Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

photo caption

These are NOT the oldest landmarks! Only Mishkenot Sha'ananim is - the others (apart from the Windmill) come much later, during the British Mandate. Also, the way I phrased it is important, because very few people will read through the whole article or notice half a sentence about Mishkenot Sha'ananim. In fact, most people will ONLY look at the pictures. Here is a photo that includes many different landmarks combined in one (very thrifty and spacesaving if you ask me...). If you don't want to name them all, fine, but don't introduce wrong information by lumping them together as the oldest. --Gilabrand 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that it said oldest. When I originally changed the caption earlier, I did not include that. I am getting rid of it like you asked.nadav 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. Tewfik^Talk 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, I see you know how to access photos from Hebrew Wikipedia - could you tell me how to do it? My son has an account there and added some of my pictures, which might be good for the English version. Trouble is, he's gone off on a trek to Nepal and I don't have a clue how to do it...Are you still interested in adding a Migdal David photo? I just took a good one today. Where would you add it?

--Gilabrand 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Coat of Arms"

It is neither a seal nor a coat of arms. It's an emblem. --Gilabrand 09:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

adding a reference

I added some figures for schools in East Jerusalem, but don't know how to put in a footnote with the source. Could someone do it? ).<ref Jerusalem Municipality, Engineering Department, Oded Lilienthal />. All the best, --Gilabrand 14:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I saw the revision and thought it might need a ref. Could you explain what this source is? Is it an interview with Mr. Lilienthal that has been published? If, however, it's information he personally conveyed, it might be problematic for Wikipedia. I'll wait for Tariq to weigh in about that. Otherwise, the most recent information published about East Jerusalem classroom shortage problem seems to be the Ir Amim report (updated Sept. 2006): [1]. I also found this ACRI doc: [2] and an article in the Jerusalem Post: [3] nadav 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I was looking for the reference and I couldn't find it in the text. I didn't realize it was right here. Do whatever you all want; if you need help with the references, I'd be glad to help (although I'd prefer that it would with one of the citation templates). -- tariqabjotu 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is information I received this week from Oded Lilienthal of the Jerusalem Municipality Engineering Department. There must be written reports for each project, but I doubt there is one report that discusses all of them. I also know one of the consulting engineers who goes to these building sites/operating schools on a regular basis and has the architectural plans for them. I will work on getting some "paper" reference, but in the meantime, I would add a footnote as suggested above. I must be doing it wrong because it comes out with a red tag.

--Gilabrand 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The way to use ref is: <ref>source goes here</ref>. I am wondering whether the new schools will solve the classroom shortage. The guy in the 14/9/06 Jerusalem Post article said that "each year an additional 160 classrooms should be built just to keep up with the six percent annual growth rate in east Jerusalem. Given that there was a shortage of [more than 1,000] classrooms in the first place, the gap will just increase over the years." I'm curious to know whether we are any closer now to overcoming this gap. nadav 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that primary sources of this kind are usually not considered acceptable, as verifiability is valued. -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

True. Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to read more. nadav 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem in arts and literature

If I recall, there was one very good suggestion in the FAC (I believe made by Tony), namely that we should have a subarticle on Jerusalem in arts and literature. The influential Encyclopaedia Hebraica (which also deserves its own article), in its (naturally) extensive Jerusalem article, devotes quite a few pages to this topic. I tried to write an article on this, but I have no sources besides the encyclopedia--which is in Hebrew--except for a few minor websites. nadav 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

my edits

Point number one: Personal automobiles??? When were you born? In the 1920s? Point number two: I was under the impression that only numbers from 1-10 are spelled out. There's more, but I'll stop here for the moment. --Gilabrand 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not born in the 1920s and I'm not even sure how that's relevant. Numbers between one and ten should be spelled out, but that does not mean numbers above that cannot be. WP:MOSNUM allows numbers that can be expressed in one or two words to be spelled out. -- tariqabjotu 07:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

not original research

I appreciate the great efforts that are being made to produce a good article, and I have read the link about original research. The number of schools being built in Jerusalem is not original research. You can go to these places and see them yourself. There is no point of view being expressed here. These are just facts - and because they are facts from the last year or so, they may not appear in any encyclopedic source. If the best Wikipedia can do is cite information from an article published in a newspaper in 2005, then it is not doing very well. In the interests of helping to create the best possible piece on Jerusalem, and one that reflects the situation today, I am working on getting the proper source material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilabrand (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I was just referring to the little blurb on primary sources, not anything else. I haven't read through the September 2006 report, but I would assume it mentions construction of the new schools, no? nadav 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the current text underplays the magnitude of the problem. It is a huge crisis, not just "reports of overcrowding." There was a High Court ruling about how arabs in east jerusalem are not able to get the free education they are entitled to by law, though the municipality has since been trying to address it.nadav 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following text, based on the JPost article from half a year ago: According to a municipal spokesman, a new school for girls opened in Sur bahir for the 2006-7 academic year, a boys' school is currently being built, and construction will soon begin on six more buildings or schools. nadav 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the section about "shifts in control," I found this sentence: "and by the sixth century, the city had reached its greatest ancient extent.[33]" What does that mean?? --Gilabrand 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The language "greatest ancient extent" is taken directly from the respectable-looking source. I assume they mean that it's the biggest Jerusalem got in terms of population or physical size before the modern era, but you should look at the source. You can put quotes around the phrase if you like. nadav 20:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone wrote it somewhere doesn't mean it makes sense and needs to be one of 30-or so sentences that sum up the "history of Jerusalem." After reading the source, I find the phrase just as incomprehensible as before. I would remove it. Another example of fuzzy phrasing is the one about Herod "elevating the Temple Mount." Herod did no such thing. If he elevated anything, it was the Temple building itself, which is believed to have been built on a raised platform with stairways to reach it.

--Gilabrand 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting piece of information that means that in some significant way Jerusalem grew largest during that time period and not during other eras of the ancient world. That's why I inserted it. I am against removing it altogether. If you feel it's not precise enough, then find a source which explains it in further detail. I haven't checked the elevation of the Temple mount. I had assumed it meant he made the hill taller or some such, but I haven't read the cited text. nadav 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Without parroting Nadav, I concur with what he said. You might want to try to add more detail from other sources, but it seems that the primary problem here might lay in the perhaps slightly figurative phrasing employed. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to avoid any reference to the Palestinians instead referring to them always as Arabs. I would like to point to all that in this day and age we need to cease from using orientalist language that either belongs to the era of the British mandate or to the time when Israelis never used the word Palestinian, in an attempt to ignore their existance as a nation.

To the author of this comment, I think you need to do some reading. The following article might open your eyes. http://www.ldolphin.org/palestinians.html --Gilabrand 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference and your attempt to reduce my "ignorance", but as a Jerusalemite Palestinian who has lived the persecution for 35 years now, I am speaking from experience. I cannot be buried in the city, in which my family has lived for 1000 years. A dead Palestinian seems to be a threat to Israel, funnly enough the preferred quote of many Israelis is a "a good palestinian is a dead palestinian". May 10, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.181 (talk • contribs) 13:50, May 10, 2007 UTC

FOR A PROPER ACCOUNT OF THE HISTORY OF JERUSALEM AND THE CONNECTION OF ALL RELIGIONS TO IT PLEASE REFER TO THE BOOK ON JERUSALEM BY KAREN ARMSTRONG FOR AN UNBIASED REFERENCED HISTORY OF THE CITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.181 (talk • contribs) 13:38, May 9, 2007 UTC

I added more information to clear up these fuzzy bits, but now, as I read the whole thing again, I think the chronology of this section is mixed up. Also the heading "shifts in control" should be replaced with something more apt, as the section above it, which is supposedly focusing on the Temple periods, is also about "shifts in control."

--Gilabrand 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Added the word possible

The reference given says that "a sketch is offered of a possible resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", therefore I added the word possible to now read:

"Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem (captured as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial since it is seen by Palestinian Arabs as a possible capital of a proposed Palestinian state." Itzse 17:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Area of the Old City

I don't want to have to edit-war over a seemingly trivial issue, but the styling of the area of the Old City in the intro is confusing and not really correct. The area of the Old City, as established by the current source, is approximately 900,000 sq. m (0.9 sq. km). However, the current text puts the area at scarcely one square kilometer, which translates to just over one square kilometer (which is not correct). The area, translated into square miles is approximately 0.35 sq. mi. About one third of a square mile is unnecessarily lengthy; we could do with just 0.35 sq. mile or something along those lines. Also, the reference should ideally follow the format at {{cite book}}. -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. You are correct about "scarcely" - the intended meaning was "not quite", which translates as "nearly". My previous very concise & specific figures were replaced by others who preferred someone else's nth-hand rounding and showed a preference for words over numerals. I will put the more accurate numbers back in. It is hard to please everyone. I believe we should stick with the best available information. As for the book reference format, I am not yet at home with the use of such templates, and invite you to handle it and make the citation kosher. Hertz1888 15:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think precise hectare numbers about the area of the Old City don't belong in the lead and make it harder to read. In any case, the current citation includes words to the effect "other sources say the area is..." I think the texts should be cited directly without additional commentary (prefereably using the citation templates). If the sources disagree, then one of those endnotes can be added that quotes the different opinions. nadav 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The hectare numbers are gone. With regard to the citation, I would like to comply, but the other sources I have seen are websites, some quoting newspaper accounts, some quoting each other. None of these is apt to represent expert first-hand knowledge as much as the Kollek source. One end of the range (215-225 acres) is within five percent of the other. If you see a need to be more precise than that, perhaps you can help locate a more authoritative primary source. Hertz1888 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When the Old City of Jerusalem is described as "approximately one square kilometer" the idea is not to convey the size down to the last milimeter, but to convey the sense that despite thousands of years of fighting over this place, it is really just a tiny patch of ground. All these conversions into 0.this and 0.that defeat the purpose. So can anyone please convert 1 square kilometer into miles so that people who figure distances in miles will understand? --Gilabrand 12:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me? I thought the idea was also to convey the facts (in this instance very much "on the ground"). The sense that this is "just a tiny patch" can be conveyed just as well by adding "only", if you wish, without changing the number, which for all intents and purposes appears to be valid to one significant figure. Or one could say "less than one sq. km", but that would be vague. You wrote, "All the sources say it is one sq.m." No, they don't. Those that give actual acreage give such figures as 215 to 225. If you do the math (247.1 acres to the sq. km), you find this is 0.87 to 0.91 sq. km. It is fully justified calling this "approximately 0.9". The sources you mention are rounding upwards and actually exaggerating the size. I think your point would best be made by leaving the numbers alone; a little precision won't hurt us. Your point that this tiny place has been the focus of so much fighting is totally valid. Why not make it as an explicit statement? Hertz1888 13:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um... 0.4 square mile? The size has not be conveyed down to the last millimeter; 0.9 sq. km is not excessively exact. I honestly believe it should say just under one square kilometer (0.4 sq. mi.); I'm not sure why this was a problem. Note also that American English is used almost exclusively in this article; we should stay consistent (er over re). -- tariqabjotu 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am changing the full spelling of km immediately. If we make your other changes, will it keep peace in the family and put this issue to rest? Hertz1888 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A featured article should not have a citation that says "other sources give a a different figure" without explicitly providing references for this. Moreover, no other footnote in the References section has self-aware comments of this sort. If you want to devote a whole endnote (in the Endnotes section) to this fact then do so. Otherwise, I'm deleting the text. nadav 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Either say what those other sources are or omit that piece. The one source available is sufficient anyway for saying the Old City is approximately 0.9 sq. km (or under one sq. km, or whatever). -- tariqabjotu 04:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

New text

What is this "some of those identifying as Palestinians" that has been added to the lead? I'm getting rid of it. nadav 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

City hall picture

I know that some might feel that the article has enough pictures already, but it seems natural to include a picture of the city hall, as Gilabrand did earlier with Image:kikarsafraS.jpg. Is there any room in the article for it? I suppose it could come in place of another picture. nadav 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support its inclusion, but I wish that it wouldn't come at the expense of the eastern skyline (for which we need a brighter and wider image). Tewfik^Talk 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the picture of Kikar should be there, then why was it removed?

--Gilabrand 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy

There seems to be a discrepancy in the article. The article starts out by saying that the Old City consists of 0.9 square kilometer; yet later in the paragraph Shifts in control it states that the city covers almost 2 square kilometers! Itzse 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. 1000 years passed in the meantime, and I infer from the latter stats that Jerusalem was larger then than the Old City is now. nadav 04:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So we must say that the old city already extended outside its walls a thousand years ago. I haven't seen any source for or against it but it might very well be true. Itzse 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The walls are only about 500 years old. Jerusalem was in fact much larger than the remaining walled Old City, and of course it's area changed during the thousands of years of it's existance. Paper maps of different Jerusalem areas over the millennia are available. If I come across one, I'll reproduce it in a GPL form. Dotancohen 11:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

mayors

I think it was wrong to remove the information about Jerusalem's mayors. An article about Jerusalem without a single mention of Teddy Kollek? There are many sections here that are a hundred times more frivolous (not to mention based on dubious sources) than two sentences about mayors, especially one who had as much of an impact as Teddy Kollek. --Gilabrand 05:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed it: "The longest-serving Jerusalem mayor was Teddy Kollek, who spent twenty-eight years – six consecutive terms – in office." We also have a separate List of mayors of Jerusalem. nadav 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you also specifically point out the frivolous sections with dubious sources? I'll work on them. nadav 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Nadav. Yes, it is there. I must have been looking at an older edit. Actually, I was being overly harsh. I read the article over again just now, and see that much has been done to improve it lately. I am still unhappy with the claim that pollution is higher in East Jerusalem due to carbon monoxide, and also a fuzzy sentence about how the Caliph came to Jerusalem, had "somebody guide" him to where the Jews prayed and "later" decided to build a mosque there. That sounds very anecdotal. Another claim that doesn't make sense to me is the one about Arabs having a higher employment rate. That sounds very nice, and maybe I should be happy about it, but it seems very unlikely to me. Also, considering how short and condensed most of the sections are, I think the section on sports is too long. Yes, it is important to say that there are two rival soccer teams (which is not really emphasized here) , but I think some of it can be pared down. Also, you pointed out to someone that this article uses American spelling. If so, then we should use "soccer," not football. --Gilabrand 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason I can see to doubt the story about Umar. You can read the original historical text here: [4]. It was also mentioned in TIME.com: [5]. About the pollution, yes, we should find better more on-topic sources, which I am sure exist. The unemployment stuff is sourced to the statistics bureau: we can't find any better source than that. I'm ok with having stuff on the sports teams...not everything has to be high brow culture, holy, or political! About the spelling, I don't recall pointing out anything like that, though I suppose it should use either one or the other per WP:ENGVAR. nadav 07:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started looking at some Israeli government reports on air pollution in Jerusalem. The Ministry of the Environment keeps permanent measuring stations at Safra Square, "Klal" (in the center, handles Ben-Yehuda Street), the Afarta school, Gush Etzion, and Beit Shemesh. This is the 2002 air pollution report: [6]. Measurements units were also taken by moblie units in various other places around Jerusalem: [7]. I haven't read most of this stuff yet, but it doesn't look like there are any real stats about East Jerusalem. nadav 10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

CfD

There is currently a discussion about Category:Jerusalem culture at CfD, and your input would be useful. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk

Some more input might be helpful in getting a conclusive result in one or another direction. Tewfik^Talk 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What to make of...

Does anyone have an idea of what to make of this? I'm not sure the term is even deserving of an independent entry, as encyclopaedic information can/should be covered elsewhere. Anyways, what do you all think? Tewfik^Talk 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. I don't can't imagine what the intent of the article is. There's some interesting stuff, but it should all be merged into the proper places. nadav (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A featured article?

I remember when I tried to work on this article, & got flamed to bits by one side or another in the perennial fight over this article. (I don't remember which side that was at the moment). Good work people! -- llywrch 01:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag regarding introductory sentence

The NPOV policy states that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth." The first sentence of this article flatly states that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" (with a footnote) despite the the fact that there seems to be serious conflicting views on that statement. I've read through most of the archived debate on this topic, but it seems to entail little productive dialog. 90% percent of the discussion is simply debate about whether or not Jerusalem can be considered Israel's capital. That should not be the issue we are discussing. The issue is: Is the view that Jerusalem is Israel's capital controversial enough to warrant rewording of the introductory sentence? And if so, how should it be reworded to conform to the NPOV policy?

On the first question, clearly there is significant controversy concerning Jerusalem's status: According to Positions on Jerusalem, "the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital". Not only that, but we have about 24,000 words of debate on the subject archived from the talk page. No matter how much anyone may consider the claim a "fact", it cannot be considered a fact by the NPOV policy definition: "By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'" Can we really assert that there is no serious dispute here (regardless of how wrong you may view one side or the other)? Kaldari 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't tag it while it's on the main page, Kaldari. The lead was very thoughtfully worked on by a number of editors, and thoroughly discussed during the FA process. Jerusalem is the capital. There are bodies that say it ought not to be, but it is, as a matter of demonstrable fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur 100% Raul654 01:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't need to explain that something being a "fact" is not proper criteria for stating it in a Wikipedia article. Unless you are claiming that there are no "conflicting views" or "serious disputes" about that fact, it must be phrased in a way that does not present it as a fact, according to our policies. At least provide me with an argument against the point I am making rather than arguing from axiom. I have no interest in arguing about whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital. That is not the point. Kaldari 02:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As SV just said, is it not disputed that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. The dispute is over whether or not this should be allowed. The fact on the ground is that it *IS* the capital, period, and disputes about whether or not this is an acceptable state of affairs are irrelevant to this fact. Raul654 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that explanation -- that the dispute is over the legality rather than the reality. Kaldari 14:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has already decided this be included as is. The FAC passed with a tremendous majority declaring the lead (and article) as NPOV. nadav (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actualy he's right.For one Tel Aviv is the largest city and technicly the capital since the governemnt operates there only and the embassies are based there too.Vmrgrsergr 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the extensive footnotes about "largest city," or the discussion of what "capital" means? (I wonder what Jayjg would say here LOL) nadav (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The government does not operate out of Tel Aviv, and Tel Aviv is not the largest city in Israel by any standard. -- tariqabjotu 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Friend, you don't seem to know this topic. The government is located in Jerusalem. The government offices, the parliament, the supreme court, the president's quarters, the PM quarters, and many other governmental bodies.

Jerusalem has more than 700,000 residents. Tel Aviv has 370,000. Jerusalem is also much larger in area.

The status of capital has nothing to do with international recognition, only with what the country designates, and where the government is. Since Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital, and since the government is located there - Jerusalem is Israel's capital. okedem 08:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is under the full authority of the State of Israel, and, therefore, the capital of Israel if Israel calls it so. National sovereignty comes first, what other states say or claim is irrelevant. --Mardavich 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Shouldn't UN and international recognision then be decided since both refuse to recognise Jerusalem as israel's capital.--Vmrgrsergr 05:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"be decided"? Raul654 05:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since east Jersualem is occupied by Israel, and not recognised by the international community as it's capital, jeruslaem is the self-proclaimed capital and the opening sentence should reflect this. I suggest that disputed be inserted before capital. --Khalilgibran 08:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Inserting "illegal by international law" into lead

Copying from discussion with User:Grinq:

Hello. Concerning your edit, the legality of the annexation is a complicated subject that deserves extensive treatment and footnotes. Merely inserting the statment by itself violates WP:V. We have extensive info on the subject at Positions on Jerusalem, which is linked to in the article's lead, and further discussion in Jerusalem itself. nadav (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jerusalem (international law on 1967 annexation issue)

I know it doesn't really work to just add in a phrase without a citation. I don't really know how to use Wikipedia, true, so, likely, I'm not the one to properly make this change. Yet it is incontrovertible fact that the annexation of East Jerusalem was and remains illegal under international law. To ignore that, and instead characterize the issue as merely "highly controversial," is not just "finding middle ground," but actually mis-stating the facts -- essentially, whitewashing the issue. There will always be plenty of debate -- extremely heated, lord knows -- about whether the law is actually fair on the subject. But the law is the law, AS FAR as it goes. As far as I can see, the proper thing to do is to add a statement after "it's illegal" to the basic effect that "the Israelis and their supporters hotly contest the justice of this law" or whatnot.

Just a thought. It's a serious issue, and someone should rectify this properly -- someone who knows the rules and coding, not me, by all means.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nadav1"

An anon editor has been adding mention of security council resolution 252 (see [8] for text) to the State of Israel history section. At first I reverted it because the ref link he gives doesn't work, and the material shouldn't go in that section. Now I put in a working ref, but I am still unsure about where the statement should go. nadav (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

This article would really benefit from a map of the city, especially one with important sites and the different sections marked. Atropos 06:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, obviously. I imagine, though, that it'll be difficult to find or create a good free map of modern Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that a free map would be hard to obtain, but I'm sure that there is a talented Wikipedian willing to make one somewhere. Atropos 08:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

To all those who worked on this article to bring it up to stand alongside and be one of Wikipedia's Greatest is amazing. Fantastic work especially in reaching a consensus of some of those hot debates. Great work. --Flymeoutofhere 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to all those who contributed to make Jerusalem a featured article. Keep it up. - Omar 180 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is really good and really well-cited. Ab e g92contribs 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem's occupation

It should be stated that Israel is occupying a big part of Jerusalem, that rightfully belongs to Palestine. Check the UN and see where the border actually is. 81.166.40.97 08:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The topic is well covered. okedem 09:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The topic is covered from a zionist persepective

It's covered just fine, in an NPOV manner. okedem 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Year, decade and century linking

Many of these links were removed. Many of them should be returned. nadav (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this really a featured article?

In fact I think this article is among the worst articles talking about a Palestinian or Israeli topic.

The article is not neutral. clearly it is biased to the Israeli side from its first paragraph. So many evidences.
It bigins the section (History) by giving a short introduction and then begins the historical periods by the Temple periods. It almost ignores thousands of years before that period. The jewish existence in the city was highlighted in a way that is not fair at all if compared to the other religions.

--Wisamzaqoot 15:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has undergone rigorous efforts, and a great deal of care has been taken to make it neutral. As the city is controlled by Israel, and serves as its capital, it's obvious we'll have a lot of Israeli references etc.

Do you know what happened before the temple periods? Is there evidence or research about the time before it was conquered by the Israelites? There simply isn't a lot of say, we just don't know what happened. okedem 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Okedem, I know that Israeli resources concentrates on the jewish existence and the temple period. This is easily understood keeping in mind the Israeli-Palestinian dispute over the city.

Sorry, but claiming that what happened before the temple periods is not known is simply a joke. It shows that you are highly influanced by one-sided point of view, the pro-israeli side. ( not offensive).

you can see the problem not only in the periods before the temple period but also in the periods after that. The aricle is clearly severely biased.

--Wisamzaqoot 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people worked on this article, not all of them Jews/Israelis. This is the result, and it's a good one, as evidenced by the support it received to become a featured article. It gives a balanced account of the events, from antiquity to the present.

If you have a lot of information about the city before biblical times, kindly share it with us. okedem 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This article received a very large majority in the FAC, with small objection from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian sides. It's pretty close to the best that we can do. If you have significant verifiable info on pre-Israelite Jerusalem, please share it. nadav (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added some information on pre-Israelite Jerusalem in an attempt to begin to rectify this imbalance. Tiamut 10:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Status as capital

?Question: why is reference to the contention on sovereignty an endnote (endnote iii) and not emphasized in the first paragraph? If status as capital is still not recognized by the UN, that should immediately follow a statement that it is the de-facto capital, no? --Shipmaster 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because UN recognition is not a prerequisite for a capital. In fact, it has nothing to do with it, as Jerusalem is both de-jure capital (designated as capital by Israeli law), and de-facto capital (seat of government). The UN's position in the matter is superfluous to it's status as capital. okedem 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing whether or not that status, as imposed by Israeli law, is valid or is enough as a pre-requisite, I am just saying that if there is a contention, and a heavy one I presume, that should be obvious from the first paragraph, which currently conveys only that it is the capital. If one reads down a bit, this info is clear from Thus, the status of a united Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital has not been recognized by the United Nations and much of the international community.. Isn't that a mixed message? IMHO it's a bit POV, this info was important enough to include but not enough so as to challenge the matter-of-fact statement in the first paragraph? --Shipmaster 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's important enough to include, but not enough to change the fact that it is capital. The dispute is that some think it shouldn't be capital, but their view can't change reality, so it's still capital. okedem 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no contention that it is the capital. The contention is on whether it should be, and about Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is no contention about it bieng the capital then why are forign embassies based in tel aviv? the dispute is that many don't accept it as the capital, ( not think it shouldn't be ) Elie 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, most embassies were located in Tel Aviv even before 1967, when the status of West Jerusalem of Israel's capital was undisputed. Even the United States currently maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv, despite declaring twelve years ago (through the Jerusalem Embassy Act) its belief that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Thus, that piece is irrelevant. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches are centered in Jerusalem. Israel proclaims Jerusalem as its capital. It does not matter what the United Nations or any other country says; those criteria make Jerusalem the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Why isn't this page at least semi-protected today? It's under constant attack. okedem 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection should be redrafted or not? Please help form consensus at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection#Consensus. DrKiernan 09:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The word disputed

I am only trying to add the word disputed to describe the current situation of Jerusalem. It is a matter of fact. Jerusalem is unrecognized as a capital for israel by UN, the vast majority of countries (including USA) and by the Palestinians (the other party in the dispute). It is only recognized according to an Israeli law in 1980. I tried to put (... is the disputed capital of israel) in the first paragraph , but so many people don't accept that change. --Wisamzaqoot 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, because it's wrong (it is the capital, no matter what other countries think), and because the issue is mentioned in the next paragraph. This formulation has been carefully crafted by many editors. Your change is not acceptable, nor is your manner in undertaking it. okedem 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also read discussion above, discussion at the Feature Article candidate debate, and discussion in talk page archive. This large volume of discussion (which has accumulated over a couple years I think) now constitutes a consensus. nadav (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okedem says:...it is the capital, no matter what other countries think! This totally conflicts with a NPOV, plus, shall be considered as irrespect to others.--TheEgyptian 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way? Israelis have a country. Palestinians do not. Israel has a capital. Palestine does not. -- tariqabjotu 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The reality of the situation is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, according to every definition of capital. What other countries recognize or don't recognize is a political issue, which cannot change reality. We write about reality. Thus, we say - "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". okedem 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The status of Jerusalem as Israels capital is Disputed, This is an improtant piece of information that cannot be ignored into a footnote, there is no disagreement on weather it is disputed or not, we all agree that the status is disputed, and the fact that a countries capital is disputed is very relevant. plainly stating that Jerusalem is Israels capital is misleading. Elie 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right; this is an important piece of information that cannot be ignored into a footnote. That's why it's in the third paragraph of the intro, the "State of Israel" section, the "Capital of Israel" section, and the "Palestinian claims" section. -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As a small sideline, I would like to comment on what nadav has said and what I see being repeated to many who have argued about that one sentence since the article became featured, and is also being used repeatedly as a reason to revert people who wanted to change, again, that single sentence (as I see from page history), that consensus can change, and that is especially true in the case of an article becoming featured and thus gaining more attention. I see from talk page history that there was an acceptable compromise (to me at least) of putting the other argument in the first paragraph but it was not implemented for some reason. --Shipmaster 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can definitely change. I said that in order to try to bring people into discussion, to more fully explain their reasons, and in hope that they would read the long discussions that have already taken place about this. nadav (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an account sorry, but just want to say, If two countries (or parties) lay claim to a city, or capitol, dosen't that make it despited rightly or wronly? I mean the palestinians lay claim to Jerusalem, whatever way you look at it, it cannot be the capital of palestine, or part of it a city of Jordan (which I believe it technically should be under UN law) and not be disputed. If more than one country or faction lays claim to a city then it is disputed that is final, it dosen't matter how much a country believes the city is theirs, Wikipedia is part of the WORLD WIDE WEB which means it shouldnt offer just the Israeli point of view over this city.

Thwart

NPOV tag regarding Jerusalem's status

I have added an NPOV tag based on the discussions here wherein many editors have objected to the portrayal of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Please consider the following issues:

There are no embassies in Jerusalem. El Salvador and Costa Rica were the last countries to transfer their embassies to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem, announcing their decisions in August. Tiamut 10:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to better reflect this information in the article and in reponse to a fact tag in place soliciting that a reference be added to support the claim that Israel's capital is not recognized by the international community as Jerusalem, I made these edits: [9] which as you can see had been reverted along with other minor edits that faithfully reflect the existing sources in the article by Humus_sapiens (talk · contribs). I have restored the material, but am curious to know how the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is not a credible source? Tiamut 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Everyone who has worked on this article is very, very familiar with these facts. No one disputes them and they are all explicitly mentioned in the article (with some of them stated multiple times). But "capital" has a very specific meaning: it is the city chosen by a government to be associated with it and to contain its offices. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a city serving as a seat of government." Random House Unabridged defines it as "the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.: Tokyo is the capital of Japan." American Heritage Dictionary: "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation." World Encarta: "1. seat of government: a city that is the seat of government of a country, state, or province" You don't need other countries to have a capital. Now, please understand that countries can criticize Israel for choosing such a capital, and they have many reasons to. But it does not change the fact that it is still the capital by definition of the word. We can work very hard on making sure the reader of the article understands that many disagree with Israel's decision about its choice of capital, but we cannot bend the meaning of the word. nadav (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is imprecise to say that many disagreed with the use of the word "capital," since it is probable that most didn't and thus had no reason to object. Notice the article received a number of compliments. It also passed FAC with a higher than 75% majority. nadav (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nadav, I do understand your first point, but even modest attempts just now to better explain to the reader that Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital by the international community, who insist that it is Tel Aviv, are continually reverted. (Just as in the case of Humus sapiens edit above.) This is unacceptable. It should be crystal clear to the reader that Jerusalem is Israel's self-declared capital and that it serves as the seat of government etc., but that this use of Jerusalem as its capital is not accepted by the interntional community. I feel the edits I have already made go some distance towards making that clarification, but I would also like to add the words "self-declared" before the word "capital" in the first line of the introduction. This is not some minor point, it is a central piece of information that deserves to be faithfully represented at the very beginning of the article. And I feel that a failure to do so, will result in ongoing edit wars, as is evidenced by the article;s page history. Tiamut 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to including the mention of Tel Aviv. Why is that being reverted? I only don't like the NPOV tag that's disfiguring the article. nadav (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

On the second point regarding the FAC outcome, while the article is quite well-written, what it does not say is a huge issue and not one that most people unfamiliar with the subject would even notice, since it is not there. (For example, consider the material I recently added to the history section on the pre-Israelite era.) Additions of this nature can further enrich the article and the reader's experience, but their absence is not likely to noticed except by experts in the field. Tiamut 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that either. The richer the content the better. It's just the tag I don't like. nadav (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am with adding self-declared before capital, why is this being reverted? doesn't that more accurately present the case? --Shipmaster 11:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) don't mind removing the NPOV from the article page and leaving the talk page POV tag intact as a reminder to editors that the issue is being discussed and is in the process of being rectified. If we are not allowed to keep a POV on the talk once it's removed from the article page, I would ask that you copy the comment that is appended there to this section, so that the editor that originally added it to the article page will know that their concerns have been noted. But I must add that if editors continue to delete sourced information that provides the reader with important context and balance per WP:NPOV, I will readd the tag. Tiamut 11:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shipmaster. Maybe we need a reliable source for the statement "self-declared". Here is one from CNN Feel free to readd it with the source. Or, if you want, I will. Tiamut 11:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that a capital is always self-declared by the very definition of the word. Maybe a phrasing like "the city it has chosen to be its capital" (admittedly awkward) would better reflect the situation. nadav (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This matter is explained several times in the article; to expect people to read past the first sentence or read the footnote is certainly reasonable. Perhaps reordering the sentences, as mentioned in previous compromises, would be a good idea, but sticking "self-proclaimed" into the first sentence seems rather silly. -- tariqabjotu 12:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to wait a day or two for more people to weigh in, but I don't think this phrasing problem is insurmountable. nadav (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to go with the phrasing provided by reliable source. "self-declared" in a google search [10] seems to be used for capitals declared to such but whose declaration is contested by others. It's short, simple and can be sourced to a reliable source. "The city it has chosen to be its capital" pretty much poses the problem under which you objected to self-declared. In that, every country chooses its own capital. Tiamut 12:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to add "self-declared" before the word capital in the introduction. That is because it's not just Israel's "self-declared capital", it's also Israel's "capital". Period. -- tariqabjotu 12:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Palestinians, it is also their capital [11]. Further, the opinion of the international community that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital is entirely relevant. It doesn't diminish the fact that Jerusalem functions as Israel's capital to note that it is self-declared as such. Further, the body of the article makes it clear that no embassies are located in Jerusalem, which is odd for a capital city that you claim is as a capital city period. Tiamut 12:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How can the Palestinians have a capital? Capital of what? Can Eskimos suddenly proclaim Anchorage, Alaska as their capital? No... they don't have a country. That is why the introduction says as Palestinians view this part of the city as the capital of a future Palestinian state. This is in the article. In the intro. And three other places. Once again, I'll repeat that the embassy issue means very little; prior to 1967, when West Jerusalem was the widely-accepted (dare I say undisputed?) capital of Israel, all but about a dozen countries had their embassies outside (West) Jerusalem. About the "international community" piece, let's go to directly to the UN Resolution 478. The resolution clearly puts the moving of the embassies as a pure punitive measure. This is hardly different from the position of many Arab countries, who refuse to recognize Israel at all. Just because the UN represents more countries does not mean their perspective can override the definition of what a capital is. Tell me how Jerusalem does not fit the defintion of "capital" and then we can discuss qualifying this fact. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The first two lines of definition you linked to that are most relevant to this discussion are:

1. the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.: Tokyo is the capital of Japan.
2. a city regarded as being of special eminence in some field of activity: New York is the dance capital of the world.

Now, I am not denying that Jerusalem is the self-declared capital of Israel. Indeed, it fits the definition because the Knesset is located there and because Israel has passed laws declaring that it is the capital, in line with the requirments of definition one. However, no foreign embassies are located in Jerusalem. And the international community quite clearly rejects that Jerusalem is the capital and only recognizes Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. Your speculations as to why that is are WP:OR. The fact is, that it is so. Now, your claims that Palestinians cannot claim Jerusalem as their capital seem to fly in the face of definition number 2, and also arguably number 1. Palestinians regard Jerusalem as their capital; i.e. it has a "special eminence" with regard to their national inspirations. Further, the Palestinian Authority passed a law declaring Jerusalem to be its capital. Now, considering that the status of Jerusalem is an issue for final negotiations, this indicates that the both Israel and Palestine can claim Jerusalem as their capital. But in the final analysis, neither one's domestic laws overrule international law which basically states that Jerusalem is nobody's capital until both sides can sit down and work their problems out. Tiamut 16:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We all know the facts so there is no point arguing about them. The various aspects of the capital status are all already in the article. Let's think of a sentence ordering as Tariq says that gives the proper weight to the different aspects of the issue. nadav (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What I am thinking about now is how to move up the explanation of how it's not recognized to an earlier place in the lead. The problem is that the statement requires so much room to explain it, that it would basically mean appending the third par. to the first. But in the FAC, people said that devoting so much room in the very start to these issues would be extremely recentist. So, just like last time, it is a very tough problem. nadav (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. What I don't understand is how the term "self-declared" is not an acceptable solution to this problem. It is sourced to a reliable source, is brief and yet makes clear from the outset that there is some contestation surrounding Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital. Tiamut 13:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is heart breaking. After so much work has been done to find a good compromise, some people just can't resist the temptation to pour oil on the still glowing hot embers, and launch us into another round of fun.

By any definition of the word capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. World opinion is not relevant for that, nor are embassies. There should be no qualification before "capital". Certainly not "self-declared/proclaimed", as that's meaningless. A capital is always self-declared. Besides, it serves as capital, and that's a fact, not some declaration. The issue is dealt with with enough space already, and shouldn't be given any more in the lead.

What the Palestinians claim is meaningless - they don't have a state, so they certainly can't have a capital. Even their current government does not reside in Jerusalem, so they can't fill that criteria. They don't even control Jerusalem, but that's just another nail in the coffin.

The mention of Tel Aviv is absurd. Even if other countries want to claim it's the capital, they simply can't. Foreign bodies can't tell a country what its capital is, and Tel Aviv doesn't serve as capital. okedem 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tel Aviv hosts all the foreign embassies. Capitals usually host all the foreign embassies. Ergo, Tel Aviv is the capital in the eyes of the international community and in fact does serve as such. Tiamut 14:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The above sentence should serve as a classic case example of Original research --Leifern 19:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You really got me there Leifern. I don't cite a source for just one of my comments on the talk page and I'm engaging in WP:OR. I think you should open a RfC on me for that. Just reprehensible really. You could just read the article Consul_(representative). I have provided sources for every sentence I have added to this article and every other article I have contributed to. I know that without one (and even with one in many cases) edits can get deleted. Tiamut 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, Tiamut? The Capital is where the embassies are? Can you source that, quite unique, definition? okedem 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of Amsterdam – Amsterdam is the capital city of the Netherlands. Look at how many embassies are in Amsterdam. One. A capital is where the country says its capital is (unless one is not explicitly stated, in which case we go by the dictionary definition alone). That in-which-case clause, fortunately, does not apply here; Jerusalem is the capital of Israel both de jure, based on the Jerusalem Law, and de facto, based on its status as Israel's seat of government. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I view the current phrasing as basically saying that other countries are pretending that the capital is Tel Aviv as a sign of protest against the annexation. The fact that Jerusalem is the de facto capital is in the first sentence. nadav (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then not "recognize", but "claim". Recognition is a two-way thing - one side claims something, and the other can choose to recognize it. Israel doesn't claim Tel Aviv is the capital, thus, other countries can't recognize it as the capital. They can only claim it is. okedem 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, telling another country where its capital is, constitutes a gross violation of basic international law of sovereignty. We have gone over this many times before, but there is simply no basis in international law to either "claim" or "recognize" Tel Aviv as Israel's capital, and in all this back and forth we haven't found a single government asserting that Tel Aviv has this status. What they say is that Israel can, or should, not establish its capital in Jerusalem. Important distinction. --Leifern 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The most accurate language is the one that is used in the footnote. nadav (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we return to the original lead except strengthen the words about how much the UN/security council objects/considers invalid/[insert quote] the status as capital? The UN is certainly entitled to their say, and since enough people think their opinion is important we can just give greater weight to that in the lead. nadav (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we change the placement of the other argument to be placed in the first paragraph? I can accept keeping the first sentence as is if the other argument appears right after that, giving weight to the problem and acknowledging the dispute in the same place that sentence appears. I think that was in the compromise I mentioned I found in the archived discussions,but that was never adopted. --Shipmaster 14:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I came up with a similar idea in the first FAC, but people didn't like it for the recentist reason explained above. nadav (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand the objection,IMHO this will solve the argument over the first sentence while giving the other argument enough weight to satisfy the other side, seems like an acceptable solution to me. Opinions? --Shipmaster 15:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a visual of what that might look like by pasting it here? Tiamut 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This was originally nadav's suggestion to be included in the first paragraph: During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinians as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. --Shipmaster 08:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That version was rejected by everybody save one person as I recall, and in the end the consensus formed around Tariq's version for the lead. It is a dangerous game to modify a featured article in such a drastic fashion so soon after its promotion. nadav (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously there is a lot of contention on the current version, having gained more attention than before it was featured, and a middle ground can't be reached by simply saying 'It's Featured, It's agreed upon, leave it as is'?! --Shipmaster 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making myself clear. What I meant was that I proposed that version and only one person liked it, whereas the other version was accepted by 21 people. nadav (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We've already bent too far in the direction of the political discussion with the emphasis on SCR 252 and the discussion of embassies in the introduction. Tariq already tried to include more of the discussion with the compromise additions prior to FA, and I don't see why that validated consensus version should be further altered. Tewfik^Talk 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

More weight needs to be added to how disputed the issue of Jerusalem is... and there needs to be mention of this further up in the article. The first paragraph implies without question that Jerusalem is Israel's capital as if it was a simple issue. It clearly isn't, especially with world wide condemnation and disagreement. -- User:Dangermouse101 10:07, 25 May 2007 (GMT)

The lead cannot entirely satisfy everyone: compromises must be made. The third paragraph is entirely devoted to explaining the complicated nature of the Jerusalem's status, and there is also footnote to the first sentence that explains it. If we move up the third paragraph then other people complain. The nature of a compromise is that no one completely gets their way. And like it was said earlier, you just have to expect that people will read more than just the very first sentence without its footnote. Personally, I don't really care about these kinds of issues, but it really brings back bad memories from the FAC debate. I want to emphasize that the article passed FAC just a few short weeks ago with 21 supports and 4 objects, with some of those objections being that it's not pro-Israel enough or something. Moreover, from the archive we can see that the current lead has developed through discussions taking place over the course of years. We can't bend over backwards now to satisfy a few complaints of POV. Nevertheless, if someone here suggests their own idea for a lead, at least there would be something to discuss. nadav (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

how about changing it so that the first 4 words in the article are not "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" maybe start with "Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel...." then leave the capital discussion for the 3rd paragraph or something, because its not that simple to explain. also Jerusalem bieng Israels capital is not the most important thing about Jerusalem and it doesn't have to be the first 4 words. Elie 22:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I really can't see why this is under so much discussion. The facts speak for themselves: Israel occupied part of Jersulam and declared it the capital. The fact that half of jersulaem is under occupation is not under dispute. The fact that no country recognises Jersulam as israel's capital is not under dispute. Just change the opening assertion that Jerusalem is Israel's capital to something that reflects the position. There are many excellent suggestions above. my favourite is self-declared.--Khalilgibran 09:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

~~This isn't even the right section!~~ Anyway, you completely ignored the points raised during the discussion. okedem 09:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All capitals are "self-declared", and no capitals require international recognition. These points have been gone over at length. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right Jayjg but it is also blatantly obvious that case of Jerusalem as a capital is different than the international 'norm', and this fact requires a statement of clarification at the earliest possible place in the article. Otherwise it's POV. I suggest a short clarification is added right after the first statement "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". This is very important. Javit 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be more controversial than other capitals, but it is capital none-the-less. The issue is handled throughly in the lead, and this is already a compromise between people with different opinions here. Please respect that compromise, which required a lot of work to reach. okedem 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Javit, almost the whole third paragaph of the lead is devoted to that very point, and the very use of the term "capital" is accompanied by a clarifying footnote. That's a lot. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I think the issue very well treated further down in the article. I believe a link to that paragraph when the statement is first declared would be very helpful but I will respect the established consensus. out. Javit 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Kenyon quote

I have no problem with including as much info as is known about Jerusalem prior to David's conquest of the city. However, I object to the addition of a speculative quote as we have right now:

Kathleen Kenyon, celebrated archaeologist, has submitted that, "there was probably occupation at Jerusalem about 2600 BCE, in the early Bronze Ages, when the occupants of Palestine were certainly Semitic, i.e. of ancient Arab stock, and some authorities believe they were Canaanites ... The earliest fortified town of Jerusalem of which there is certain evidence was founded about 1800 BCE."

We don't have quotes anywhere else in the history section. This needs to be replaced with the clear facts to the extent they are known, or with the archaeological reasons that lead her to making these statements. nadav (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We have an entire section of the article that on the history of Soloman which uses the Bible as its main source. This is a respected archaeologist who is an expert on the Near East Chalcolithic period. How is her opinion any less valid or historically accurate than that of the Old Testament? Tiamut 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the stuff she is talking about should be removed. I am just saying the article is better served by replacing the quote with more detailed treatment of the archaeological evidence she is discussing. Why have a vague quote when it can be replaced with something better? nadav (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I assume that the reason the quote is somwhat vague is that the history of that time period is still being pieced together. Kathleen Kenyon is an expert in the field and her opinion is probably as good as it gets for a reliable source on this time period. As the text in the paragrph already states, there is confusion as to whether the Amorites or Jeubsites were the earliest inhabitants, both of which are Semitic and/or Canaanite peoples. There is also some speculation that settlements goes back earlier than the remains of the old city of Jebus on the Ophel ridge - i.e. the bedouin settlements referred to in Aamiry's text. Tiamut 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph needs to be reworded; you've inserted a lengthy direct quote instead of converting into prose. I'll go work on the paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some major changes to the paragraph. Remember that we do have the History of Jerusalem page; there's no need to go on extensively about the geography and use of the land here when that really can be put in the History article (if anywhere at all). -- tariqabjotu 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume the point was to expand the treatment of the pre-Israelite section for balance. The problem is that so little is known about that era. nadav (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen Jebusites or Amorites considered Arab, which frankly seems like an anachronistic designation (that entry begins the discussion in 330 BCE, not 2600), and there is no such mention in their entries or that on Canaanites. It seems more likely that the i.e. was Mohammed Adib Aamiry's interpretation, considering that the volume's thesis and title is "Jerusalem: Arab Origin and Heritage", rather than her position. Can we can show that she explicitly said that? Tewfik^Talk 05:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, they were semitic, but calling them "Arab" does seem about as accurate as calling Jews Arab. Arabic and the Canaanite languages are not exactly in the same language classification. nadav (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling that after tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) paraphrased the information provided by Kathleen Kenyon in Aamiry's book that this would happen. Please note that the original aedit read:

Kathleen Kenyon, celebrated archaeologist, has submitted that, "there was probably occupation at Jerusalem about 2600 BCE, in the early Bronze Ages, when the occupants of Palestine were certainly Semitic, i.e. of ancient Arab stock, and some authorities believe they were Canaanites ... The earliest fortified town of Jerusalem of which there is certain evidence was founded about 1800 BCE."

as in this diff: [12]. The material in quotes is in quotes in Aamiry's book and attributed to Kenyon. In other words, Aamiry is not the one making this statement. It is Kathleen Kenyon who makes it and considering that she is an expert in Near East Chalcolithic archaeology, it is certainly relevant, notable and accurate. I would appreciate it if you would restore the quote, or alternatively the paraphrase as edited by tariqabjotu. It is against WP:NPOV to remove information sourced to a reliable source. This article provides a very one-sided historical background to Jerusalem and this was an attempt to rectify that imabalnce with expert opinions. Tiamut 12:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, restored paraphrase but with language closer to Kenyon's. I don't know how to incorporate the Large stone structure wikilink though; I'm not a fan of how that was done. nadav (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could the reference to the original Kenyon document which Aamiry cites and/or additional references please be provided? I am still sceptical since the term Arab seems extremely anachronistic in this context. In the meantime, I still think that my rephrasing flows better, and so I will restore it while including the "Arab stock" wording that Nadav added, and making a new attempt at the Large stone structure material, though by all means try to improve it. Tewfik^Talk 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible the terminology has changed in the 30 years since she died. "Arab stock" does sort of seem to have a racial bent, and race considerations are definitely no longer in fashion. nadav (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really up to us to speculate as to what Kenyon meant when she wrote "Arab stock". The fact is that she did and is cited by Aamiry in his book on page 15 as saying so. We cannot retrospectively change the terminology to what we think might be accurate. She is the expert archeologist, we mere Wikipedia editors. I have restored my original edit since many subsequent editors have added their own terminology and attributed to Kenyon as though it was her saying so, without providing additional sources. Aamiry sources this quote to Kenyon's notes. I will try to find other sources to put to rest the nay-sayers, but in the meantime, I would appreciate others representing the source faithfully. Tiamut 16:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that Jayjg has reverted my restoration. Why is WP:ATT or WP:RS and WP:NPOV ignored when it comes to including Arab sources? Tiamut 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is M.A. Aamiry, and why would his slim propaganda tract from the 70s, which selectively quotes an out-of-context Kenyon, be considered a reliable source for your claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is every Palestinian writer than you've never heard of making "political" statements or pushing "propaganda" tracks? If I said that about every Jewish source you put forward without citing reliable sources for my claims, you'd accuse me of violating WP:BLP or at leastWP:CIVIL. Try being less bigoted in your approach. Stick to the facts without the polemic. Tiamut 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite possible she said this, but I believe you will not be able to find a modern reliable source that equates ancient semitic people from that period with the word "Arab" as it's understood today. As I said above, it would be just as (in)accurate to use the word "Hebrews" in that context. Read our Canaan and Semitic articles. nadav (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From Britannica:

Arabic singular masculine 'Arabi, singular feminine 'Arabiyah, plural 'Arab one whose native language is Arabic. (See also Arabic language.) Before the spread of Islam and, with it, the Arabic language, Arab referred to any of the largely nomadic Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula. In modern usage, it embraces any of the Arabic-speaking peoples living in the vast region from Mauritania, on the Atlantic coast of Africa, to southwestern Iran, including the entire Maghrib of North Africa, Egypt and The Sudan, the Arabian Peninsula, and Syria and Iraq.

So instead of confusing people with an antiquated meaning of the word arab, I think it is much more precise to use "West Semitic". nadav (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "out-of-context". As I pointed out in my edit summary, when Shakespeare says "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", he's not referring to what we today think of as philosophy, but rather to natural science. Specific words from Kenyon have been taken out of context in order to present Kenyon as saying something she didn't actually intend to say. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another useful link: [13] It's to a book on Google books, Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. It explains that the earliest use of the word was in the ninth century BCE, which is almost 2000 years later than the period we are talking about. nadav (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing Nadav is WP:SYNTH. Kenyon uses the term "Arab stock" and not just Arab. You don't have a source that uses the word Arab stock and defines it, let alone one that does this in relation to Kenyon's use of term, and therefore your conclusions as to what she meant are speculation. Bernard Lewis uses the term Arabian tribes to describe these West Semitic groups. I could deduce that is what Kenyon meant, but I think it's best to let her words speak for themselves in the absence of reliable sources to interpret what she meant. Tiamut 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's best not to use her at all, given there is little context for her words, and they're clearly confusing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think her words are ambiguous, then the best option is to replace the Kenyon quote with something unambiguous. We're not writing poetry; we're writing an encyclopedia, so everything we write should be clear and without any layered meanings. "Arabian" is OK I suppose, and it may be more accessible a word to casual readers than "west semitic", so using Bernard Lewis is a good option. I also have a bunch of his books in case you want to look up another citation. nadav (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

end of first temple period

Old text: "This period ended with the division of the United Monarchy, which had consisted of 12 tribes."

The first temple period ended with the destruction of the temple, a couple of centuries after the division of the united monarchy, as the continuation of the paragraph makes clear. The sentence can simply be removed and the paragraph would flow quite nicely (another good reason to remove it). As an anon user I can't edit it myself, otherwise I would be bold...

Done, though the fact that the kingdom consisted of 12 tribes should have remained perhaps. nadav (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvellous, superb.

What a marvellous article. Simply superb. Wik idea 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This page being targeted

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3697/0/

Just a heads up, these folks are trying to encourage people to edit Wikipedia in a manner that suits their political orientation.

-Abhinav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.142.162 (talk • contribs) 01:28 2 June 2007 (UTC).

East Jerusalem is illegally occupied by Israel, in contravention of several binding UN Security Council Resolutions. Jerusalem is not recognised as the Capital of Israel under UN and International laws. 82.36.27.50 Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel ...!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.178 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 June 2007

Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel ...!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.15.142.178 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

1. East Jerusalem is considered by the international community to be illegally occupied by Israel, in contravention of several binding UN Security Council Resolutions. 2. Jerusalem is not recognised as the Capital of Israel under UN and International laws. 3. The UN Security Council has called for no measures to be taken to change the status of Jerusalem until a final settlement is reached between the sides: declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital is an attempt to change this status, and is thus a violation of these Security Council resolutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.24 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 June 2007

Just thought i'd mention the hypocricy of these people who refused to accept the 1947 UN vote on the Israeli-Arab matter in British mandate Palestine, and also on how they violated the UN on the eve of the 1967 war... so they violate the rules blatently and then try to bend them later. no shame. Jaakobou 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. There's no point in starting an argument about this. nadav (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

nadav, i did not state an opinion, only a couple facts and hypocricy. Jaakobou 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Nadav's point was along the lines of WP:DFT. Tewfik^Talk 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was searching this site to see what the issues are in relation to Palestine ans the Israelis. I was surprised to find out that this site has inaccuracies and misinformation. This is quite shocking due to the fact that this Encyclopedia is meant to educate public. I wouls like to raise the following issuses in realtion to jarusalem in Palestine.

1. East Jerusalem is considered by the international community to be illegally occupied by Israel, in contravention of several binding UN Security Council Resolutions.

2. Jerusalem is not recognised as the Capital of Israel under UN and International laws.

3. The UN Security Council has called for no measures to be taken to change the status of Jerusalem until a final settlement is reached between the sides: declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital is an attempt to change this status, and is thus a violation of these Security Council resolutions

I urge you to reconsider and change the information on the site in relation to Jarusalem.

Thanking you

Farid Ali —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.96.202.1 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

i refer to your definition of Jerusalem as being the capital of the state of Israel and seat of government:

(Jerusalem (Hebrew: ????????????? (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: ?????? (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is Israel's capital,[iii] seat of government)

as factualy incorrect, in violation of international laws and deeply offensive to the Palestinians \who have been forced out of Jerusalem as a result of the illegal Israeli occupation, unfortunately is forty years old this year. and ,Wikipedia, as a page that endeveours to present to the reader the most accurate of information i urge that the editors to adopt another definition that is closer to the reality of the situation. as : Jerusalem is not the capital city of the state of Israel but the capital city of the State of Palestine. kind regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.71.250 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel and it will never be so please change this.

80.47.30.124 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the capital. Whether you beleive the entire city or only West Jerusalem is the capital, it is the capital of Israel. Why does Israel not get to make a city it's capital just because some of that city's borders "Are not finalized"? Dragon Smaug 20:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia doesn't declare anything, nor does it affect the status of any city or territory. Wikipedia is merely a tool for conveying information. The security council's resolutionsand other means of the international community are respected political views, but they do not describe the fact on the ground nor can they overwrite Israeli laws. To sum it all up - I don't know whether or not Jerusalem should be called the capital of Israel in this article (it is clearly the seat of government, though), but arguing that we should align with international resolutions is simply irrelevant. DrorK 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask all the regular editors not start a political argument, since I don't see how that would improve the the article. nadav (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we just accept the Israeli opinion on the matter? We could just archive the opinions that differ from this and ensure that the Israeli point of view is the one which is in the article. Indeed, what do international opinion and UN resolutions matter anyway? Legality and sovereignty are merely semantics and shouldn't influence the article.Sanitycheck 06:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The article gives the opinion of the UN and discusses UNSC resolutions 252 and 478, as well as the Palestinians' desire for East Jerusalem to be their capital. Further extensive treatment is at Positions on Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. The wording of the lead has been subject to extensive debate, but the current formulation was agreed upon by a majority of people after a very long period of debate. I know you are not fully satisfied, but you should accept that people with opposite viewpoints from yours are also not satisfied. nadav (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please edit this

{{editprotected}} Change the website link in the infobox from the current (Hebrew) one to this English one. - Patricknoddynewaccount 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The current link goes to the main website in its original language. Links referencing the English (and Arabic) versions can be found in the accompanying footnote as well as on the Hebrew website. -- tariqabjotu 11:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the capital

Hello, I was looking at the Jerusalem website, their timeline has sentence saying (to put it in my own words) "Jerusalem was divided and Israel declared it the capital". - Patricknoddynewaccount 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus there are places on the website where it is specifically stated "Capital of Israel". - Patricknoddynewaccount 11:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is amusingly naive.Sanitycheck 12:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian territories

A user who has twice categorised Category:Geography of Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories, because: Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories, and Category:Geography of Israel, both belong since it is disputed territory. Or remove both categories. Needless to say, I think it is extremely inappropriate to label Jerusalem with a controversial political term, but I'm bringing this up here because the user has a history with me (incivility, personal attacks), and so I would rather not be the only person dealing with them. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you in this case. I already addressed the matter at Category talk:Geography of Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is still going on, and has now been expanded to Category:Jerusalem. Tewfik^Talk 20:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

-aim for dual ending

Please, change this: "The ending -ayim or -im has the appearance of the Hebrew dual"

--213.96.149.133 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to clarify? Change it to what, why change it at all? okedem 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

insertion of work 'suppossedly by redaktor

I think the context of the article and the presence of the sentence in the etymology section already makes it clear enough that Solomon is a character from Hebrew mythology and the POV represented by inserting the word suppossed is just argumentative not informative. I will be more than happy to hear another point of view on this issue.--Markisgreen 14:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

URU URU salaam KI

Following up on a discussion on the ANE 2 discussion list, Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible and ANE History Lists Commentary blog notes the way the place name [Jerusalem] is written in the Akkadian of Amarna tablet EA 287.

He even has a picture from The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool website. He correctly notes that the place name is written with the "City" determinative URU before urusalem. At least this is true in five of the seven instantiations of the place name in the Amarna tablets.

EA 287:25: URUú-ru-sa-lim (I believe this is the example illustrated in Yitzhak's post)

EA 287:46: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 287:61: ú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 287:63: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 289:14: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 289:29: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 290:15: ú-ru-sa-limKI

The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places.

That suggests that it was at one time the northern border of the dijadi which was moved north in the Time of Thutmosis I to the city of Kadesh in the mountains. (This was originally a Phoenician city (Gades - Cadiz, Carthage, Kodesh) which was a city of refuge on the border of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel before any of those existed as countries.

Like Kadesh Jerusalem may have had the same function as a refuge city and also as a place where people would feel safe to meet for purposes of trade. In the 18th Dynasty the border between retnu (the watershed of the Orantes) and the dijadi (the watershed of the Jordan) was at the common headwaters of the Orantes, Litani and Jordan whose mountain watersheds people still fight over today.

The Akkadian name should go first since thats the name of the place in its earliest history, even after it becomes part of an Egyptian province in the 18th and 19th Dynasty as referenced in the Amarna letters.Rktect 10:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, since we have a strict No original research policy. Has this theory been published in a reliable, secondary source? nadav (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes to repeat, the name occurs seven times in the Amarna letters, one of the most heavily discussed primary sources on this topic. See above The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool website. Is the phrase "original research" applicable where you are talking about the comments of Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible ? Rktect 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No one disputes that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Amarna letters. This is already in the article. If you want to include the info you wrote above, then that should be cited to a published source, not a web forum. In any case, putting the ancient name of the city in bold at the start of the article is not customary on Wikipedia, since we only do that with modern alternative names, not ancient names in dead languages. nadav (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is cited to a published source, the Amarna letters, hence the line numbers. It doesn't need to be in bold except that is Wikipedia's standard practice. The all caps is a linguistic device meaning that the determinative "place" is borrowed into Akkadian from Sumerian. If you agree that its desirable to avoid English only bias, or Jewish only bias, or modern history only bias, then its probably good to point out that the city is ancient and has had many residents not all of whom were Jewish or English speaking.Rktect 10:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a sense in this article that although Jerusalem is held sacred by many religions it should be discussed primarily from a Jewish perspective, rather than from a Muslim, Christian or Agnostic perspective; and similarly that the religious references should get more play than the archaeological, historic, linguistic, or even literal biblical references. My perspective would be that any comments which are demonstrably wrong, such as references to Jerusalem existing as a city in the period of Genesis should be struckRktect 12:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The author who placed the etymological section cites Zecharia Sitchin as authoritative while removing the comments of Yitzhak Sapir as original research. Consequently this article deserves a disputed tag.Rktect 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can propose a new version of the etymology section here so we can look at it first. nadav (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Jerusalem - Pre-Judean Period

Disclaimer: I am an Israeli.
The history in this article differs greatly from the current thought of Israeli historians and bible researchers. From what I've read (but unfortunately can't source right now), there was never a unified kingdom and therefore, a conquest of Jerusalem.
The Torah part of the bible was written in Judean kingdom times by priests, which explains a lot of open questions such as: why would any sane king choose to position his capital city on a hill instead of on a shore and a major road (the king's road).
While I can't provide sources, I feel uneasy about the current text.
89.0.197.58 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Roy

We'll wait till you find sources then. I don't think you are right when you say most of these experts do not accept the conquest of Jerusalem. There are indications outside the Bible of the fact that Jerusalem was conquered by the Hebrews. nadav (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing is the minimalist school of thought, which is one of several points of view on the topic. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Define Conquest. Joshua 15:63 But the Sons of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites who lived in jerusalem. The Jebusites lived in Jerusalem side by side with the sons of Judah as they still do today There's one campaign in the north and another in the south going on at the same time. Read Exodus through Judges and compare the details of which towns get taken and which cities don't. Most don't. Jerusalem doesn't. Generally rather than cities that get taken its kings that get conquered.

All the regions of the Philistines and the whole country of the Geshurites, from the Sihor east of Egypt to the Ekron northward the land is counted as Canaanite. The campaign is against the mountain people of Aram, the Ammonites, some of the Ammuru and the king of kadesh.

Read the Amarna letter and the campaign accounts of Seti I fighting at Beth Shean, Yenoam and Kadesh. Egypt's vassals are in some cases the original canaanites.Reading carefully its the satellite villages that get raided, but most strong points are fortified and would require a seige. In the time that takes Egtpt would be able to come to their defense. On the other hand caravans get raided, paychecks and tribute don't get to where they are supposed to go. Vassals get nervous and disgruntled and go over to the other side. If you are into this period, its the politics between the Hittites, Mittani, Kadesh, the cities of Lebanon, Hazor, the Ammuru, the coastal cities of the Philistines, the cattle barons of the Medeba plateau, Beth Shean, Megiddo, Yenoam and all the cities of Aram are on the verge of revolt.Rktect 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)