Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Re-floating an old idea

Way back in this thread I suggested reframing the opening paragraph so that it went something like this:

Jerusalem is an ancient Middle Eastern city which has played a major role in the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all of which have important holy sites there. The city has been fought over many times, notably during the Crusades. Most recently it has formed one of the central issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In its 1947 partition plan, the United Nations had intended the final fate of Jerusalem to be dealt with separately from the establishment of Jewish and Arab states in mandate Palestine. The city was to be administered as a corpus seperatum independent of either state. However, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War resulted in the city being divided with Transjordan gaining control of most of the Eastern part of the city, including the holy sites of the old city, and Israel holding modern West Jerusalem where it established its capital. Israel took the remainder of the city in 1967 as a result of the Six Day War. It has declared the whole city its "complete and united" capital but this claim is opposed internationally with the United Nations Security Council having resolved that the Jerusalem Law which asserted this claim is "null and void", and with most states maintaining their embassies in Tel Aviv. Meanwhile the Palestinians have declared East Jerusalem as the capital of their intended State of Palestine...

My feeling is that the current opening represents suffers from WP:RECENTISM and that, like Rome, Jerusalem is more important for its past than its present and that further it is this historic significance that makes its present quite such a knotty problem. Having said that, I do still include quite a lot of the present there but at least the religious dimension gets in first, as does the notion that it is ancient and that the current dispute isn't the first one over the city. In the previous discussion, Okedem was the person who was most set against it, Nableezy wanted some tweaks and David Tombe was quite enthisiastic. There has been a fair churn in who is active here, so I wonder what the present editors here think.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go rocking that particular boat here again. It took months of effort, repeatedly, with copious, nearly interminable and often acrimonious discussions, to achieve the existing wording and structure. Its balance, whatever you may think of it, has been stable and is functioning. The re-floated "old idea" probably failed to take hold because of inherent problems, not simply because of which editors were active in the last round of discussions or prior to that. Contrary to your expressed desire to avoid "recentism", your proposed opening is skewed almost entirely toward emphasis on current (1947-2011) conflicts, as if the essence of the city was those issues. A lead should most of all tell what a city is, which is the case with the existing opening, and even the case in the article on Rome. I fail to see any neglect of Jerusalem's rich and long history in the article or in the lead section. If indeed "Jerusalem is more important for its past than its present", its past, and the significance of that past for the present, is well covered. I counsel leaving well enough alone. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of crucifixion

This 'Friday, April 3rd, 33' shouldn't be there, since it is only Newton's guess, and certainly the putative date is not indicated in the New Testament. Sandars has a long discussion on the various possibilities broached over the centuries. It should be removed.Nishidani (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The way the lede is now, it seems to state that the New Testament actually makes a claim for that particular date, when it does not. Also, the date of the crucifixion is the subject of disagreement among scholars. Generally the date is given of somewhere between 33 and 35, but some have gone as far back as 30. 30 is definitely a stretch, but, at any rate, the lede is a bit inaccurate as-is. I might also question the accuracy of the clause stating that Jerusalem became a holy city in Christianity at the crucifixion. Obviously, Christianity was not around to regard the city as holy until the first century CE, but it seems to me that Christian theology considers the city holy as far back as Judaism does. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note on lead language

If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city[1] in both population and area,[

I don't want to set the pigeons in the dovecotes flying, but that is problematic, as experienced editors on all sides should recognize and I suggest we all try to adjust it slightly. My suggestion is to make it all conditional, as the if clause allows us to. I.e.

(A)If the area and population of East Jerusalem were included, it would be the largest city, in both population and area, under Israel's administration,[

(b)Were East Jerusalem, which Israel administersm to be incorporated into Israel, it would be Israel's largest city

Etc. Those two give the idea, but neither is very satisfactory, because the Western part is not 'administered by Israel' but is an integral and inalienable part of the state of Israel, something which cannot be said of East Jerusalem, which is administered by Israel, considered by Israel annexed, but not accepted as being, according to modern international law re state formation, as our sentence says, part of an Israeli city.

I'm not going to change it. I don't want a huge repeat of the technical debates. I won't even participate if one opens up, and strongly recommend people not to do that- I am just asking for creative solutions to iron out a rather ambiguous phrasing. It's a 14 piper problem, and may need some weeks of grammatical tinkering to get right.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. A possible change:

If the area and population of East Jerusalem, under Israeli administration, is included, it is the largest city in both Israel and the West Bank.

Not sure it needs say "area and population" twice. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed the reduplication is not needed. Not a bad suggestion, Michael. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to see agreement, thanks. Maybe a little time, a day or even less, to see if there are other thoughts, before changing. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I always think in terms of a few weeks. Edits to consolidated leads need full imput and extensive reflection, even by individual editors, before they are made, unless the problem is self-evident. I'd like a quorum of at least 10. I'd also like at the end to see if Hertz1800 gives us the go-ahead.Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How about "Jerusalem is the largest city under Israel control"? This is since technically West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israeli territory either, although there exists consensus that if a peace deal is concluded based on the '67 lines, WJ would then become Israeli. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Umar

"When led to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site for Christians, the caliph Umar refused to pray in the church so that Muslims would not request converting the church to a mosque." I am fairly sure I was told this has no basis in historical record, either by the tour guide, or from reading an informative notice by the Mosque of Umar. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

East Jerusalem map

The vectorized East Jerusalem map in this article has two problems:

• Some of the place names are in Spanish.
• Many neighborhoods, villages and settlements are missing.

I propose to reinstate the original jpg map until an appropriate vectorized map is provided.--84.108.213.97 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Armenian Quarter

Does anybody know why the Armenians have their own quarter in Jerusalem, when they are a Christian denomination?--Splashen (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone knows. – SJ + 03:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly one sided- pro islamic lines.

"The international community has rejected the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation.[17][18][19][20] The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies."

First of all, it's 3/4 false, then - it's was clearly written in an unneutral manner. People, be mature enough and replace it with something neutral, as it is suppoused to be, as Wikipedia is intended to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.126.89 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The content is factually accurate, neutral, and it is unrelated to any of the Abrahamic religions. Did you look at the sources cited next to the statements ? Could you provide the reliable source that leads you to believe that it is 3/4 false and not neutral ? I'm curious where you are getting your information from. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

IP, did you have some more neutral wording in mind? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note on lead language

If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city[1] in both population and area,[

I don't want to set the pigeons in the dovecotes flying, but that is problematic, as experienced editors on all sides should recognize and I suggest we all try to adjust it slightly. My suggestion is to make it all conditional, as the if clause allows us to. I.e.

(A)If the area and population of East Jerusalem were included, it would be the largest city, in both population and area, under Israel's administration,[

(b)Were East Jerusalem, which Israel administersm to be incorporated into Israel, it would be Israel's largest city

Etc. Those two give the idea, but neither is very satisfactory, because the Western part is not 'administered by Israel' but is an integral and inalienable part of the state of Israel, something which cannot be said of East Jerusalem, which is administered by Israel, considered by Israel annexed, but not accepted as being, according to modern international law re state formation, as our sentence says, part of an Israeli city.

I'm not going to change it. I don't want a huge repeat of the technical debates. I won't even participate if one opens up, and strongly recommend people not to do that- I am just asking for creative solutions to iron out a rather ambiguous phrasing. It's a 14 piper problem, and may need some weeks of grammatical tinkering to get right.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. A possible change:

If the area and population of East Jerusalem, under Israeli administration, is included, it is the largest city in both Israel and the West Bank.

Not sure it needs say "area and population" twice. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed the reduplication is not needed. Not a bad suggestion, Michael. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to see agreement, thanks. Maybe a little time, a day or even less, to see if there are other thoughts, before changing. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I always think in terms of a few weeks. Edits to consolidated leads need full imput and extensive reflection, even by individual editors, before they are made, unless the problem is self-evident. I'd like a quorum of at least 10. I'd also like at the end to see if Hertz1800 gives us the go-ahead.Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How about "Jerusalem is the largest city under Israel control"? This is since technically West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israeli territory either, although there exists consensus that if a peace deal is concluded based on the '67 lines, WJ would then become Israeli. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion had been languishing, and finally disappeared over the archiving horizon. I brought it back because it is referenced in the new section below proposing a reorganization of the lead (or lede), and in order to comment. It might be timely to incorporate a reworking of this line in that general reorganization. Consistent with Nishidani's expressed desire to adjust the wording "slightly", I propose we say,

With the area and population of East Jerusalem included, it is the largest and most populous Israeli city,[1]

This wording is no more and no less explanatory than at present, keeps the sentence short, dodges the predictably contentious issues of administration vs. control and what is in Israel, and (perhaps best of all), is grammatical. Comments, please. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede: the first three paragraphs

Reading above... "a few weeks" to work out a grammatical problem and active remedies since 2008; I see there are many overlapping sources of contention here :-)

The very beginning of the article could be written more clearly (style, not substance), and with clearer ordering of the different areas in which the city is significant (age, historical, religious significance; modern political significance). That would help highlight them each in turn.

At present the historical and religious significance aren't mentioned in the first paragraph, the Old City is mentioned a few times but not defined in the lede, and the World Heritage Site status is presented in a confusing way [the recognition as a site is more significant than the addition to the endangered list; both suggested by Jordan around the same time]. In addition, footnotes make it hard to read; making it slightly easier, 1+2 could be clustered at the end of the second clause and 6+7 should not be separated by a comma.

(Finally, "home to sites of key religious importance" seems to dramatically understate the unusual magnitude and concentration of holy sites in the Old City, but I couldn't come up with an improvement without unwanted overtones, and would want a citation for a claim that this is globally exceptional.)

Below is a suggested a reorganization of the first three paragraphs to address these issues. Edits and comments welcome.

Current text

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.[iii] If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is 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.

Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions— Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In Judaism, Jerusalem has been the holiest city since, according to the Hebrew Bible, 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.33 C.E.[6],[7] and 300 years later Saint Helena identified the pilgrimage sites of Jesus' life. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city.[8][9] It became the first Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (Salah) in 610 CE,[10] and, according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad made his Night Journey there ten years later.[11][12] As a result, and despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi),[13] the Old City is home to sites of key religious importance, among them the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.

During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[14] The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE, making Jerusalem one of the oldest cities in the world.[15] The old walled city, a World Heritage site, has been traditionally divided into four quarters, although the names used today—the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters—were introduced in the early 19th century.[16] The Old City was nominated for inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger by Jordan in 1982.[17]

Suggested update

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[iii] and one of the oldest cities in the world.[15] It is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city in both population and area,[1][2] with a population of 763,800 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[3][4][iv] Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[14] The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE.[15] In 1538, walls were built around Jerusalem under Suleiman the Magnificent. Today those walls define the Old City which has been traditionally divided into four quarters -- known since the early 19th century as the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters.[16] The Old City became a World Heritage site in 1981, and is on the List of World Heritage in Danger.[17] Modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond its boundaries.

In Judaism, Jerusalem has been the holiest city since, according to the Hebrew Bible, 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.33 C.E.,[6][7] and 300 years later Saint Helena identified the pilgrimage sites of Jesus' life. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city.[8][9] It became the first Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (Salah) in 610 CE,[10] and, according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad made his Night Journey there ten years later.[11][12] As a result, despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi),[13] the Old City is home to sites of key religious importance, among them the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.

– SJ + 23:53, 14 March 2012‎

I can find nothing to object to or further improve upon, and fully endorse your proposed reorganization. Commendably, you seem to have accomplished something hitherto rare here, making major improvements in logical flow and readability without upsetting the established balance and provoking heated debate. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok! Changes applied. I think it looks a bit more balanced now. I also changed "home to sites of key religious importance" to "home to many sites of tremendous religious importance" - not perfect, but less underwhelming. – SJ + 03:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying the audio links in the first word

The parenthesis after the name makes the first sentence hard to read, with two languages + translit. + audio-help-linkspam. Thoughts? – SJ + 00:38, 18 March 2012‎

Current text:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם , Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس , al-Quds)

A simpler option:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds )

Then you can include the inline-audio template elsewhere in the article to provide help/info links if necessary.

Looks to me like a logical, cost-free way to smoother reading. No one has objected; why not go ahead. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. – SJ + 02:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Endnotes

The first two endnotes should apparently be linked after the url for the city's website and after the pronunciation in the lede sentence, but are not - right now neither is actually referenced in the body text. I'm inclined to put them back, if there is no objection. – SJ + 07:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Please make them work properly again. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost done.

Pushing more detail out to detailed articles

This page really takes a long time to load, when reading on a slow connection or when one has to edit more than a section at once! Have there been discussions about further delegating more information to the detail articles? Of course then I look at {{jerusalem large}} and think about how much is already being left out :-) – SJ + 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it turns out the slowness was actually a server-wide problem, most notably for large, old articles: from the village pump. – SJ + 08:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's too big

180 000 bytes. My laptop have problems with it.--Ezzex (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This needs working

In Judaism, Jerusalem has been the holiest city since, according to the Hebrew Bible, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c.1000 BCE,

Really? so where in the Tanakh did Jerusalem become 'the holiest city' after David negotiated with the Jebusites, and where in the Bible is the date c.1000 BCE. Precisely because everyone 'recognizes' what the sentence is supposed to mean, no one seems to notice that it is extremely clumsy. Leads deserve better, more accurate, writing, and claims require good RS backing- Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The low quality quote-farm that passes as a reference for this in the article is really unacceptable. This article is not a place for pious pronouncements and Michael Bard nonsense. Where is the scholarly article that traces what is really known about the history of the sanctity of Jerusalem? Zero^talk 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Caliph Umar

There is a Dubious tag, but I don't see any discussion. I assume the Dubious tag is intended to refer to the somewhat propagandish nature of the not-praying-in-the-church story.

I found a citation. Gibbon doesn't seem like a patently dubious source. I'm tempted to take down the Dubious tag, but for the residual qualms about this anecdote straying too far from the main topic, which here means the history of a city. Wcoole (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Gibbon is a bit dated, but he is reporting a real tradition. I don't think we should present it as a fact though, it is just one of hundreds of cute stories that have a life of their own. Khalidi reports it like this: "Thus, the Caliph 'Umar is reputed to have prayed outside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to prevent later generations of Muslims from seizing the church itself-and fanciful though the story may be, the Muslims did leave the church in Christian hands, even after the Crusades, when the Haram was taken over" (The Future of Arab Jerusalem, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1992), pp. 133-143.) From another article I read that the British liked to repeat this story after they took Jerusalem in 1917. Zero^talk 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't have a 'dubious tag', unless several RS say so. Steven Runciman showcases the story as the incipit of his History of the Crusades (vol.1, 1951 pp.3-5) in a narrative voice that assumes it is truthful, adding that the tale reflects the terms agreed on for the city's surrender (which has other sources). The story itself was conserved by Christians, some centuries later, among them: Eutychius, Michael the Syrian and Elias of Nisibin (see the German wiki). The many sources conserving the story are summarized in Hugues Vincent, F. M. Abel, Jérusalem Nouvelle, 1914 tome 2, pp.930-932.

Almost no data preceding the invention of printed books can be taken at face value, and ancient 'facts' are thus, technically, all subject to 'dubious'. One could emblazon dubious on virtually every paragraph of every wiki article dealing with details conserved in the Tanakh/Bible and the New Testament. We don't. So, the question is, does our narrative voice follow someone like Runciman, who just relates the story as an event, or get, uniquely, hyper-critical about its truth-claim because it is favourable to Arabs?Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We can use one of your references as better than Gibbons. But can we write it like "The Caliph 'Umar is reputed to have..."? Zero^talk 11:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like: 'In/according to (Christian-Arab) tradition'?

Those writers used Arabic records and sources in related languages like Syriac. I prefer 'in' to 'according to' since wiki prose abuses that, almost never varying the tedium. . It's still a notable concession. All Roman history for 5 centuries, based on Livy and co., is as suspect as Thucydides' speeches. Early Roman history, as Dumézil used to say, is Indo-european myth historicized. Technically, we know almost as little of Alexander the Great, despite a few key facts and dates, as we do of JC, though we have numerous, sometimes, detailed accounts of the former's life. I'm all for strict criteria on things like this, but note the principle is observed in the breach almost everywhere here. As tro the Biblical narrative, it's as if we wrote the early history of the Mediterranean according to the Odyssey, or North Anatolian history according to the Iliad. Stiff upper lip and all that. I guess anyone can make the edit, and remove 'dubious' at least.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reporting it as a tradition is fine with me. Zero^talk 14:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem population today is 933113 And it's expected to reach the one million in the end of this year (2012)

Evidance : http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/341/684.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterjohn1881 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Future skyline

The Jerusalem Municipality is approving the construction of multiple skyscrapers and high-rise buildings, which will completely change the face of the city. Where would be a good place within this article that I could put it in?--RM (Be my friend) 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Capital

Tiamet recently amended the lead to read:-

• Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, is Israel's designated capital, though it is not interntionally recognized as such.

This was reverted to the original without the "designated". I actually think Tiamut's wording is better in terms of NPOV and neutral language. The current wording gives undue weight to the minority position, which is Israel's. Dlv999 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "minority position" that countries get to choose their own capitals, where the government institutions are. No one else has a say in the matter. Wikipedia editors don't get to rewrite the dictionary. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem aren't recognized as being in the same country, so the "countries get to choose their own capitals" argument doesn't work. Anyhow, we've had this discussion too many times, it's unlikely to be resolved this time. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't party to the prior discussions, but I find Tiamut's formulation to be preferable because it does not privilege the (minority) Israeli position, over the (majority) position of the international community. Incidently what promted me to take a look at the article, was this correction printed in The Guardian,

• "The caption on a photograph featuring passengers on a tram in Jerusalem observing a two-minute silence for Yom HaShoah, a day of remembrance for the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, wrongly referred to the city as the Israeli capital. The Guardian style guide states: "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; Tel Aviv is" (Eyewitness, 20 April, page 24)."[1]

So this is not a matter of editors rewriting the dictionary. The point is that considering the International community does not acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and international news media categorically report that it isn't Israel's capital, why are we reporting it as a fact in the Wikipedia voice given our NPOV policy? Dlv999 (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of language. Hertz is correct that countries choose their own capitals, and this is not a 'minority position'. He is incorrect to think that defining territory beyond one's frontier as part of one's capital is not a fringe position, espoused only by Israel.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent change

I reverted the recent reorganization of the lead for the following reasons:

• There's no reason to put the religious status of the city as the first sentence in the lead. It is inconsistent with articles about other cities, including holy ones, e.g Mecca, Qom or Varanasi. The first sentence is always location and political status.
• Changing the wording about the capital without discussion, after so many discussions and RfCs (in which the editor who changed it now also participated) is pretty bad form.
• Not clear why the University (one of the top 100 universities in the world), Shrine of the Book, etc were removed.
• Prepending "while the city hosts no foreign embassies" to the bit about all branches of the Israeli government being there is a. likely SYNTH (where's the source connecting the two?), b. since when are embassies part of the host country's "branches of government" that the two need to be connected in the same sentence in the first place?

We can start with these. More later, maybe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree if someone whant to change the lead he should start a new RFC.--Shrike (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I find these unilateral amendments, after countless discussions as well as RFCs in which the editor participated, to be highly disruptive. Nothing has changed following these discussions and no new arguments have been advanced.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not "disruptive" to attempt good faith improvements to the encyclopedia. I would ask editors to maintain assumptions of good faith. An edit was made, it was reverted, now we work to reach a consensus to move forward - no need for melodrama and accusatory comments. Dlv999 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Source in Resource exhange

dlv999 has asked for the source there if anyone else is interested the source is here [2]--Shrike (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Urshalim

Urshalim is an official name of the city, used in the form Urshalim-Al Quds by the Israeli government. It is also the name used in Arabic versions of the Bible. If you're reading this, you will know the incredibly high importance that the Israeli state, the Arabic language, and the Bible have in the area. Could this name therefore be added to the introduction/infobox? Any opposition? Wigiz (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to lack of opposition, I have added Urshalim to the top. I also added the Russian and Armenian names to the footnotes: Armenian is significant due to the existence of the Armenian quarter, and Russian due to the large-scale CIS immigration. Wigiz (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Apropos WP:SYNTH problems

In Judaism, Jerusalem has been the holiest city since, according to the Hebrew Bible, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c.1000 BCE, and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city.

(a) you don't need to quote seven books to document the fact that Jerusalem has played a germinal role in Jewish consciousness for millenia. It smacks of nervouis hypersensitivity to some imagined idea no one accepts the obvious and therefore it has to be drummed into them. Definitely not what GA or FA aspiring articles should have.

(b) 3 or 4 or the sources are dubious, or trashy, in any case for a page like this.

(c) The central contention that these sources are adduced for, is simply not represented in the 7 books cited in note 9. That contention 'Jerusalem has been the holiest city since, according to the Tanakh, King David of Israel first ..'etc. is nowhere evidenced in those sources. Indeed it is, as it stands, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH combined into one. As well as, uh, being untrue. The Tanakh's drafting as you all know reflects intense rabbinical interests and concerns 6-3centuries BCE. The status of Jerusalem as the holiest city, transformed from the Jebus which was the 'alien' or 'city of strangers' into a holy city into ir ha-qodesh must have occurred somewhere after the mythistorical event of David's possession, and the period when the relevant sections alluding to its status were drafted.

So, I am suggesting, if the sentence which is so far unsupported, is to stand, someone get a strong RS (no tourist guides, or blurby government handouts, or generic books please) fixing the point at which this sanctification became normative, and trumped, say, Hebron.

I hope we can be uncontroversial about this. It seems to be a matter of commonsense, and an interesting point in the history of Judaism to pin such an important elevation of the city down with philological precision. Thoughts? Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the problem is are you saying that Bible doesn't say that" King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c.1000 BCE, and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city."?--Shrike (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think changing it from "In Judaism" to "In Jewish tradition" should solve the problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with with the change suggested by NMMNG, using the term "Judaism" for the early period is not entirely accurate. To address Nishidani's more substantive point I don't think you are going to get an exact date when Jerusalem was "sanctified" as the holiest city over and above all others, the change happened over a period of time. Lee I. Levine writes, "The prominence of Jerusalem in the first millennium BCE did not emerge overnight; it was the result of a long and complex process to which both internal and external developments contributed significantly. By the end of this period, in the first century CE, the city had become the hub of Jewish life, hosting every important national institution and socio-religious group. The change from a totally peripheral role to one of absolute centrality is reflected in the following two sources, themselves separated by a millennium. The first is from Genesis 14:17–20..."[3] Dlv999 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Judaism didn't exist before the 6th century BCE. Judaism didn't exist in David's day. Even Solomon's terraced gardens are interpreted by modern criticism as poetic descriptions influenced by Babylonian and Assyrian descriptions of royal horticultural landscapes centuries later (b) The sources don't support the statement. (c) cliches about 3 millenia won't do. They belong the travelogues, popular myth, and political discourse. Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why it should say "in Jewish tradition" and not "in Judaism". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I made this change (and the same to Christian and Muslim), since noone else did. I should note however that I agree with Nishidani that it is still not technically correct, as it is mixing up the Mosaic religion of the Israelites and the later Judaism of the Jews. This confusion is a problem across wikipedia, so I don't think it can be solved easily here. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem's NPoV country

Writing Historical development of Church of England dioceses#Colonial dioceses, I am listing a diocese's country next to it. What should one list as Jerusalem's "country"? Israel/Palestine? Can you help me, Jerusalem experts? DBD 23:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would use whatever designation the Church of England uses. If it doesn't use any, leave it unspecified, as it is at the moment. Perhaps, though, Jerusalem shouldn't be being listed as a 'colonial' diocese?     ←   ZScarpia   15:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Unesco lists Jerusalem as not being in any country currently, and this is in-line with the official positions of many countries, including the United States. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"null and void" does not equate with successful de jure annexation

Partial revert by Hertz1888 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=499571659&oldid=499561809

From existing article source: 21 http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch12.pdf "In a resolution adopted on 1 December 2000, the Assembly determined that the decision of Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem was illegal and, therefore, null and void." Being "null and void" does not equate with a successful annexation. Readers should be fully informed of the actual de jure status talknic (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's apparently not entirely clear that there was an annexation. See Ian Lustick's article here for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it might be prudent to check on whether the UNGA makes international law. (I don't think they do). Because they say something is illegal doesn't necessarily make it illegal. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hertz1888 -- Uh? I believe year 2000 is after 1968 and UNSC Res 252.

UNGA resolutions can and do remind parties of International Law, the UN Charter, International Conventions, Conventions (according to ratification), all binding, and; UNSC resolutions, binding on UN Member States to whom their content is directed. In 2000 UNGA adopted a resolution to remind the parties concerned of the preceding UN Security Council Resolutions, being : 252 May 21 1968, 267 July 3 1969, 271 September 15 1969, 298 September 25 1971, 465 March 1 1980 (the Golan) and; 476 June 30 1980 which again reminds the party of International Law, previous UNSC Resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention by "Reaffirming", "Recalling" & reconfirming

1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Reconfirms all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

talknic (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hertz1888 -- Removal of "UNSC" from "The international community and the UNSC have"
The International Community is not the UNSC. The UNSC only has only 15 representative members. The International Community is the Comity of Nations. It includes states outside the UN.
This can be seen in the order in which states (such as Israel) become UN Members. 1) they declare. 2) they are recognized by the majority of the "comity of nations" (there is no vote, some UN Members don't recognize each other, they are never the less members because a majority of the Comity of Nations first recognized them before they could be recommended by the UNSC). 3) Recommended or not by the UNSC, by a vote, for admission to the UN. 4) Admitted or not by an UNGA vote, as UN Members.
talknic (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Kiryat HaMemshala

Kiryat HaLeom project

the project of Kiryat HaLeom are planned to be finished in 20 years and including the all Government buildings and national institutions in one area. the israeli government signed an agreement with a Dutch architectural firm that will plan the whole area and finis him in 20 years process. At the same time an Israeli architects plans to rebellion of the project of entrance to the city in 5 years that should connect to Kiryat HaLeom from the northern side. a new government buildings that planned: Office of the Prime Minister, National Headquarters of the Israel Police, State Comptroller of Israel building, National Library of Israel, National Archives Building of israel, National Gallery building of Israel, and a building for the Israel guest House. a National boulevard will across the israeli parlament building to the National square including pedestrian streets and many parking spaces

פארוק (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Near Future projects

Two large projects funded by the Israeli government that planned to build on the southern promenade overlooking the Old City walls.

1 =>> World Bible Center - an international research and study of the bible.

2 =>> World Kabbalah Center - a world center to Kabbalah studies, copy of the Rabby Moshe Chaim Luzzatto Synagogue in Italy.

פארוק (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read my edit summary? You are adding material to an article that as 1) unsourced and 2) full of grammatical and other errors. Please read my message I left for you on your talk page and do us the favor of self-reverting. -asad (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant statement in leading sentence

The first sentence of the article states that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." How is the bigoted opinion of a bunch of foreigners important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence? It is a bit of trivia that should be mentioned somewhere further down in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehuditeman (talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yehuditeman - Uh? The following are UNSC resolutions based on the Law and UN Charter all of which existed before Israel was declared or became UN Member state. Israel obliged itself to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law, in their entirety. UNSC res 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 and 478 (1980) 20 August 1980, UNSC Resolution 1860 (2009) -- talknic (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At best, I'd say the contribution is soapboxing, at second best, trolling. With a few more contributions of that type, the user will be exiting the IP area with a boot so far up his arse he'll be smiling toecap.     ←   ZScarpia   22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I too also wonder why Jerusalem's Wikipedia page says AT THE VERY TOP of the page in the VERY first sentence that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel when the White House of the United States does not recognize it as so? If the United States is Israel's closest ally and we do not recognize this to be true, why does this Wikipedia page say this? I donated $100 bucks to Wikipedia because I believed it to be neutral and unbiased towards any religion, political organization or bordered landmass. Yet here I see the very first thing is BLATANT pro-zionist propaganda. This is very disheartening and makes me question if this website has been operationally subverted by zionists.

Make no mistake I am neither pro-islamic, nor pro-jewish. I am neither pro Palestinian nor pro-Israeli. I hate both of these shitbags equally. What I do wonder is if Wikipedia is interested in truth and unbiased logic and rational discourse or if this website has been compromised and is no longer a reliable source of information. (75.181.132.184)

Sorry mate, but the USA does not decide what is or is not Israel's capital just as Israel does not decide what is or is not the USA's capital. Nor is the UN an impartial body, it is merely an amalgamation of the partialities of its members. Since each country decides itself what its capital should be, the current sentence - given its prominence within the article - comes across as rather petty/bitter and reflects badly on Wikipedia. By all means go on to mention that some people in the world do not like the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital however that dislike does not change the fact it is the capital of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.14.8 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The job of editors is to neutrally reflect what reliable sources say on a subject. The Israeli government's position is that countries get to choose their own capitals. The international community reject that in the case of Jerusalem, their position being that no body can unilaterally change the status of that city. If you can't bear not to push the Israeli government's position as anything other than the Israeli government's position, find yourself somewhere else to contribute.     ←   ZScarpia   11:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to talk about politics !

I really do not want to talk about politics. But someone here all the time delete entire rows from the article and replaced them with rows of a state that does not exist yet. and also delet pictures of israel and replace them with pictures of country that does not exist yet. פארוק (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

Here is my proposal for a new lead for this article. It addresses all the concerns raised on this page about the "capital or no capital" status, the issue of Palestinian capitalness, in addition to all the concerns that have been raised over the years. The proposal is from a year-old archive - not surprising since none of the arguments raised on this page so far differ by the slightest jot or tittle from those raised in the past. For that reason, too, this proposal will be seen as unacceptable in the eyes of almost everyone:

--Ravpapa (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree.... its totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ravpapa. I think that is a good starting point, though I am unsure of claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians as their exclusive capital (emphasis added). The Palestinian declaration doesnt do anything like the Jerusalem Law (complete and undivided ...). nableezy - 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It has one great advantage, i.e., that it simply steps out of the, is it, centuries of editwarriorship on the page and looks at the facts most would accept and attempts to synthesize them in a completely fresh rewriting

It is too ambitiously objective (except for the use of 'exclusive' (which I don't think is true of Palestinian claims), unfortunately, RP, so it will be RIP'ed, ahimé. I find commendable the elision of the most obnoxiously tendentious sentence in the lead however, which runs

If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city in both population and area,[2][3] with a population of 801,000 residents[4] over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[

Everything hangs on that if, which is an hypothetical and counterfactual, since East Jerusalem is neither annexed to Israel, nor in Israel except in hasbara discourse. If statements of this kind have no place in a lead. If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt, etc. Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've bolded is, the second of which should be changed without challenge to would be, as per the grammar of if clauses. Unless I get sound grammatical objections, I'll do that in the next day or two.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, annexed should be changed to effectively annexed, and things like after the annexation should be changed to following the 1980 Jerusalem Law. nableezy - 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Exclusive": While it is true that the Palestinians have nothing as obsessive as Israel's "complete and undivided", Palestinians (like just about everyone else) do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which makes their claim exclusive. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess, but I dont see a claim of exclusivity to the city, as a city or a capital, in the Palestinian declaration, even factoring in the rejection of the status as Israeli capital (for now). nableezy - 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When the day comes that the Palestinians reach agreement with the Israelis on where the other guy's capital will be, we can always change it.

As for your argument with "annexed" - I am surprised at you. You have fallen for Israel's cheap propaganda ploy. It is true that the Jerusalem Law and the Foreign ministry assiduously avoid the word "annexed" because of the extremely negative connotation of the word; but they have extended Israeli law, and, consequently, sovereignty, to the area, which is exactly what annexation means. And that is what everyone else calls it. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it's a lot more complicated than that (see Ian S. Lustick's paper for example). Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been citing that ever since John tipped me off with a link years ago, but it has no impact on articles or public usage. Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the propaganda ploy, my suggested language is based off of Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 60. Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.. Though Roberts also says, on page 59, was formally annexed on July 30, 1980. nableezy - 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lustick wrote his analysis after Roberts. The key point is

'According to general international law, annexation can only take place by conclusion of a peace treaty which provides for the cession of an occupied territory to the occupying State, or as a result of debellatio, i.e. the disintegration of an enemy State.'Fania Domb,'The Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ,' in Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic, (eds.) International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines : Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007 p.517.

Jordan hasn't disintegrated, and in the meantime conferred its rights re East Jerusalem on the PLO in 1988.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable to me too, for the same reasons I gave last time you suggested it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, no one has given any reasons yet as to why one would flatly object to it. My concern is the part "The western sector of the city is indisputably part of Israel;" - does any state recognize West Jerusalem as being in Israel? I don't believe they do, maybe stating that WJ is located on the Israeli side of the green line would be better? I also see no reason for the inclusion of the very last sentence. Canadian Spring (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Since you are not answering on your talk page, I'll ask you here - have you used any other accounts to edit wikipedia? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well for a start "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts: what country is it in, and how many people live there. " sounds more like it belongs on a FAQ section of the talk page, rather than an article about a city. Secondly it gives equal status to the fact Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of Jerusalem and the proclaimed capital of a future Palestinian sovereign state. That gives undue weight to the palestinian claim, ignoring the fact that Jerusalem is controlled by Israel, is in law its capital (although not internationally recognised as such, but theres nothing in the rule book saying a capital needs international recognition to be one), and in practice serves as its capital with its government almost entirely being located there. Clearly the two sides cannot be given equal status at present in terms of how Jerusalem is described, which is why the current introduction has a paragraph on the situation and a sentence clearly saying the Palestinians claim the capital for their future state. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention it's full of OR, like "it has been for the last 2,000 years, the focus of conflict" or "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious". Seriously, does anyone here actually support it for its content rather as a vehicle to get rid of a certain sentence in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We also have "Yet that, too, is misleading". That's the kind of stuff you'll find in any serious encyclopedia, I'm sure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I too oppose this proposal, more for unencyclopaedic tone than anything else. Without mentioning a handful of grammatical editors and unnecessary contractions that make conscientious copyeditors like myself blush, there is also the issue that, "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts", is not high-quality writing of the sort expected on Wikipedia. I'll be adding an alternative proposal below shortly. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Zugzwang

Those editors who believe that we are nearing consensus on the lead are, as they know, sorely mistaken. The moment anyone tries to make an actual edit to the article page, the pro-Israeli opponents of change will swoop down with arb-barbed talons to restore the woeful status quo.

The status quo, sanctified by hundreds of thousands of archived talk-page words, is, alas, the best that this committee can come up with. The pro-Israel campers have deified "capital" into a mountain range, and the anti-Israeli campers have added a rider and an exegetical footnote that points out the absurdity of that word. Fortunately, I doubt that any reader has ever read that footnote, and most readers, stymied by that Henry Jamesian first sentence, probably scurry to the online Britannica to read about the world's most contentious city.

In the classical meaning of zugzwang, any move a player makes results in a loss. But in this game, it is not the players that lose: whatever either side does, it is the reader who loses. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think actually, chess-wise, it's only the Palestinians there who are in zugzwang, only in the sense that they are required to move, but won't move (away). This leaves us with the descriptive page. The opening definition is moulded on the capitals' template which defines a class of cities, capitals, in terms of the countries ab initio (London, Moscow, Paris, Berlin). In all these cases, we have internationally-recognized sovereignty, and a concordance between the state which affirms its capital, and other states recognizing that city as the capital. In Jerusalem we do not have that condition, therefore claims by Hertz1800 about dictionary usage look plausible, but are spurious because the linguistic sleight-of-hand camouflages the anomaly there. And NMMGG's insistance that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged is contrary to wiki practice. On wikipedia, we only have a positional result in a warring game, in which Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but part of it, East Jerusalem, is not the capital of Israel, which as you say, is conceptually nonsense. The conceptual nonsense is preferred by 'pro-Israeli' editors because a half-affirmation is better than none, and the definition excludes Palestinian claims. Since Palestine is a partial state (with majority recognition, but lacking the full monty of endorsement by all states, according to the relevant protocols of international law), with an irrenunciable claim to the eastern part of the city, NPOV simply cannot allow the unilateral lead affirmation, however subject to parenthetical modifiers, to stand alone.

Despite my pessimism as an editor here, I am surprised that this time round several good suggestions have been made by relative newcomers. I don't think the shut-door no-dialogue policy adopted by Hertz1800 and NMMGG adequate to what we are required to do as editors here.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not "insist that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged". Don't lie about what I said. The current wording is the result of a consensus and needs a new consensus to be changed. That's what's what I said and is EXACTLY what "wiki practice" demands. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The issues is already addressed in the lead and the article.. . We've been over this. Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And that in your mind amounts to "insisting that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged"? Really? You know what, scratch that. I don't have the patience to read a paragraph or two of your thinly veiled childish attempts at insults. The record shows what the record shows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So you don't have any argument except it was like this before ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa - After they finished to write the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Arabic Wikipedia) they come to here ! maybe after than they go to the Hebrew Wikipedia also ..... if you understand what i mean. פארוק (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take offense at this, but I would be surprised if anyone understands what you mean. The majority of your posts are total non sequiturs with absolutely no relation to anything we're talking about. Please take note -- I am normally an obnoxious Zionist when it comes to issues like this, and even I think you've contributed nothing but baseless accusations and personal insults to this discussion. I am honestly trying to give you a piece of friendly advice: Shape up, or you're probably going to be forcibly removed from this page by administrators. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Evanh2008 - I don't want to Shout that someone here can hear me. only i want to say that is If Wikipedia wants to get the most precise level of the truth and the reality, So why it is not a uniform across of all languages​​ ?....... an article about: Jerusalem it is very different in Arabic than English and Hebrew. i am talking about articles that showing in other versions. פארוק (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

All I am looking for is the inclusion of Palestine's declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the currently existing State of Palestine. I am not looking to actually change the statement on Jerusalem as Israel's capital, as I dont see much of a point in that discussion. But its status is incomplete right now as it only says that the Palestinians want it as a capital of some future state, disregarding that it has already been declared capital of the existing state. nableezy - 05:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell

of a good universe next door; let's go

But it is a world of made. Thanks for that nonetheless. nableezy - 06:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"All I am looking for is the inclusion of Palestine's declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the currently existing State of Palestine. " - We clearly state in the introduction that the palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital of a future Palestinian state. That covers the issue is a reasonable and balanced way. No change is needed or justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is recognized as the capital of Palestine by more states in the world than [West-]Jerusalem is recognized the capital of Israel.

Jerusalem was chosen to be the capital of Israel of Israeli government.

[East-]Jerusalem was chosen to be the capital of Palestine (a non existing state on the field) by Palestinian autorithy.

Both claims have their strengths and weaknesses. Both require to be written exactly with the same weight and the same place in the lede.

...Pluto2012 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not the PNA that designated Jerusalem, it was the PLO. nableezy - 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can check the all history of the world - a Capital for 2 states always ends with a war. פארוק (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Farouk: I thought your words needed a little extra ummpph to convey the depth of your emotions, so I added some color. Hope you like it! (Sorry I couldn't make it flash and dance around on the screen - don't know how to do that!) --Ravpapa (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And for what ?.... פארוק (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... Ha! I thought you would take me seriously! --Ravpapa (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you lived in Jerusalem probably it's not funny at all. פארוק (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know I don't live in Jerusalem? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

פארוק

this is from the East Jerusalem article. I think it would reflect a commitment to NPOV to include it here. East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the proposed Palestine although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital.90.211.19.178 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

Jerusalem as capital of Palestine

Can somebody please tell me why exactly the fact that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine should not be included in the lead of the article? I know of one discussion on the topic (here), but the major push back there is the thoroughly false claim that a state called Palestine does not exist. So, can somebody tell me why Israel's claim that Jerusalem is their capital should be included but Palestine's should not? ZScarpia's edit summary is spot-on in my view. A (large) number of users have objected to any clarification of Jerusalem's status as capital on the basis that states have a right to choos their own capital, regardless of whether or not that capital is even in the recognized territory of that state or held under belligerent occupation. Why exactly does that same argument not apply to Palestine? nableezy - 23:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems a ridiculous double-standard. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia's edit and edit summary were a POINTy attempt to edit into an article something he knows has no consensus. He's lucky someone reverted him or I'd take it to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be very happy for YOU, No More Mr Nice Guy, to take it to AE, because it would give me an opportunity to discuss your behaviour in the current article before admins. The last two discussions on the wording of the Lead were run into the ground by editors using all kinds of tendentious reasoning. They were inconclusive therefore. Perhaps you would like to explain why you are claiming that there is a consensus?     ←   ZScarpia   18:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do it again and I'll take you to AE without the courtesy of a warning, and you can have your opportunity to discuss whatever you like. I find your threat quite amusing considering your success rate at reporting me. Also, perhaps you should read my post carefully before you ask me to explain something I didn't say? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Save your posturing for someone who could give more than the steam off a poodle's piss for it. Who's it supposed to impress? Yourself maybe?

You left the comment "see multiple discussions in talk archive" when you reverted N_maram. On my user talkpage, you wrote: "You have participated in enough discussions on that page to know there's no consensus for your edit" and "I'll take that to mean you knew you didn't have consensus for your edit, but made it anyway." Here, you wrote: "ZScarpia's edit and edit summary were a POINTy attempt to edit into an article something he knows has no consensus." I can think of two ways to interpret that. The first interpretation is that you think that the edit was against consensus, in which case you should be able to explain where and how that consensus was established. The second interpretation is that you think that you and your wiki-chums have a right of veto over what goes in the Jerusalem article, in which case you need to sort out your ownership issues.

For those interested, No More Mr Nice Guy's comment about my success rate at reporting him refers to this AE case.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not posturing, it's a warning. A serious one, as I'm sure you understand.

Here's another way to interpret what I said - the first sentence of the lead is the result of consensus. Past discussions about adding the Palestinian claim did not result in consensus. Thus your edit did not have consensus. Or to put it another way, you were trying to force something you and your wiki-chums couldn't get in the article the proper way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had been through this enough times by now. I won't attempt to repeat the details here; they are all available in the archives. The wording of the lead, and its basis, have been discussed many times and at great length here, and the present wording and structure achieved by consensus. Proclamation is not enough. A capital must also be the functional seat of government, where the principal governmental institutions are. Recognition by others is not essential. Nableezy and ZScarpia are fighting the dictionary definition. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Which dictionary definition says that the capital must also be the functional seat of government? Because somebody really ought to let the Dutch know that. The wording of the lead has certainly been discussed many times and at great length, but I question whether its wording has ever had something resembling "consensus", by any definition of that word, be it Wikipedia's or a dictionary's.

@NMMNG, I dont necessarily agree with the edit, but I dispute your characterization of the edit summary. But would you care to comment on if you feel that the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine should be in the lead, and, if not, why not? nableezy - 06:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

there is no such country like Palestine. becouse Palestine is the Roman name for Israel. and Palestine is an Arab lie that supported by the Christian states !. now you can go and check that in every history books in the world. פארוק (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority exists, and the State of Palestine is recognized by many of the governments of the world. One can debate whether or not it meets certain criteria thought to be defining of a sovereign state, but the fact that a significant portion of the world believes in it is enough to warrant a neutral presentation of the facts by Wikipedia. Determining whether or not a state exists is not the same as, for example, determining whether or not the Moon is made of green cheese.

In summary, I don't see why it (the status of Jerusalem as the proclaimed capital of Palestine) shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is recognized by those who are pretending they love Israel and in their heart just waiting for Israel's destruction and demolished that is the true !. without renting here politicians ==>>>> Capital of Israel. פארוק (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. That's your opinion, and I have no comment on whether or not it is true. To me it looks like you're primarily on this talk page to wage a WP:Political dispute against those who disagree with you. You are a valuable contributor, Farouk, as has been seen by your great work elsewhere, so I wonder why you feel the need to get so contentious about things. If you have a concern about the article, you ought to state it rather than making accusations against those who are here to build an encyclopedia. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My dear friend. I love Wikipedia as much as you and i like everyone here i would not like to start a distort wrong facts and start writing depression lies to destroy the history by the name of politics. Wikipedia is no uniformity between all languages ​​and that is something creates Antagonism. You can check in the Arabic Wikipedia and see lies written there and almost the word "Israel" does not appear there in a lot of places. i know that is Perhaps not the right place, but it was important for me to mention it. פארוק (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the status as proclaimed Palestinian capital ought to be in there. There's a lot of less-relevant information in this long article already, including in the lead. For example, sources mention the Palestinian-capital issue more often than the zoo ;) --Dailycare (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

yes we know. פארוק (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the lead suppose to summarise the entire article anyway? So if there is content in the article about Palestine and Israel, then a brief summary mention in the lead should also be included. Wesley Mouse 08:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont object to this sentence which is in the article introduction and clearly summarises the situation. "According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, which is sought by the Palestinian Authority as a future capital of a future Palestinian state." Strongly oppose stating as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of a state that does not exist though. The current wording saying its sought to be the future capital is far more accurate and summarises the article enough. It would be factually inaccurate and hugely misleading to say its the capital of Israel and Palestine. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine exists as a state. And that state designated Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinian National Authority is an interim organization tasked with governing a small portion of the oPt that was set up by the Oslo Accords. The PNA is not the State of Palestine, and its "seeking" Jerusalem of a "future state" isnt related to the fact that the current state, recognized as a state by over 100 other states, has declared Jerusalem its capital. Any argument based on the invalid premise that Palestine is a state that does not exist is invalid. Wikipedians do not determine whether or not a state exists, other states are the only entities with that authority. Palestine's recognition as a state by other states makes it a state. A state without control of its territory, that being because its territory is under Israeli occupation, but a state nonetheless. nableezy - 15:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As long there are not a Palestinian state (Arab lie supported by the West) then there is no point in talking about this issue !. because of all this such a talk is only increases the lies here and the hatred towards Jews and Israel also. and the Real Palestinians in the Bible are a " Greek nation " that came from the island of " Crete " and they did not was an Arabs. פארוק (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you are helping your side of the debate with comments like that? nableezy - 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't help anyone. But if it's a lie, then have we need to admit it was wrong. I did not say the arabs have no rights to live in Israel. but to say in the media press: "From the river to the sea" maybe you know what I mean. פארוק (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It isnt a "lie", a Palestinian state was declared in 1988 by the PLO. That declaration also stipulated that The National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem.

فإن المجلس الوطني يعلن، باسم الله وباسم الشعب العربي الفلسطيني قيام دولة فلسطين فوق أرضنا الفلسطينية وعاصمتها القدس الشريف

And no, I do not know what you mean, and Im guessing Im not the only one. nableezy - 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not ==>>> From the River to the sea and if i am wrong please tell me what is From the river to the sea ? thank you. פארוק (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably the same thing that Likudniks mean by "Greater Israel". I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to Palestine's designation of Jerusalem as its capital. nableezy - 17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Greater Israel is very small against 21 Arab states. and we never want to occupie other countries. פארוק (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine is very notable information and should definitely be in the lead of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

+1. Jerusalem was proclamed the capital of Israel and East-Jerusalem was proclamed the capital of Palestine. Both proclamations generated controversies (Israeli proclamation is not recognazed as legitimate by any other state and Palestian proclamation refers to a city that is not administrated by them and for a state to come). Anyway, both are very notable and important information. This shoud be added without any doubt be in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though the "consensus" for non-inclusion claimed by NMMNG and Hertz1888 isn't so clear anymore. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Is that how it looks? After a whole 10 hours? Awesome.

The issues is already addressed in the lead and the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you interpreted me as saying "oops the pendulum has swung! include Palestine! debate over!", which I did not intend at all. What I mean is that your initial "shh only dreams now, no need for further discussion" doesn't seem quite justified in light of the discussion thus far. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to write what Pluto stated, so agreed. There is also another problem with the lede, it states that " [Jerusalem] is Israel's largest city". As no nation but Israel believes Jerusalem, east or west to be in Israel, how can this be stated so? Any suggestions of a replacement phrase, something like "Jerusalem is larger than any other city in Palestine or Israel"? Canadian Spring (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

I had the same feeling in reading the article. Jerusalem cannot be claimed to be Israel's largest city. Only West Jerusalem could whereas some countries consider even West Jerusalem status is controversial. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@NNMNG: it's addressed in the lead already? Really? Where? Because I do not see any mention of Jerusalem having already been declared the capital of the current state called Palestine. nableezy - 17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Too bad that people can't express there personal opinions. Where is the justice here if there is no uniformity between the English Wikipedia and the other languages. just look at some other Wikipedia and see Full of lies and hate to other nations. פארוק (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@Hertz1888, 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC): "Recognition by others is not essential. Nableezy and ZScarpia are fighting the dictionary definition." Incorrect. Nableezy and ZScarpia would like the article to reflect what all the reliable sources say but, failing that, that consistent logic is applied. It is actually other editors, you included by the look of things, who have argued about dictionary definitions and the nature of what a capital is in order to include a statement that Jerusalem is, as an absolute fact, Israel's capital, overriding, contrary to Wikipedia's policies, all the reliable sources that state the contrary.     ←   ZScarpia   18:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, there is room for mediation. Pluto wisely noted that both sides proclaim Jerusalem as a capital. It (West Jerusalem) is functionally Israel's capital (there is no legal basis for assuming that East Jerusalem is part of Israel. It was not formally annexed.) Palestinian authorities proclaim (East) Jerusalem the capital of their future state. I'm sure a sensible compromise is possible. The problem exists, there are two POVs, and they must be balanced in wikipedia, since the Palestinian perspective at the moment is lacking.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that those who designed the borders of the Middle East today are English and French by their Christian interests. I see here that you can write articles ​​of a state that still not exists. But hurry to delete entries about Israel and Judaism. פארוק (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

See Oxford Dictionaries, Macmillan Dictionary, etc. Good luck squaring the circle. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That is provably false, see The Hague and Amsterdam. But either way, I didnt say that the article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. I dont generally try to make disputed statements like that in the encyclopedia's voice. nableezy - 04:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ok. But please forgive me if I tell you that Jerusalem is a Jewish capital over 3000 years and we never replace her If anyone understands what I mean. פארוק (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(a link to your user talkpage) And you still need to realise that it's the job of Wikipedia editors to neutrally present all the significant views given in reliable sources, not to argue tendentiously that one particular viewpoint is the factual one. Presumably, you're not going to deny that reliable sources do, for given reasons, albeit ones you don't like, dispute the status of Jerusalem? What is of importance is what reliable sources say, not what argument you can construct based on such things as dictionary definitions. Do you need a reminder of which particular policy bans the synthesis of facts in the way you're doing it? And do you need a reiteration of why your arguments, which ignore opposing viewpoints, are tendentious?     ←   ZScarpia   20:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this. You have yet to produce a source that "disputes the status of Jerusalem". You have yet to produce a source that says that non-recognition means a city is not the capital. What you're trying to do is give equal weight to reality and future aspirations. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No one here is trying to remove the fact that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. We only believe Palestine's claim to East Jerusalem as its capital is equal to Israel's claims as the city is not recognized by most nations as being the capital or even within either or these nations. I suggest we simply ignore the one editor who is obviously not trying to be constructive as it derails the real discussion. Canadian Spring (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

This is how Wikipedia works: unless reliable sources agree about something, you cannot argue that that thing is a fact despite the disagreement. Reliable sources don't agree that Jerusalem is indisputably the capital of Israel and therefore you can't state as an absolute fact that it is. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear may like to read talkpage archives such as Archive 14 and Archive 15 to see which sources have been provided and what they say.     ←   ZScarpia   05:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like we have consensus for change. Below is my rough idea of how I would like to see the first paragraph of the lede, any fine tuning or comments would be appreciated.

"Jerusalem is a very old and holy city which straddles the 1967 border separating Israel and Palestine. Both nations claim the city as their capital though neither has significant international recognition on this matter. With a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 the city is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel. Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam." Canadian Spring (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

I don't like the wikilink on "very old", as I think a case could be made that that violates WP:ASTONISH. I also am unsure about "holy" being in the first sentence, particularly since you already have that status mentioned later in your draft of the paragraph. I don't think the demarcation line of '67 needs to be mentioned, either. What about something like:

Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] as well as the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine. It is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, the city is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2. Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Any thoughts? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My main thought is that if you claim there's consensus for a change after less than 2 days discussion (over a weekend to boot) regarding such a contentious sentence that has been discussed multiple times by probably dozens of editors, I'll have to seek admin intervention. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Whether or not that consensus has been established yet is not a major issue, as anyone who reads this page is fully capable of judging that, either way. Ask an admin and s/he will tell you the same. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment was directed mainly at Canadian Spring above, but is something everyone should keep in mind. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a dozen of us here now, please try to join the discussion rather than your continual threats and talks of old "consensus'". Canadian Spring (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Well the "very old" part was me trying to incorporate in items from the original, the holy part was just so that I did not have to say too simply "Jerusalem is a city". I added that it straddles the 1967 border so that people know its position relative to the states, something which your's does not accomplish. "If the area and population of East Jerusalem..." I don't get this, why would anyone ever think to exclude the population of East Jerusalem unless we are coming from the perspective of Jerusalem as an Israeli city. Why not cut out that part up to the comma? Canadian Spring (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Wait a second, you cant say things like Jerusalem straddles a border. It doesnt, the Green Line separates Israel proper from the occupied Palestinian territories, it does not separate the state of Israel from the state of Palestine. That border has yet to be drawn, and until a peace treaty establishes such a border we cant say that one exists. Israel has a border with Jordan and a border with Egypt, it does not yet have one with Palestine. There are a lot of technical issues here that cannot be glossed over. I think the solution is removing is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such, from the first sentence and moving it to a paragraph dedicated to the political status of the city. In my perfect world, that paragraph would include such things as Jerusalem straddling the Green Line, having been declared capital by Israel following the 1948 War, EJ being captured and occupied in 67, the 1980 Jerusalem Law and its rejection by the international community, and the 1988 declaration by Palestine, and finally something like the status of Jerusalem continues to be among the most disputed issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We dont need to, and shouldnt, dumb things down, and we dont need to lead the article on some 5000 years of history with a comparatively recent political dispute. nableezy - 04:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, I think Ive read everything in here that you have written, but I dont think Ive seen you actually comment on the actual issue here. You wrote above [t]he issues is already addressed in the lead and the article. I asked where. Is there a place where the designation of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is mentioned in the lead? And if not, do you think that designation should not be mentioned? And if not, why not? nableezy - 04:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm not too up on the technicalities in the I/P conflict, I would accept a change from what I proposed above to "Jerusalem is an add adjective city which straddles the green line, demarking a boundary between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories." If you want to separate out the lede in a new way, show us a draft. I don't care too much for order, but I do believe that in the first line or two there should be information which states where the city is in regards to nations. Canadian Spring (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

There's a line that says that East Jerusalem "is sought by the Palestinian Authority as a future capital of a future Palestinian state". That can certainly be tweaked, but to make things very clear, I think that a. that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (as per plenty of reliable sources and per the simple fact that it functions as Israel's capital, including the seat of government, where all diplomats go to submit their credentials and carry out their diplomatic missions vis a vis the MFA, etc) should be in the first sentence of the lead, like it is for every other capital in this encyclopedia, and b. that the Palestinian claim for territory they don't control and don't use as a capital does not deserve equal weight. Not to mention the fact that AFAIR they claim only East Jerusalem, which has its own article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the entirety of the comment directly above, with the possible exception of the East Jerusalem bit, which I am not sure about. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If one needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph, then I think the other does as well. In that case I dont see much wrong with Evanh's proposed edit. As far as EJ, the actual declaration just says القدس الشريف (al-quds al-sharif, Jerusalem) nableezy - 05:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify and state that I support including both states' claims in the lede (obviously, as per my suggested revision), but also agree with NMMNG that we need to be careful about WP:WEIGHT. Obviously, the key difference between the two claims is that one of the political entities has de facto sovereignty over the city; whether that sovereignty is de jure is not relevant to this particular discussion. We can and should present both claims with due weight and a keen eye for the facts of the case. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine, but I think the weight is covered by is the capital vs the proclaimed capital. nableezy - 06:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think both should be in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Until now i don't understand why it is allowed write articles ​​of a state that does not exist but on the other hand can't write articles like the "World Bible Center". I have a strong feeling that maybe everything here is a strong Christian antisemitism motif. פארוק (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the state exists. I have a strong belief, or hope at least, that we wont be dealing with such comments much longer. nableezy - 06:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just want to note that I take offense at the antisemitism accusation, particularly since good portions of my family are Jewish. No personal attacks, please. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

nableezy - I want to ask you a qustion pleas. Why the Palestinians in Israel are "destroy and demolished Jewish archaeological sites" at night when the police is not there ? ....... and why the Palestinian education system teaches the children that in Israel never have been here a Jews ? ....... Thank you. פארוק (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... Or we could stay on topic. But hey, why do that when we can have much more fun waving our hands and distracting each other from the actual subject at hand? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My question is directed to - nableezy - if English Wikipedia prepared to recognize a country that does not exist. So I want to know why it is can't write on a important buildings that are not finished their construction. פארוק (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. If you want to be taken seriously, stay on topic and discuss the content of the article. This is not a forum, and if you treat it as such there may be consequences, regardless of how correct I or anyone else think you are. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is not a sovereign state, it has no capital city. Palestine is a proposed future state which wants Jerursalem as its capital. The article already clearly states that. This article should not be changed to mislead people into thinking that Jerusalem is the capital of a state that does not exist, let alone a non existent state that does not control any of the territory it claims as its capital. If a European country claimed Washington D.C as its capital.. would we put that on equal terms with the fact Its the American capital? Of course not. Yet there appears to be an attempt to grossly mislead people by stating something similar here. Shocking bias BritishWatcher (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is a neutral area that belongs to no one !. Neither Israel nor the Arabs. the true Palestinians lived in Jordan, Because Jordan was the first country that occupied this area in 1948. פארוק (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, that Palestine doesn't really do the sorts of things that states do. Nonetheless, multiple foreign governments recognize Palestine as existent, whether any of us think that wise or not, and that ostensibly existent state claims Jerusalem as its capital. Again, we can state that without doing or saying anything misleading. Is there anything in my proposed wording that you find objectionable? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another historical point you skipped it - During the Turkish Empire which ruled Israel for 400 years. a lot of Muslim immigrants arrived to Israel from distant lands !. You can check it out and add this to articles about the history of Israel. פארוק (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you mean your proposed wording " Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] as well as the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine" , then i could not object and oppose such wording more strongly. Palestine is not a sovereign state, it does not have a capital city. the palestinians proclaim Jerusalem as the capital of their future palestinian state. The introduction already says that clearly. Your proposed wording is misleading, inaccurate, and gives undue weight. Like my example with the USA, if some european country claimed Washington D.C. as its capital despite not controlling its territory..... there is no way we would put that on such equal grounds as with the state that does control the capital. Also its clearly one sided. it says Israels capital is not internationally recognised as the capital, but does not bother to point out Palestinian claim to Jerusalem being the capital of a state that doesnt exist lacks international recognition too. Your proposal is one of the most controversial possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You should keep cool...

We all know that Palestine is not an existing state on the field but it has been proclaimed and is recognized by many countries in the world as well as the choice of [East-]Jerusalem as their capital.

On the other side, Israel is recognized but the choice of (West-)Jerusalem as her capital is not.

Nothing is one-sided. Both claims have their strengths and weaknesses and should be written side by side.

About your argumentation :

• Israel chose a capital partly (or totally) in a land that does not belong to her as well.
• It was widely claimed that people can chose their capital freely. That what Palestinian autorithy did.

I add that more countries in the world and more people recognized [East-]Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine than countries recognized (West-)Jerusalem as the one of Israel. Which claim is more legitimate than the other ? None. These are perfectly controversial and equivalent and it is not the purpose of wikipedia to decide which one is the better.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments like a state that doesnt exist betray a lack of understanding about the issue. Palestine does exist as a state. It exists because other states have recognized it as a state. It is not up to Wikipedians to determine whether or not a state exists, that right belongs solely to other states. And as over 100 other states have recognized the existence of Palestine as a state, Wikipedians cannot overrule that determination. nableezy - 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Palestinian claim should be given equal weight, and should be higher up in the lede. It is POV to leave it where it is. 78.40.152.129 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, it makes far more sense to cover the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem being its capital after the paragraph focused on the dispute. IT would give a non state which does not control the territory in question undue weight by putting it on equal terms as it being ISraels capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What does equal weight mean on wikipedia? It means where there are 2 points of view (here there are three) the two parties must be allowed equal representation. To reformulate this in state vs.non-state terms is possible, if you think that a state must be given more weight than the people and the land it occupies as a belligerent power (the legally correct term admitted as such by the Israeli Supreme Court). But that is not written in our protocols, as far as I know.

The lead as written accords Israel its POV, and elides the claim of the other party. Statehood has nothing to do with it. Israel's claim to have unified Jerusalem is not accepted by other states (it will be, by the US, if Romney is elected, of course). Palestine, recognized as a state by over 120 nations, claims that part of Jerusalem (city) where it has a demographic majority, is their capital, and will be so in the future. The lead as written thus violates NPOV, because it privileges one claim, while suppressing in the same sentence the other party. Technically, that has to be addressed: it would need but the simplest of glosses to achieve this parity of claim, and makes wikipedia, on this, reliable. By relegating the POV of the Palestinians to some later section, you are endorsing an POV imbalance in favour of one party.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead states facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but that is not internationally recognised. in another paragraph of the introduction it clearly states the status of jerusalem is disputed and goes on to say the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of a future palestinian state. That is reasonable and due weight to the situation. Nowhere does it say a capital needs international recognition to be a capital.. so Jerusalem is the present capital of Israel (just not internationally recognised), that is far more important than a proclaimed future capital of a state that does not exist and a territory that it does not control.To try and act as the two status's are equal is blatantly giving undue weight and favouring the Palestinian POV. the introduction rightly explains the Palestinian claim and that the status of Jerusalem is disputed. Any change, especially along the lines proposed is hugely controversial and it is not needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that there exists a state called Palestine that has declared Jerusalem as its capital. You keep going on about a future Palestinian state. We are talking about the existing Palestinian state. That you personally dont think one exists is of little importance here. nableezy - 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, there has been very little progress since my last post, but I have thought more and would like to propose a better first three sentences.

"Jerusalem, the de facto capital of Israel and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, straddles the green line, demarking a boundary between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The city, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2, is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel. Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

Is this better or worse, comments? No More Mister Nice Guy, Nableezy, I'm looking at you two. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock of user:passionless

Better. Though you will get objections to de facto, and that is ambiguous. It is, under Israeli law, the de jure capital of Israel. nableezy - 16:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i dont support it. the current wording is far better. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

65.95.22.16 I like your suggestion below better. To get anywhere here we have to tinker word for word unfortunately, since small minds weigh every dot and comma in the POV scales, rather than writing to the state of affairs, as given in RS.

The lead states facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but that is not internationally recognised.

The lead here states a factoid, because the 'fact' is one of two relevant 'facts', each with nuanced qualifications. You're happy with one 'fact', which is the official Israeli POV, and are opposed to the other POV, and in this those who oppose amending the text violate an obligation to edit according to WP:NPOV. Your 'fact' is not a fact stricto sensu in that Israel, according to Ian Lustick, has not annexed East Jerusalem. Since no other country has its capital city in another country, since East Jerusalem is not in Israel in Israeli law or international law, Jerusalem de facto refers to West Jerusalem, as it did in usage from 1948 to 1967 unambiguously. This refusal to honour the 'facts', and privilege an ideological POV is not unexpected, but we have a problem, and clear proposals to overcome it are required, not ostrich-vision.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The current proposals are blatantly biased in favour of palestinian point of view, giving totally undue weight to a non state that seeks Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state, and putting it on equal footing with the capital of a country that declares it the capital, controls the capital and treats its as though its the capital of the state. Yes it lacks international recognition, which is why that is clearly stated straight after the mention of it being Israel's capital. No change is needed, and certainly not these biased POV proposals. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nishidani, I accidentally logged out somehow, I am Canadian Spring, now on another computer. I did not mean to push any POV, I am very open to tinkerings of what I wrote to make it more correct, if we need to clarify east vs west jerusalem just let me know how you would write it. To BW, if someone claimed that Israel was not a state would you think about listening to them in this discussion, of course not, so I don't see why anyone would take you seriously. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

BW, why exactly are you talking about a "non-state"? Nobody else is. We are discussing the existing state called Palestine. A state that has been recognized by over 100 other states as a state. Which, guess what, makes it a state. nableezy - 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is a state in the legal sense, but hardly in any practical sense. They do not control Jerusalem, and their proclamation is no more than a proclamation. That proclamation does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The existence of a state is a legal question. I do not know what a state in any practical sense means. There is a difference between a country and a state. nableezy - 18:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you do know what in any practical sense means. Even Palestinian leaders still talk about it in the future tense. Or as Evan (I think it was) said, it fails the duck test. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you know you are unable to read my mind. I also think you know that Evan said more than that. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Without resorting to reading your mind, which I neither confirm or deny having the ability to do, I still think you know what it means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I did say more than that. If you want my personal opinion (and I can't imagine why you would, but just in case), I should probably tell you that I don't think the State of Palestine exists, in any meaningful sense. For all practical purposes, the Palestinian Authority isn't a government any more than the Central Tibetan Administration is. The Taiwan analogy is particularly apt, I think. Despite my personal feelings on the matter, however, the state's existence is recognized by a majority of the nations of the world, and we need to include well-sourced information with due weight.

As I said before, the key difference is that only one entity currently has de facto sovereignty over the city. And because of that de facto sovereignty (once more irrespective of whether or not that sovereignty is de jure), I strongly support the current wording in the lede which states that "Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel". That was the previous consensus after extensive discussion on this page (and doubtless others as well), and I see no good reason to overturn that consensus at present. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When i say state, i mean sovereign state. Palestine is not a sovereign state.It is a proposed sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is a state unable to exercise sovereignty over its territory due to it being occupied by Israel. That does not mean it is not a state. nableezy - 19:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Which means it is not a sovereign state. When i talk about a state that is what i mean. The fact palestine is not a sovereign state unlike Israel (even though it is not fully recognised by every country), just goes to show there is a serious difference in terms of status when discussing the issue of its capital, which is why i believe the current introduction is reasonable. Israel is a sovereign state, it declares in law and is seen as/treats Jerusalem as its capital, but this is not internationally recognised. (the article intro clearly states that). There is a paragraph on the dispute over Jerusalems status, and then it clearly states palestinians claim jerusalem as the capital of their future state. that is reasonable, and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anybody has said that the existing State of Palestine exercises sovereignty over its territory, so besides raising a straw man that is easier to know down than my actual argument, I do not see the point in arguing over that. Palestine, the state, exists, and its existence is not up for debate among Wikipedians. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An occupied state cannot exercise its sovereignty? So no state occupied in WW2 was a sovereign state. Do you ever consider what your opinions imply? Yet this is irrelevant to the point. There are at least two contending interests in Jerusalem, and there is absolutely no way wikipedia allows that one of the POVs may exercise a narrative hegemony or sovreignty, as the present article does, esp. in the lead. Israel's exercise of sovreign powers is in fact the exercise of the powers, by its own court rulings, of a belligerent occupying power, which is all the more reason why, in delicate areas, wikipedia's fundamental insistance on neutrality obliges editors to ignore, as you refuse to, the perspective of the occupied in this regard. Jerusalem as defined by Israel is one POV. Jerusalem in international law, and in the Palestinian POV which requires parity of regard, is not as it is defined in the opening para. I repeat, this is a gross NPOV violation, and no distracting offhand opinions about states alters the lay of the legal facts. Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree with nishidani, the current wording is POV, and should not remain.19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require us to give equal weight to competing claims. Also, this is not a court so handwaving in the general direction of "legal facts" (whatever they may be) is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Evan's suggestion does not give equal weight to competing claims. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It does, by putting a proclamation of an entity that never has, doesn't, and can't currently exercise sovereignty over Jerusalem or use it as a capital right after an entity that has, does, and will continue to until some sort of agreement is reached.

It's like putting the claims of Taiwan over mainland China in the first sentence of the lead of the article about the PRC (putting aside the fact the ROC did in fact once control those areas). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on now, one is given as a fact and the other is presented only as a proclamation. It is not saying "Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital, as has Palestine". nableezy - 02:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me why this proclamation belongs in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because that is apparently where the political status of the city belongs. nableezy - 06:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How does a proclamation by a state that doesn't control the city or use it as their capital change the political status of the city? Do I need to give the Taiwan and China example again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the proclaimed capital of Taiwan is Taipei, not Beijing. If Taiwain claimed Beijing as its capital then that example might hold water, but it doesnt, so it doesnt. How does it change the political status of the city? Really? A state recognized by over 100 other states and whose territory, held under occupation, includes a portion of this city has proclaimed it its capital. I think that is as pertinent as the fact that a state has proclaimed its capital to include territory outside of its sovereign territory. nableezy - 17:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to Nishidani): This is again where the distinction between legal sovereignty and actual sovereignty comes in. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the adjective "sovereign" as "possessing supreme or ultimate power ... (of a nation or its affairs) acting or done independently and without outside interference". By this definition, the answer to your question regarding the nations occupied by Nazi Germany is no, they were not sovereign states in point of fact. Though they may have been sovereign according to international law, they were not sovereign because they did not possess "supreme or ultimate power" within their own borders, and their governments, where extant, did not act "independently and without outside interference". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 1

What follows is my counter-proposal for a revision to the first paragraph of the lead, for which several people have expressed support. I believe it addresses the issue of weight in respect to the status of capital for either state, while also upholding the previous consensus that states can declare their own capitals. The remainder of the lead should remain unchanged, with the probable exception of the fifth paragraph, which should probably be removed in favor of the updated first sentence. I've titled this section "Alternative proposal 1" to allow for other proposals that may be made later down the road.

~ Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I don't think putting the Palestinian claim in the first sentence of the lead gives it correct weight, just like putting Taiwan's claim over mainland China in the first sentence of the lead in the PRC article wouldn't be giving it the correct weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i certainly think that is a better proposal than some of the others so far, although i believe the current wording in the article still is more reasonable. The concern i have with the proposed main sentence is it basically has this structure ... Israel's capital > Not recognised internationally > proclaimed capital of the state of Palestine. Unlike for the Israel's capital bit, there is no qualification of Palestines proclaimed capital not having full international recognition and also the fact that a sovereign state of Palestine does not exist and has no control over the city, unlike Israel which treats it as its capital. I think it is too much to include in one sentence in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that the claim of Palestinians on Jerusalem must be given total equal weight to the choice of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. One concerns a state to come 'but' has the support of the numerous countries around the world. The choice of Jerusalem is not recognized by any country in the world due to the status of Jerusalem.

It is not to wikipedia to decide what claim/choice is legitimate. That is a purely wp:npov issue.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would keep controversies for the end of the lede. It is more important to know that this is one of the oldest city of the world and it is sanctified in 3 religions than to know its international status is controversial. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

That is certainly an improved proposal, Evanh2008. The first sentence complies perfectly with WP:NPOV, and the objection that one cannot have parity because of WP:Undue is fallacious because it assumes, that of two parties and POV, Palestinians are owed, mysteriously, less representation than Israel.

If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, the city is larger in both population and area than any other in Palestine or Israel, with a population of 801,000 residents

The emendment to the second sentence also achieves balance, though I don't think it that important, compared to the role it plays for the three monotheistic religions. To overcome the hypothetical if clause, which would require would be (as I noted above) one could simplify to:

If one includes East Jerusalem, it forms the largest city in Israel/Palestine, with a population of 801,000.

By putting 'Israel/Palestine', the sense of Mandatory Palestine is retained, while not being prejudicial to either party's claims, realistic or ultramontane as they variously are. Thanks for the work.

Agree with Pluto on controversies to the end of the lead. Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with this proposed lead is that it does not inform the reader where the city is located relative to states. It is quite important to note that the green line runs through the city. Canadian Spring (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

This is not about whos claim to Jerusalem is more legitimate or not, it is about who controls Jerusalem, and which is the sovereign state that actually treats it as its capital. Palestinians do not have a sovereign state, do not control the territory, and they do not treat it as their capital. That is why it is undue weight to act as though its the capital of Israel and proclaimed capital of Palestine in equal terms in the same sentence. There is a clear difference between the two and that has to be reflected. The introduction needs to make clear that Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, but it already does that in the more appropriate part of the lead after a paragraph explaining the status of Jerusalem is controversial etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Repetition is not an argument. You have yet to show you understand what WP:NPOV means. It is no fault of ours, as wikipedians, that the legal and lingustic complexities here exist, and that editors must walk over a minefield to avoid (as they haven't in the text we have) giving undue weight to one side, or failing to be neutral. When Ben-Gurion moved the capital of Israel to West Jerusalem, and subsequently Israeli sources said 'Jerusalem' was the capital of Israel, they were not asserting that the Jordanian East Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. They were asserting that for them, West Jerusalem was their capital, though using the word 'Jerusalem'. Editors here care about nuance. Our article deals with an undisputed West Jerusalem (Israeli) and a disputed East Jerusalem (under belligerent occupation, but 'Palestinian'). It is totally immaterial that Israel controls East Jerusalem: it does not have legal sovereignty, and its statehood does not extend there. Whatever Israel declares about a 'united Jerusalem' is its POV, but immaterial to an objective, neutral description of the city as inhabited by two majoritarian groups in their respective areas. We deal with complexity here, we don't go for simplifications that blur essential distinctions. WP:NPOV is acutely attentive precisely to the need, in border-line conceptually blurred situations, to abstain from loading the language selectively to endorse a partisan POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this proposal clearly gives undue weight to the palestinian side, by seeking to act as though the reality on the ground is equal when we all know it is not in terms of who controls it, which is the sovereign state, and who actually treats it as their capital. its one sided POV that is being proposed. The current wording is not, it accurately states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but this is not internationally recognised. It goes on in a paragraph to explain the dispute and clearly states Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. That is reasonable, it mentions both sides situation fairly. A bias article in favour of Israel would be if this article simply said Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, without explaining the lack of international recognition (something mentioned twice in the lead currently) and without explaining Palestinians seek it as their capital. We have the moderate position which clearly explains both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is unacceptable per BritishWatcher. The only modification that may be done to the current lead is removing the "though not internationally recognized as such" clause, which is kind of TRIVIA, is UNDUE, and doesn't belong in the first sentence; the ^[ii] note sufficiently elaborates the issue. Noon (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

the only modification that may be done, means there is a veto, and that wikipedia's I/P area is off-limits to modifications of any article's textual status quo, where that status quo privileges Israel's POV? In any case, there is nothing wrong with editors insisting that a POV be represented, as you and Britishwatcher apparently do. What is formally incorrect is your dual failure to observe WP:NPOV, for you are proposing to elide the 'other' in the dispute as 'trivia'. It reminds me of the opinion of NoCal100 I posted on my page, i.e., there is only one narrative, and that is Israel's.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The current introduction is not bias in favour of Israel, as i mentioned above if we did not mention the lack of international recognition, the entire paragraph on Jerusalem's status and the palestinians wanting it as their capital then yes it would be bias in favour of Israel. The current wording is not. The first sentence of this article is balanced, these proposals totally shift that balance in favour of the Palestinian POV. This article states facts in a fair way. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Look. Several editors see a problem, and a handful deny there is one. It's not productive here to just sit down repeating you can't see the problem. It exists for several, and the issue is essentially to see how the various proposals, based on this assumption, can be refined to a point where we have a genuine NPOV alternative to the text as it stands. Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Genuine NPOV doesn't mean giving equal weight to the country that controls the city and uses it as its capital and to the state that does not control it or use it as its capital. Much like NPOV doesn't require us to give equal weight to the government of the PRC and Taiwan regarding who speaks for mainland China. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But Taiwan's role is played here by Israel. There is not a single country in the world that agrees giving legitimity to the choice of capital of Israel, whatever the real legitimaty of this choice. The annexion of East-Jerusalem is rejected by the Assembly of the Nations (read : UNO). What is the due:weight of the choice of the representatives of 7,000,000 people when the representatives of 7,000,000,000 refuses to give legitimaty to this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Galilee was right against even more people and the History confirmed he was right. Today he is a hero.

But wikipedia is not there to tell the truth, just to report the majority's pov. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

this proposal is a big improvement over the current POV wording. Go for it.86.171.210.33 (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is fine. nableezy - 15:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this biased wording to be put in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG. I don't think we have a distinction between genuine NPOV and inauthentic NPOV. Taibei is the capital of Taiwan as Beijing is the capital of the PRC. We are talking of capitals, and Taiwan is not occupied by China, nor China by Taiwan. East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel -it has no sovereign legitimacy there -, and equal weight means that must enter any definition of the city as a whole. Not to accept this is to espouse a nation-specific POV, that Jerusalem is one and unified (Israel's POV), and ignore what is staring most editors in the face, i.e. that in international law, Jerusalem is neither unified nor one, but two distinct political realities. Don't blame editors. It's what the facts on the ground, and the legal lay of the land say, and we must adapt our language to represent that complexity in respect of NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The intro clearly states that Israels view of it being the capital of Israel is not recognised by the international community. Im sorry but you cannnot give equal weight to 1 non soveriegn entity claiming the city as its capital, and a sovereign state that treats the city as its capital, and controls it. The two are clearly on differening levels. That is not to justify the current position on the ground, but the article must reflect the situation on the ground, not pretend that the two capitals are of equal status. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're confused. Read WP:NPOV. As the article itself records, there are two major demographic and political realities in the city of Jerusalem, Israelis and Palestinians. To state that 'the international community does not recognize Israel's claim' cannot justify the elision or suppression of the Palestinian presence there. The 'international community' cannot stand as a substitute for the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, and when you have two dominant narratives, NPOV requires parity of treatment: third parties who neither live there, nor constitute part of its historic reality, but simply state their formal opposition to any attempt by Israel to apply its laws as though they were expressions of sovereignty there, are not a relevant party in the NPOV balancing act. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It's you who's confused. NPOV does not require "parity of treatment". NPOV requires due weight. And a proclamation by someone who does not and has never controlled an area it doesn't and can't use as a capital is not on par with the de facto sovereign who does use it as a capital. The Palestinian proclamation does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Refresh yourself ad fontem (WP:NPOV) is broken in two key points.

(a)Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

(a1)In this case the view of Israel is shared by no other country in the world. Technically this means it would virtually run the risk of being classified as WP:fringe. Since Jerusalem as a united capital is uniquely Israel's POV, it cannot assume the absolute prominence. Indeed, the qualifying clause balances Israel's minority view with the almost unanimous counter-judgement of all other nations on earth, and abuses the 'parity' you complain about.

(b)Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. The assertion that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is 'seriously contested' but is asserted as a fact. 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (Israeli (fringe) POV), though not internationally recognized as such.

I don't think anyone wants to wreck the line. Several people are insisting that a statement of Israel's POV on a city of divided loyalties, distinct demographies and cultures, and politically riven, cannot feature the POV of one party. Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you can see the problem now.

(ec) re: "The intro clearly states that Israels view of it", so, is this something we can all agree on, that at the moment it is Israel's view of it being the capital of Israel that is being presented as a statement of fact in the first sentence (setting aside the rights or wrongs of that) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, Israel's view is that Jerusalem is its capital, all other nations however have a different view, Canada for example lists Israel's capital as blank. Canadian Spring (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock