion above: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East that Israel has declared its capital, although this has not been internationally recognized." have both the Israeli minority view and the international community view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The compromise is it clearly includes the fact the international community does not recognize its status as capital. That is what some editors were concerned about. This is a big change from the present wording which has stood for 3 years, that simply says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. "Israel has declared its capital" is not clear enough about the fact Jerusalem is infact the capital of the Israeli state and serves as it. People can make all sorts of declarations, "Israel has declared its capital" is pretty much the same as "Proclaimed capital" which editors have expressed concerns about. We both know our views though, lets see how others feel.. many have commented at some point in this debate but have not done so for awhile. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's the problem from my standpoint, and it is (IMHO), a somewhat stupid problem: if most of the world denies that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel how can I (we, whatever) maintain it's the capital? Further explanations aside, the statement itself is patently false to all but one country. It's not about where the seat of government is; if that were the only issue this problem wouldn't exist. It's not that Israel doesn't have enough centers of power there to satisfy some non-existent international definition of what a capital is, it's that other countries just don't, in the face of what there is to the contrary, recognize it. That's the deal. It's stupid as they all should have just not recognized the city as Israeli territory (which is the only reason they could give to justify interfering in domestic issues, but I digress). Given the pictures of the Knesset, the multiple references to the other seats of government in the city and the overwhelming references to Israeli government in the article, I don't think anyone is going to be mislead about where the business of administration happens. "proclaimed capital" fits the bill and doesn't open the article with something not true to anyone not living in Israel. On the plus side, the Israeli perspective gets to keep the "Israel" cats, flag and no mention of the Palestinian claim. If it were up to me Jerusalem would be whatever it takes for people to stop fighting over it. But it's not. So that's the problem. Sol (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
On the plus side it has definitely been internationally recognized as a city in the Middle East so that is clear. On it being the capital and us saying that, it's true that 40 sources were brought that said it wasn't but it's trivial to bring 40 sources that say it is. If I recall correctly someone, GHcool maybe, did just that. Perhaps not 40 but there were many run of the mill, uncontroversial sources that simply said it was the capital flat out without bothering to elaborate. Maybe they are all technically wrong/dumbed down/use unspecified assumptions about words etc, maybe not, but they say what they say just like the sources that say it isn't the capital. As long as 'the capital of Israel' is immediately followed by something that acknowledges the wave–particle duality-like nature of its capitalness I think we can justifiably say 'the capital of Israel' but it really has to be immediately followed by the recognition clarification. I think either of the proposals are fine with or without the declared/proclaimed although I would prefer with declared/proclaimed for reasons that have already been gone over. I don't think "is infact the capital of the Israeli state and serves as it" means anything and this is where we always go wrong in these discussions. Those kind of statements are based on the notion that the speaker knows what "the capital" means. It shouldn't matter to us what it means, it means all sorts of things and that's fine. It's just about what the sources have to say on the matter which doesn't depend on what 'a capital' actually is. I also don't think the number of countries that say it is vs the number of countries that say it isn't are relevant to NPOV. It's what the sources say that matters. Plenty of sources say it is the capital and plenty of sources say it isn't the capital. For interest, see the very first version of this article which lasted several months in those halcyon days when Wikipedia was just meadows. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
We need to come to a compromise though. Several editors have stated very clearly they strongly oppose changing to something like "proclaimed capital" because that term fails to properly explain the situation. Some want proclaimed before Jerusalem, some do not think the articles text which has existed for 3 years needs to be changed and its been defended and kept on several occasions by many different editors. The proposal is the middle ground, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because the Israeli state treats it as such, sovereign states have the right to declare their own capitals and no one has provided anything saying that is not the case. But the proposal would also clearly state that the international community does not recognise it, which i thought was peoples concern. Every country as far as im aware has a capital, if Jerusalem is not Israel's capital, what is? Plenty of sources rather than saying "Jerusalem is not the capital", simply say is not recognised as the capital by the international community... there is a difference. You say people wont be misled about where the business of administration happens because of the rest of the article, but the same can be said about the status of Jerusalem because it is mentioned in detail in the introduction and article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not the middle ground. It deals with placing the minority view in the opening sentence by keeping the minority view in the opening sentence. The middle ground is "proclaimed/disputed"; on the other end of the spectrum would be "Jerusalem is the Capital of the State of Palestine, currently under Israeli occupation." It's not a question of verifiability its a question of undue weight; no one else agrees with Israel. More countries recognize East J'Lem as the capital of the State of Palestine (however they define that) then recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
Let's be really, really clear here; what's historically called "Jerusalem" and the Israeli municipal district known as Jerusalem are not all part of Israel. If this article is about the city of Jerusalem (the Old City, the Temple Mount, everything once occupied by Jordan included) then it's the proclaimed capital as Israel is including part of the city that they definitely don't own and you could argue giving Palestine equal billing on the lead sentence removing the "Israel" cats, and all the other Israeli territory markers. I'm pretty sure that's what this article is about and I really, really don't want to go in that direction beyond putting a "proclaimed" in front of capital. If it's only talking about the pre-67 areas of Jerusalem then I don't have a problem with "capital" but now the references to the Old City don't make sense. Sol (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
No the "proclaimed capital" is on one side because it is strongly opposed by several editors as the previous debates and recent ones have shown where reasons have been given. The other side is keep the status quo, there is no reason for any change to the introduction with the first paragraph simply saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (which has lasted for 3 years). The middle ground is saying its the capital but it is not recognised internationally which deals with the concerns about not giving the international view along with concerns about use of proclaimed. Its the middle ground, not ideal but a reasonable compromise in my opinion that some on each side will probably not support. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The current wording with the note is already the result of a compromise after several very long discussions. It's a shame that the same editors who pretend to agree to a compromise when they think they can't get something more to their liking, return every couple of months to try their luck again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This compromise would align the text with what we agreed on Israel after a long discussion and I'd be OK with that. It's not perfect, but much better than the current wording. For my part, I'd be OK with removing the tag and can promise to not raise the issue again or push another version for a long time if it's adopted. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the "I won't push for another version for a long time" trick from the Israel article. You can ask some of the editors who participated in that discussion and agreed to the "compromise" how they liked the result in the long run. Anyway, the current wording is already a compromise after a long discussion. I don't think it needs to be changed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East and the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized." Actually I am with this compromise... because it s called a compromise ;) ! More seriously that sentence gives the right to any country to choose his capital without any need to ask any cpountry what capital to choose and in the same time it directly gives us a useful information for an article dealing with a capital which is no one recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Israelis. I think that it s the only capital of the world that is not recognized internationally. Which gives the information relevant to add in the forst sentence. So, I join my voice for that compromise. --Helmoony (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing to compromise. The view of the entire world (minus one country) and the majority of available sources state that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/disputed capital. So that is what we must write. SyrianKing (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that change to a better wording is better than keeping a clearly wrong formulation. NMMNG, I don't know what "trick" you're referring to but I refrained as agreed from even discussing the capital issue on Israel for a long time. The reason we're now having this discussion is that Shuki (IIRC) refused to apply the agreement to this page, saying that the issue is somehow different on this page as opposed to Israel... --Dailycare (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I like ",although its status as capital has not been internationally recognized". --GHcool (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we make the change? It will be not usefull if after all this discussion we don t move on. What do you think? Do we have a compromise to enhance the first sentence? --Helmoony (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess we should show that this talk page do have a purpose. BW compromise is constructive. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't read all of this, skimmed really. Israel does have some recognition in the international community, and by no means is it required every nation recognize a state for that state to be considered legitimate. So, if a recognized government declares its capital Jerusalem, occupied or not, that is the legal capital of that nation. The compromise is more than fair. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sears, William (1961). Thief in the Night. London: George Ronald. ISBN 0-85398-008-X. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |publisher= at position 7 (help)
  2. ^ Taherzadeh, Adib (1976). The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 1: Baghdad 1853-63. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. p. 306. ISBN 0-85398-270-8.
  3. ^ [Quran []]
  4. ^ Bowen, George E. (April 3, 2001). "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus". Patrick S. O'Brien on the University of Tennessee server. Retrieved 2006-11-12. Three historic churches and monasteries are within the city. Just outside the city is the location of the Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque, the third holiest place for Muslims in the world.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_11&oldid=1136841283"