Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 7

Demographics: another problem

"Although Jews account for the majority of people in Jerusalem, they only account for 31 percent of the children under age fifteen." That is not what is written in the source. What is written is that Jewish people under 15 amount to 31% of the total Jewish population of Jerusalem. Please correct. Benjil (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it myself. Benjil (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem

"Schools for Palestinians in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel have been criticized for offering a lower quality education than those catering to Israeli Jewish students."

I have a problem with this line. 1) It takes the POV that the Palestinians are a nation. While I personally do not really care as nor the Israelis or the Arabs speak English or really care about its definations of a nation. However, the NPOV policy dictates that statements can not be worded like this. 2) The sentence in inconsitence. It starts off with "for Palestinians..." then continues with "in Israel..." This is like saying "Schools for Chinese in New York and other parts of America have been criticized for offering a lower quality education than those catering to American Christian students."

I mean COME ON! 203.206.234.139 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the editor who inserted this sentence meant "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians". The bigger problem with that paragraph is that Jerusalem schools are covered only from the perspective of Jewish vs. Arab schooling, which is unacceptable for an introductory article on Jerusalem. Beit Or 18:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the excellent editors of this page, mostly Israeli, have done an excellent job in keeping mention of Palestinians to a minimum. In fact you'd be hard-pressed to believe that any of them lived in Jerusalem at all or that it was Palestine's capital from 1922 to 1948. Can I suggest that the photos of Jerusalem that contain the Dome of the golden rock be 'photoshopped' so that it is less shiny. It might otherwise give the impression that it is a key landmark in Jerusalem. To deny that Palestinians exist in Israel is an excellent way of dealing with them and if you do it enough they may just go away. I'm glad you've expunged any notion that they may be nation, even some Israeli historians are saying they used to live there which really gets my goat. I'm pleased to see that there are no external links to Palestinian websites on Jerusalem, or that the all the photos in the article are of the Jewish and Israeli landmarks, apart from the Dome of course but see my suggestion above. Keep up the good work guys! —Precedingunsigned comment added by Khalilgibran (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether any of you choose to accept it or not, the Palestinian people are a nation so keep your racist remarks to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.135.125 (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you're not making any actual suggestions, I can't comment to your rant, but two note:

• Jerusalem wasn't "Palestine's capital", ever. Despite claims to the contrary, there was never a entity by the name of "Palestine", and never such a capital. The last time there was any sovereign nation in this region, was back during Roman times, when there was an independent Jewish kingdom here. Since then till 1948 it's been under the occupation of one empire after the other.
• You claim: "all the photos in the article are of the Jewish and Israeli landmarks" - well, then. How about all the images under "Shifts in control" ("Capture of Jerusalem", "General Edmund Allenby", "17th century drawing of Jerusalem"). And after that "View of Jerusalem Forest", then "Safra Square, Jerusalem City Hall" (city hall - relevant to all residents). Later on we have "The main entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre", "Dome of the Rock viewed through the Temple Mount's Cotton Gate (Bab al-Qattanin)". Then we really get to the Jewish landmarks: "Kanyon Hadar shopping mall", "Ben Yehuda Street" and "Jerusalem's Central Bus Station", a well known Jewish holy place. Then we have two pictures of the Hebrew University (which has lots of Arab students). Yep. The facts sure do support your rant... okedem (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

At least my 'rant' has a sense of humour. Where's yours? "There was never an entity called Palestine"?? This flies in the face of the consensus of historians worldwide, including Israeli ones! Just because it was occupied since the Ottomans does not mean it does not exist. At least this comment exposes where you are coming from, rather than claiming to be objective and blinding people with Wikipidea 'rules' in an attempt to suppress any real objectivity. Can I make the following suggestions: Can I add some photos of Arab Jerusalem? Can I add some external links to Arab sites about the history of Jerusalem, or is there some obscure Wikipidea rule that prevents me from doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalilgibran (talk • contribs) 09:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, despite your claims, there has never been an entity called "Palestine". Ever since the last Jewish independent kingdom was conquered by the Romans, the area was always occupied by empires - Romans, Byzantines, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimites, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamelukes, Ottomans and British.

Now, if you actually want to contribute, instead of spreading patently false accusations (like your claim about the images) - that's great. Detail the images you want to add here, and we'll see if and where they can be added. About websites - we have very few links as it is, as this isn't a link directory. If there's an especially informative site (in English, as this is the English Wikipedia) - that might work. Note that we don't link to a single "History of Jerusalem" site, be it Israeli or Arab. okedem (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite your claims that Palestine has never existed, it is clear to most unblinkered scholars (again, including Israeli ones) that it did exist; a search of UN archives at the time of Jewish exodus into Palestine refer to it as such, again, whether it was occupied or not is neither here nor there, many consider parts of it still to be occupied, including East Jerusalem. I'm sure you have good psychological reasons for denying it's existence, any decent Israeli would find it easier to pretend Palestinians did not exist than to suffer the ill effects of cognitive dissonance at knowing they been usurped. I'm not going to get into an argument over revisionist Zionist history (Yes I've read my Benny Morris) but I'm content in knowing that I have alerted readers of this discussion to your stance on the matter of Palestine and your denial of its existence. It exposes the true Zionist bias of this entry and those that 'administer' it. Khalilgibran (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If Palestine ever existed, please, let me ask you a few questions. a) What was thier currency before Israel came to power? b) Who was the ruler of Palestine c) What led them up to being an independant country. Please answer that. John26razor (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My, my. It seems your own prejudice prevents you from actually reading what I wrote.

Let me say that again - the region has been called Palestine for a long time, certainly. Ever since the Romans changed the name from Judea province to Syria-Palestina (unifying it with the Syria province), after the Jewish rebellions. There have also been people here, of many different nationalities (including Jews), and many of them grew into the people now known as "Palestinians". However, no independent entity by that name ("Palestine") ever existed, and so no such entity had Jerusalem as its capital. By entity, I referring to a state, country, a political entity of that sort (that's the sort of things that actually have "capitals").

That is a simple factual matter, with no actual dispute over it. Is it clear now? If you can actually put aside your prejudice of Israelis, and read what I wrote, you'd find I'm correct. okedem (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. How we twist and turn in the wind. It is irrelevant whether Palestine existed as an "independent entity". Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, - none of these were entities either. Remember that Israel was not an entity until is proclaimed itself as such in 1948. What matters is the status quo, which is East Jerusalem is occupied (this is an undeniable fact whether you believe it to be justified or not) and therefore Jerusalem cannot be recognised by the international community as its capital.

Please note that I know several Israelis and I am not 'prejudiced ' against them, many of them would agree with my POV. My objection is to the right-wing bias of the Israelis who seem to have a stranglehold on this entry. That is all I have to say on the matter, I will graciously leave the last word to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalilgibran (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You see, with this you completely change your original claim. You claimed that Jerusalem was the capital of "Palestine" - however, as there was no independent political entity there, Jerusalem could not have served as anyone's capital. (Israel indeed did not exist until 1948, so what?) Anyway, now you say it's "occupied" - well, that's a reasonable claim, and one I can agree to, with the qualification that as it was not captured from any sovereign entity (Jordan was not sovereign there), the word "occupied" is problematic. It is nevertheless close enough. Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital was not in discussion here, so I won't get into that.

As your claim regarding the photos in the article has been shown to be completely false, and as I have invited you to present any "Arab Jerusalem" images or links you want, I cannot see how you can speak of "right-wing bias of the Israelis who seem to have a stranglehold on this entry". Good day. okedem (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to John26razor: The simplest explanation- the region has been under foreign rule (Turks, British, Israeli) for hundreds of years. That is why the people of the region (no, not state, 'region') long known as Palestine have never had a currency or ruler of their own. There is a considerable amount of scholarship, FYI (for instance Rashid Khalidi's 'Palestinian Identity') which shows that the roots of the call for Palestinian autonomy, an independent state of their own, does not go back hundreds of years, no, but starts around the turn of the century, like many other movements for independence from foreign rule in other parts of the world. Thus the call for a Palestinian state precedes the creation of the State of Israel and also precedes the period in which a new Jewish state started to seem like a likelihood. (If Palestinians have been saying for the past 50 years, 100 years, that a region, or aspirations for a state called Palestine, exist, then that's that. It is sheer feeblemindedness to argue with a people's self-definition -- unless they claim to be superior to others or above censure.) God, if I were Palestinian, editing on wikipedia would probably make me want to scream my head off. Actually, sometimes it does make me feel that way anyway.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

DEFINITIONS OF VANDALISM: I changed the 'etymology section to 'Hebrew etymology', and the history section to 'Jewish history,' and the culture section to 'Israeli culture.' Why? Because each section talked explicitly about Hebrew etymology, Jewish history, and Israeli culture. And this was considered vandalism. I wanted to change the title of culture to Israeli culture since there was nothing about culture on the eastern side of Jerusalem. Until someone adds something about Arab culture in Jerusalem to the site (there is a famous theater and a few cultural/arts centers which are quite prominent as well), the heading is misleading. If someone does add something about the Arab population to that heading, then I think the heading 'culture' would be appropriate. The same goes for the other sections. For instance, the history section leaps from 1200 to 1500 in a sentence, then leaps a sentence later to the mandate period. 700 years in two sentences. Muslim rule between the 7th and 11th centuries gets 3 sentences. There is also a wee little bit about the Sasanids and Romans and the Crusades (and I suppose that that makes my title change slightly inaccurate) but other than that 90% of the article is Jewish history. Alright, what is going on with Wikipedia? Who is in charge of the Jerusalem section, i.e. who decides that something is vandalism? Whether one feels that Israel is that indivisible capital of Israel or the potential capital of Palestine or an international city, the fact remains that Israel's history is not simply Jewish, nor its culture.... Whether you like it or not Arabs live there too, and have, for quite some time, and the way they shaped the face of the place is highly relevant to wikipedia visitors wanting to learn as much as possible about this amazing city. 1 more point - I understand that I or someone else could add in the info that is missing. I am not an expert on Jerusalem. But I will be attempting to do so over the next period and I ask that people not vandalize my entries, as I have experienced a great deal of that in the short time I have been editing wiki entries, particularly related to our wonderful country, Israel. Thanks.1equalvoice1 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arab culture and history is under-represented here, but trust me, it's not due to anyone deleting information. It's simply that no one wrote about it... All the people who routinely come to this article claiming it's not NPOV, that it hides information, and so on - none of them bothered to write the text we need - more information about the Arab population. Shame.

The history section contains plenty of information not related to Jews, so you're exaggerating here.

By changing the headlines, you're in fact dissuading anyone from adding the information you say is missing. The history section should be about history, not just Jewish history, same for the others. The headlines define the scope, and changing them changes what people expect and write. okedem (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

JERUSALEM AS "CAPITAL" OF ISRAEL This article is far too close to a pro-Israel and anti-Palestine viewpoint to qualify as "neutral". Just to illustrate: "Today, Jerusalem remains a bone of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem (captured in the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial. " Understatement of the decade! As per the numerous UN resolutions, it is more accurate to say occupation for the weasel word and meaningless "annexation" and illegal for the cowardly "controversial". It is only "controversial" for Israel and its handful of "allies" (i.e, the US plus its colonies, Guam etc...). By the article's own admission, only two countries maintain embassies in Jerusalem because the rest of the world view Israel's occupation (not annexation, whatever that means) as illegal. This fact should be made clear from the article's first paragraph and first sentence, not buried way down the article in paragraph 3! Furthermore, if we are going to have a section called "Palestinian Claims" then, ould also amend the section immediately above called "Capital of Israel" to something less biased, like Israeli Claims. To summarize, this article is NOT neutral because it legitimizes Israel's illegal occupation of the city acquiesces in its "claims" that Jerusalem is its "eternal, undivided capital". --Peachespeaches (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This article does noes not legitimize Israels occupation, it just tells you what is going on there, which is completly unbiased. Israel does own Jerusalem, its not just thier 'claim'. Their an Independant country, its no longer Palestine, it's Israel!I agree some parts are biased, but the should not be an 'Israeli claims' John26razor (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics: small maths problem

In the demographics section, we see a population figure of 743,000. At the end of that first paragraph, we see 180,000 households with an average of 3.8 people. Well, 3.8 times 180,000 equals 684,000, more than 60,000 less than the population figure. Any thoughts on how to reconcile the discrepancy? I assume that "average" here refers to the mean; if however it is the median, then perhaps the answer is that there is quite a bit of skew in the distribution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jews expelled from the Old City in 1948

I had placed this sentence under "history" which was then deleted:

"On May 28, the Arab Legion gained control over the Old City; all of its Jewish inhabitants were either expelled or taken prisoner."

No reason for the deletion was given; I don't see how this violates NPOV if that was the concern.

I reverted that edit and re-placed this sentence.

As I am a relatively new editor, I would appreciate feedback.

Drmikeh49 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

The best thing to do is to find a good source for that fact, and add it to the article (just like other facts are sourced). okedem (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

name

what about the greek latin Hiërosolyma, where does it fit in the etymology section? Another thing is, does the Palestine state have a emblem or symbol for the city of Jerusalem? It looks rather Israelian in the article to me. Mallerd (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Greek: Ιεροσόλυμα, Ierosólyma or Ιερουσαλήμ, Ierousalēm; Latin: Hierosolyma; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds; official Arabic in Israel: أورشليم القدس, Urshalim-Al-Quds) is an ancient Middle Eastern city on the watershed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea at an elevation of 650-840 metres (about 2000-2500 feet). Jerusalem is Israel's official capital, although Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem).

Why are the Greek and Latin names omitted? Mallerd (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Mallerd. I do not recognize the source of the paragraph you quoted above; it does not appear to come from the current article. As for the Greek and Latin names, a better question might be, why should they be included? To the best of my knowledge, the three names present in the article (Hebrew, English, Arabic) are included because those are Israel's official languages; the English name would be there in any case by virtue of this being the English-language Wikipedia. Adding the city's Greek and Latin names would open the door to other languages, and where would one stop? Other names can be found in the separate article linked to, Names of Jerusalem. I hope this helps. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thank you, well this paragraph is from an earlier version of this article. I understand what you are saying, I guess the reason the Greek and Latin were in the article earlier was because they were part of the Roman and "Byzantine" Empire which had respectively Latin and Greek as official languages. Anyway, for cities who are in countries that don't have a language as official language, the name of another language is still used. For example, many cities in Romania, Czechia and Poland have German names as well. Perhaps this is due a large minority who speak German in those countries, but still. There are many Jews from around the world, perhaps there is one that is really significant. Just a thought, good night now Mallerd (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

References to BCE and CE

I've noticed that most dates in this article mention BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. I'm not a Wikipedia pro, but it seems to me that this is inconsistent with most other articles in Wikipedia, as well as general usage. Why does the article use this notation? --Spacedoggie (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP doesn't favor one system (or style) over the other, or demand consistency of one article's usage with that of "most other" or any other articles. Only one system should be used within a given article. Once a system of dating is established in an article, a "substantial" or "substantive" reason is required for changing over. The exact policy is stated at WP:DATE (first two paragraphs) and WP:SEASON (under "Eras..."), and possibly discussed in a few other places. One system, of course (you guess which one), is more faith-neutral than the other, and less likely to offend anyone. That is why, I believe, it tends to be used in articles on Jewish history, and scholarly articles in general, more frequently than in what you term general usage. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the helpful info!--Spacedoggie (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

FYI, I opened a thread about Jerusalem's state as Israel's capital here. Imad marie (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make a small change to the first sentence re: capital status. Was told that 'consensus' had been exhaustively reached. I understand that after people have devoted days, weeks, months of their life to an entry, it's hard to see change. But is not the point that consensus fluxes, and that the definition of 'consensus' depends on what group of people one is in discussion with?

This is what it said:

"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized as Israel's capital, and no embassies are located in Jerusalem-proper." There was an existing section at the end of the intro. describing this point further, and I moved it to the capital section, thinking this made things clearer for the outside wiki viewer.

The explanation of the person who deleted sentence two was simply: "this is covered in footnote iii" Footnote iii cites an Israeli CBI Jerusalem Day press release (POI Jerusalem day, which was once a kind of local celebration of Israeli Jerusalem when I was a little kid, has become one of the main days of convergence for the right-wing nationalist settler movement) which said nothing about international recognition. Thus I will restore the edit when a little time passes.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You do seem to recognize here that changing consensus would require discussion here, as against making a change to the article unilaterally and expecting it to survive. Welcome to the talk page. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do recognize it that's why I didn't just change it right back and chose to write this up on the talk page, waiting to see what people say. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You were looking at footnote 3, not iii. See under "Endnotes". For the discussions that have taken place, please see "NOTE: ARCHIVED TALK ABOUT JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL OF ISRAEL IS FOUND HERE", highlighted in red at top of this talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-directing me, that makes a lot more sense. The archive, I have looked at, though I suppose I could scour it further.

I understand that the endnote does indeed explain things clearly, and yes, academic-types (such as many wiki editors) do read endnotes, but I am also thinking of the uninitiated wiki reader who just scans through for basic info, and is not experienced with the inner consensus-reaching process for highlighting, or marginalizing, particular information. In my opinion, endnoting this marginalizes this fact, as does placing it at the end of the section. I think the way I worded things does recognize the fact of Israel's status as capital, and at the same time highlights that while capitals are generally the locus of diplomatic as well national decisionmaking bodies, in Israel this is not the case.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to consult Talk:Israel, where this issue comes up regularly. Part of the problem is that any change here would imply a change there (and in other articles as well); in practice, this is likely to mean that any change at all would be difficult to accomplish. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If we decide the right thing to do, then changes will not be difficult, a centralized discussion about this is happening here. Imad marie (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TELAVIV is the capital of Israel. Its where the embassies are. Jerusalem has no status as the capital period. So please delete the line that says it is. That is a lie. (Brian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.54 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation is clear: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law, but it is not recognized internationally as part of Israel (it is, instead, a "corpus separatum", neither Israeli nor Palestinian, under international law). Stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in Wikipedia's voice is clearly biased towards the Israeli position, and biased against international law. That's not acceptable. It is notable that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law, and we should by all means state that, but the omission of the qualification "under Israeli law" is unacceptable within WP:NPOV. --dab (𒁳) 08:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem as the capital of israel under israeli law is meaningless as its an INTERNATIONAL law issue. (Brian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.53 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA Seeks 10 Volunteers to Submit Info to Wikipedia (Isra-pedia)

This discussion does not belong on Talk:Jerusalem, but on the WP:ANI noticeboard. <eleland/talkedits> 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This may explain the editorial bias of the majority of editors of this page. It may also explain the tactics used to challenge anything showing Israel in a negative light. [unsigned comment added 16 May 2008]

You couldn't make this stuff up.

It seems that a pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopaedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.

See the emails of the group here: http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf

Khalilgibran (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of editors here is highly inflammatory, and uncalled for. I remind you to Assume Good Faith, and understand that other editors are working for a factual representation, even if they have different views from your own. Claiming, or insinuating, that a "majority of editors of this page" are part of some conspiracy is insulting, and does nothing to help foster cooperation here.

I won't bother reading the whole thing. I don't really care what they say, though from what I read, they only want factual information. As every edit should be backed by sources, I don't see a problem with this. We all have different viewpoints, whether we act independently, or as part of some group.

Actually, I should have immediately deleted your comment. It has nothing to do with the Jerusalem article, is not actionable in any way, and is highly insulting and inflammatory. That said, I decided to refrain from deleting it, and reply, as deletion might fuel your conspiracy theory even further.

If you try discussing editorial matters in a polite manner, with credible sources to back up your claims, and using NPOV phrasing, you'll find editors here are very willing to cooperate. If you continue with conspiracy theories and accusations, you'll be ignored, and rightfully so.

This discussion ends here. Good day. okedem (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It might end here, but unfortunately it is continuing here. I agree that it is an incorrect description of current activity, of current editors on this page. But it might be something to worry about for the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given my response in Talk:Israel. okedem (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A note, though. I've been reading/skimming the discussion you linked to, and it's very disturbing. Not the claims themselves, but the naivety shown there, and the emphasis on sanctions against CAMERA, Zeq, or anyone else.

This is not the answer. For every such effort "uncovered", there will be a dozen which will remain secret. We can't actually believe we'll always find out about these things. The focus should be on strengthning the system and procedures we have, to nullify the potential for damage such operations have. It's a shame all these administrators are wasting their time on trivialities like banning Zeq. okedem (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with you, on every point you've made here (and I said as much there, that banning Zeq would be a side-show). If Camera is doing what they appear to be doing, I think however that it will be a big problem, and I'm not quite as confident that the normal methods will be sufficient. I think we're better off if editors here are aware of the claims that are being made (even if it works out they are false); they might seem insulting, and again I reject the notion that anyone active on this page is a Camera-inspired meatpuppet, but I think more is lost than is gained by deleting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is why I didn't delete this section here, but only when it was posted also on Talk:Israel. However, had I known this sparked quite this much discussion, I wouldn't have deleted it there either. I agree that the CAMERA thing might pose a problem, as too many of our policies rely on assuming good faith of everyone, an unjustified assumption in many cases. Actually, I think that the major Israel related pages are in good shape, and less vulnerable to such operations. Being the focal points of so much dispute, every claim is well sourced, every word debated. Israel and Jerusalem are FA, and making even small changes to them requires lots of work. I'm more worried about the less-edited pages, where seemingly reasonable claims (not obvious vandalism) can remain for months, as there's no editor knowledgeable enough to challenge them, who's actually looking at the article. I'm not sure what to do, but it should be discussed. okedem (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for deleting the 'collapse' feature. It is not THAT extended a discussion and is a VERY relevant discussion and should be directly viewed/accessed when people check the talk page. It seemed, in my opinion, as if someone preferred the discussion was out of sight. 1equalvoice1 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, I thought I deleted the 'collapsing' feature. But I see no changes.1equalvoice1 (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI for those who don't know, this was posted on WP:ANI and so far has been resolved. Hopefully the problem won't return full force.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what "this" refers to. What is it you credit me with bringing back? Hertz1888 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

New paragraph in "Palestinian Claims..."

This new paragraph in the "Palestinian claims" section raises some questions. First and foremost: which Palestinians are referred to in the second sentence? I doubt it is currently possible for any residents of the West Bank who are not already residents of Jerusalem to move to Jerusalem. So who are these 'migrants"? Where do they come from? We might add that under current law it is impossible for an Israeli who marries someone from the West Bank to bring that spouse to Israel as a resident/citizen. In general, we might try to keep in mind that newspapers don't always get it right: just because some idiot reporter writes something, it doesn't mean it can be treated as fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs some hard editing. From what I know of Jerusalem, it is nearly impossible for anyone to move to Jerusalem with any ease. They would have to hire a smuggler at this stage. I know of no one who would move to Jerusalem to make a land claim - they would try to get in there because they need work. People are so damn full of conspiracy theories.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"...newspapers don't always get it right" — there's a great truism. If the paragraph, or some portion thereof, isn't factual, the paragraph, or the portion, should go or be heavily modified. I agree that hard editing is needed. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone explain to me please why this paragraph is relevant to the section? Why is Palestinians seeking jobs in Jerusalem relevant to the Palestinian claim of Jerusalem? Imad marie (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the question. But okay: there is a standard narrative that says the Israeli government tries to make life difficult for Palestinians in Jerusalem (failure to grant building permits, in particular, leading to overcrowded housing). Palestinian leaders, in response, encourage Palestinians to stay, to reinforce Palestinian claims to the city and to impede ostensible attempts to induce an Arab exodus. Again, I'm calling this a standard narrative, and I have real doubts that Arabs can move from elsehwhere in the West Bank to Jerusalem. But it would make sense if such migration were possible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, but all this is not clear in the section. Saying something like "Palestinians are attracted to the overall quality of life Israel provides to Jerusalem residents." is a humanitarian issue, not political, the way I see it, this sentence is not really relevant to the historical Palestinian claim of Jerusalem. Imad marie (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, making a claim effectively can have a practical dimension - facts on the ground, I think it's called. I don't see the problem with relevance in principle; I'm just not convinced that what is being asserted (or implied) is real. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The paper goes into details about the migrants. Some are pre-independence, and many others are Arabs from the West Bank who were able to migrate to Jerusalem (often by marrying Jerusalem Arab families) before the building of the barrier, and many others are trying to do so as it is being built. The paragraph can be moved to another section but it is not necessary to remove sourced information. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still a number of problems. I won't delete it again, though I do think some clarifications are needed. The paragraph speaks of Arab "migrants", implying (it seems to me) that these are simply people moving from elsewhere in the West Bank to Jerusalem. But the second half of the paragraph, in referring to people with residence rights, can only encompass people who formerly lived in East Jerusalem, went elsewhere in the West Bank, and have recently returned. It remains true, as I indicated earlier, that it isn't possible (and hasn't been for quite some time), for most Palestinians in the West Bank to move to Israel. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Culture section

Those who know: please add to East Jerusalem info to the culture section. I would add it myself but I only have the very basics.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lacks history

This article lacks history about the early Muslim Arab rule of the city, the Crusader rule of the city and the Mamluk rule. I added info on Umar's pact but without a reference. Also, why are the years put into the headings. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Do try to find a ref for Umar. This is an FA, and unsourced information cannot remain here. I agree we should have more info about the periods you mentioned - why don't you write something about it?

If you have any knowledge of the current-day Arab culture of Jerusalem, we could really use some info in the Culture section.

Why are the years in the headings? Don't know. I don't really care either way. okedem (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the ref and maybe in the coming days I'll some info on those periods. I don't know much about the culture of East Jerusalem, but yes it should be here. I'm going to remove the years from the headings, it just clutters everything. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Communication

This article doesn't seem to have a "Communication" section. I think it would be a worthwhile addition. Just a suggestion.Bless sins (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Disputed Capital" as leading sentence.

Given that the leading sentence is designed to summarize the entire article, don't you think that 'disputed capital' is a better lead than simply 'capital of Israel,' given the highly contentious nature of this and that the lead tends to read like a nationalist disgrace.

Crum375 noted that 'A sovereign country determines its own capital -- it can't be decided or imposed externally.' but to simply lead with what a sovereign nation determines leads to the nationalistic lead that I and others have a problem with. A sovereign nation intrinsically relies on its recognition of sovereignty, both wholly and over certain territories for it to be a sovereign nation. Given that no other sovereign nation recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and many academic articles mention that in the UN's eyes Jerusalem is not even a part of [sovereign] Israel.

So Crum375, I wonder if the United States, as a sovereign nation decided that Israel was a part of the United States, if that’s how we would lead with the Israel article. Something along the lines of Israel is a suzerain of the United States of America. Clearly, sovereignty is given by and relies on external powers, none of which in this case have recognised the legitimacy of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Further, sovereignty does not intrinsically bestow its holder with the ability to decide the view of the international community on places and incidents within or outside of their territory. Why does Wikipedia lead with such a misleading opening sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You should follow the footnote at the end of the lead sentence, and see that it is the capital by Israeli law. There is no other capital, since that can't be imposed externally. Crum375 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is named as the capital by the CIA world fact book.[1] Crum375 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that particular Israeli Law is disputed by the International Community. Why can't we mention that? Just because Israel decided this does not mean we should ignore what the rest of the world thinks about it in the lead of the article on Wikipedia. That leads to a nationalistic article. You know perfectly well that the recognition of a capital is imperative to it being such. If the United States of America declared Jerusalem as its capital, then is that what we'd say on Wikipedia? You know it is intrinsically reliant on recognition of other sovereign nations. None recognise it as such. In fact, it is extreemly misleading of you to call Jerusalem (entirely) a part of 'soveriegn israel,' as it is hardly so. No nation, at least that I know of, recognises Israel's sovereignty over the entirerty of Jerusalem, and according to the UN Israel has no sovereignty at all over any of Jerusalem, as the sovereign of Jerusalem was decided much earlier. Sovereign Israel, as far as I am aware anyway, is the Israeli state that was declared in 1948 within the borders set to it by the United Nations. If it isn't that, then it must be the Israel within Armistice lines that seems to be so internationally recognised. So, again, if the U.K. decided Paris was its capital, is that what we'd just say on wikipedia? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your example of the UK declaring Paris as capital is misleading, because no-one recognizes Paris as British territory, while virtually the entire world recognizes Jerusalem, at least its western and by far largest part, as part of Israel. So clearly Israeli law applies to its own territory, and they can declare their own capital anywhere they want within it. Also, on Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, and the most reliable and most often used source for such information is the CIA world fact book, which clearly states Jerusalem is the capital. We do add a footnote explaining the issue, and the issue is discussed at length in the body and in a dedicated article. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You can open any dictionary, and look up the definition of "capital". It's something along the lines of "seat of government". As Israel's government, parliament, supreme court, etc, are located in Jerusalem, and it has been designated as capital by Israel - its the capital. okedem (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not any more misleading than misleading readers into believing Western Jerusalem and Jerusalem are the same thing. Israel, as not the sovereign over the whole of Jerusalem, cannot declare the whole of Jerusalem its capital. Further, given that it is so heavily disputed, you have not answered my question as to why we cannot inform the reader of such in the opening sentence, especially given that according to wiki policy it is ment to summarize the entire article. Plenty of reliable sources will also highlight the disputed nature of this, and plenty of other reliable and academic sources will declare Israel has no sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. So why can this sort of vital information not be mentioned, or are you just looking to decieve people and pass crude nationalist propaganda off as fact? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, which side of Jerusalem are they located in? Just because its seat of government was built there, the fact it is unrecognised and disputed in legal terms as the capital by the rest of the world as the capital cannot be mentioned? I dont disagree it is the capital, but you canot however deny that it is - in the rest of the worlds eyes - a disputed capital, now can you? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Colour, if you look at CIA factbook, you'll note that they say Jerusalem is the capital, and then they follow it with an explanatory note as to the specific situation. We do the same, except our footnote is on the word "capital", whereas it may make more sense to have the footnote at the end of the sentence, past the period. In any case, our goal is not to fight wars on WP, but to follow reliable sources, and that's what we do here. Crum375 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

CITM, I am joining the discussion here in spite of your groundless personal attack on me and Crum375 in the form of a "metapuppetry" accusation and report to the authorities. The preceding discussion (which is very long) convinces me that "disputed" isn't even the right word. By conventional definitions of what a "capital" is, as Okedem has reminded us, Jerusalem is the capital. The world at large may not approve, but that does not modify the status as capital. The fact that exceptions are taken is set forth in the endnote (iii). This is the structure worked out at great length and with great effort. There is no consensus for the change you have been making. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We have an entire paragraph dedicated to the dispute right in the lead. It was added at the request of some editors, who felt the dispute wasn't obvious enough. We also have an entire section in the article body discussing this issue. okedem (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, a prior discussion is not definitive, and Okedem's points are not by any means well sourced, but are based on inferences from a dictionary. If you look at the BBC you will note that it formally apologized for using the expression 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel'. JONNY PAUL, 'BBC sorry for calling Jerusalem capital of Israel', Jerusalem Post, Jun 15, 2007. If the BBC and Encarta are very careful not to repeat what is a piece of patter reflecting the Israeli government's POV, there is good reason for it. To use that phrase means to espouse one view as objective, and deny other views as irrelevant. The BBC is a RS if any. The question is why does the NPOV standard in Wiki not observe what other global sources of reliable information observe in regard to this question. There is no iron consensus on this, as one can see from the exchanges at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of IsraelNishidani (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone using a word like 'jew crew' as Cush has just done should be banned from Wiki for several months. I hope he is reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the common expression on internet fora for followers of Judaism and citizens of Israel who push for certain issues to be seen their way.

The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is not the internationally recognized capital of Israel. Its status is yet to be determinded in negotiations with a future Palestinian-Arab government of an independent and unoccupied Palestine. The personal opinions of Jews or Israelis who want to depict the situation in a way sympathetic to them, for obvious reasons, cannot dictate the content of an internationally accessible article on wikipedia. This is no pro-Israeli propaganda platform and if they want to post their minority opinion they should mark it as that. Cush (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is notoriously anti-Israel. I cannot see ussing them as a definitive source here. I'm also wondering, if Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, what city is? IronDuke 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Israel is code language for any source that does not reflect Israeli government policy, and meaningless jargon. True it has to cater to the sensitivities of a large Muslim population, unlike Israel and the United States, the only two countries which agree on everything the Israeli government proposes, but that simply means that the simple reflection of a standard ideological, ethnically-biased, or occidentalocentric mindset is no longer accepted as 'neutral'. The world changes, and we are not living in the naive monocular world of yesteryear, where power dictated the way news was slanted to mass audiences.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Though your post contains a fair amount of venom, I can see no coherent point in, or reason for, making it. Did you want to address what I in fact said? IronDuke 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: So if I think that Fox, CBS, etc. are notoriously anti-Palestinian, what sources are we left with? We all need to compromise a bit here. All news sources exhibit bias in one direction or another. We need to trust that we are capable of filtering out the spin and extracting the fundamental facts remaining regardless. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself would not rely on Fox News to be the sole determinant of whether Jerusalem was or was not the capital of Israel. I see the BBC come up a lot in these discussions, and often it's because they're a rich mine of anti-Israel bias. And again I ask: is Israel a country with no capital city? IronDuke 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The capital of Israel is inJerusalem. It's that simple, and the novel wording is required to avoid violations of both legal reality and NPOV rules.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That is your private interpretation, which is WP:OR. The reliably sourced version is that the capital is Jerusalem, per CIA factbook. There there are issues about recognition or other disputes, and that's mentioned in the note. Both the factbook and WP handle it in the same way, which is how it should be. Crum375 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. You are administrator and should know what the rules mean. I made a suggestion as to an appropriate linguistic form which would surmount the evident difficulty in the POV phrasing under dispute. This is not a 'private interpretation'. The phrase 'The capital of Israel is Jerusalem' historically always meant, from when it was coined in 1948 down to 1967, West Jerusalem, since in that period East Jerusalem was Jordanian. Nothing I have said is an infringement of WP:OR, unless informing oneself of the history of a subject on contributes to is WP:OR, in which case we should leave the drafting of wiki articles to people who know little about the subject (actually that's not far from the truth all too often). Sigh Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The CIA factbook is one source. The BBC and Encarta is another. When good sources are in conflict, one is biased to favour one over the other. One mediates for a compromise. To favour one source over another reliable source is to show one's bias, and politics.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nishidani, as an administrator my opinion carries no extra weight, but I do know that we operate by consensus. In this case, there was a prolonged discussion about this specific issue, and the current language reflects consensus. If you'd like to change that consensus, the discussion would need to be broad and include many people. If they all (or a reasonable majority) agree to the change, then that can be done. In my own humble opinion, the CIA factbook is a very neutral source, unlike the BBC, for example that is not. Crum375 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that the CIA Factbook - operated by the same people responsible for covert international operations, and controlled by a government that generally supports Israel is more neutral than the BBC or one of the many other news sources that could be found that dispute Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?Colourinthemeaning (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(r to Nishdani) I have never heard of a situation in which a building was itself the capital of a country, and I know of no RS's that support this thesis. All countries have some city that they designate as their capital. Israel designates Jerusalem. That some take issue with their choice doesn't mean they haven't made one. IronDuke 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be true IronDuke, but there are also not many other cases of a declared Capital being unrecognised by the rest of the world. This is surely a vital piece of information that needs to be mentioned, and summarised in the lead. Without it, its just a nationlist page. Wikipedia is not here to, as Richard Falk would call this 'create facts'. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 Unlike many I discuss problems at great length before pushing what I think onto the page. There is now a very lengthy discussion underway over at the Wiki Palestine page on Jerusalem, the discussion is broad and intense. The CIA factbook does not care for the fine distinctions historical study requires. It tabulates data according to a schema. All countries have a capital. Israel is a capital. The entry for capital is Jerusalem. I know young people like this kind of quick lookup format, but in many cases it proves to be misleading, because the format in which the information is classified excludes by its criteria the sort of close distinctions historians, specialists, political analysts make.- If the CIA factbook were reliable, why is it that the Bush Administration, the most pro-Israeli administration in American history, made a formal statement countering Obama Barak's declaration that Jerusalem will remain an undivided city? The factbook simply doesn't count as significant for its ends other facts, such as the fact that in world political language, and in the US., it is not acceptable to affirm that Jerusalem is a unified city (the basis for Okedem's defence of the phrasing), since that prejudices Palestinian claims that part of the city does not form part of the state of Israel, and therefore in so far as it is not part of Israel, cannot, as an Arab sector, be qualified as part of the capital of Israel. This is obvious, but rejected because the political advantage of having the phrase is enormous. Once more, wiki is not a RS. By the way, the CIA is not a reliable source, to judge from Tenet's memoirs. The BBC reportage on the road to war was far more informative than anything we got from the CIA :)Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nishidani, the point was made by others above. Every country in the world declares its own capital. Some (or many) countries have disputes over their territory and other issues. But each country has a selected capital, and it is never dictated externally, they just decide on their own. That there are disputes about this is clear, and we note those disputes in an extensive footnote and elsewhere. The point again is: if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, then what city is? Crum375 (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the US, Europe and most countries in the world Tel Aviv is the recognized capital. Could you provide a list of which countries have their embassy to Israel in Jerusalem? Strongbrow (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a silly point, a country can only declare a capital within it's own borders. Jerusalem is occupied (world court has ruled). Germany could not have declared Paris it's capital during the occupation. Israel cannot legally declare Jerusalem as it's capital. The lead sentence is grossly misleading . I doubt there is a consensus for it. It needs changing. The footnote is accurate and perhaps ought to replace the lead sentence Domminico (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

The current phrasing achieved wide consensus, considering the footnote and the whole paragraph dealing with the dispute in the lead, which were added as a compromise position. Not only that, but the article, with this phrasing, passed extensive discussion towards FA status, and was voted FA with this phrasing.

I won't repeat the entire argument, you can read it here, in archives, and in other pages, but the gist of it is that as Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and declared as capital, it is, by definition, the capital, regardless of the legal points regarding Israel's control. Other editors dispute this, offering alternative interpretations to the usage of "capital". okedem (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re to Domminico: yes, in fact, Germany could have declared Paris as its capital if it had wanted to. There might well have been resitance to this idea in the rest of the world, but that can't change the facts, any more than wishing Israelis didn't live in Jerusalem can eliminate their presence. You mights as well go to the Israel article and say "Israel is a disputed country." IronDuke 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Most countries in the world, including the US, do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the Palestinians also have claims on the city as their capital. At the very least wikipedia should acknowledge both claims and recognize that the global community doesn't recognize either at the moment. The current opening paragraph takes sides by stating as a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Strongbrow (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of balance. The article starts with the statement - immediately qualified by a footnote - that Jerusalem is Israel's capital; it then also devotes an entire paragraph to the dispute. You claim the balance is wrong; others agree the balance is wrong but would prefer the dispute be downplayed. This is why some of us continue to suggest that you consult the archived discussions, to get a sense of what it took to achieve the consensus that led to the current version. This might help in developing an understanding of what it would take to get consensus for any change - indeed the very low likelihood of any such change. All of these arguments have been made before, many times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I don't know the answer to a very interesting question: before 1967, where did other countries locate their embassies in Israel? One frequent claim made in relation to this issue is that many countries decline to put their embassies in Jerusalem because of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem after 1967 - hence the difficulty of recognizing "Jerusalem" (not just what was once the Israeli part) as the capital. This might imply that, prior to 1967, the embassies were in Jerusalem and then were relocated effectively in protest of the occupation. Alternatively, the problem might have deeper roots, going back to designation of Jerusalem as an "international city" (whatever that means) - such that embassies were never located in Jerusalem, in protest of the results of the 1948 war. Can anyone tell me which scenario holds? I'm not sure how it might bear on this discussion, but anyway a better understanding of history wouldn't hurt. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, there were no embassies in Jerusalem prior to 1967, but I might be mistaken. After 1967, some embassies were moved to it, and in 1980 there were 13 embassies in Jerusalem, representing Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela and The Netherlands. After Israel passed the "Jerusalem Law", the UN called it "null and void", and all these embassies were removed from the city. okedem (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since people only seem to be quoting from the CIA factbook or BBC, I thought it would help the discussion to add a couple more reliable sources and see what they say as to the capital of Israel. The Canadian government Canadian Foreign Affairs Country Insights page lists the capital as Jerusalem. Here is Britians country profile Leppi (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA's position on the issue, or the US position, is of no relevance, as there can be expected no objectivity from that corner. Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel by the United Nations, i.e. the international community. That is all that matters and that defines the legal status of the city. The leading sentence of the article MUST be altered. Cush (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Jew Crew"

Cush, to quote you from above:"That's the common expression on internet fora for followers of Judaism and citizens of Israel who push for certain issues to be seen their way." I'm assuming you mean by 'their way' a Palestinian-disappearing perspective. I should not have to explain to you that "Jew Crew" implies that all Jews share the same perspective or are in cahouts with each other working always towards the same aims coming from the same perspective. How ridiculous can such an implication get? Do you have any idea how different Jews can be from one another? (I, for example, am a follower of Judaism and a citizen of Israel, yet most of my efforts involve re-inserting legitimate Palestinian history and perspective that has been omitted or deleted, to balance out an exclusive Jewish perspective {which leaves us with inaccurate wiki entries}). "Jew Crew" not only suggests that all Jews are the same but points quickly to 'world Jewish conspiracy' theories (which I should not have to mention led to the displacement of the Jewish population of Europe and directly impacted Palestinian national aspirations in turn).

May I refer you to the cartoon on RolandR's page: "Nazis, Palestine don't need you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamaLoLeshLa (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the shrug: "that's a common expression" - really, don't you think your 'logic' is a bit lacking? I just worked quite hard to 'explain' to administrators that 'Arab Israelis' may be in common usage, but it is not accepted by Palestinians in Israel. Many of the Israelis who were opposed to changing the term used your same 'logic.' (We finally managed to get the category "Arab Israelis" changed, through efforts to conduct a respectful discussion which assumed nothing of people's views based on their baqckground). The 'N-word' was also once in common usage, but this in no way justified public acceptance of the term.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

One should not reply to people who use that vile antisemitic slang, but simply report them. I would, if I knew how to.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think it's important for people to have a chance to change their attitude/approach before censuring them. They should then be monitored and if they repeat the offense, reported. I also believe that while much of the attitude behind dissemination of "Jew crew" is deep-seated, sometimes people have never engaged these issues, have never had a discussion with a Jew who does not deny Palestinian claims. Not that one assumes that minds can be changed, but, the benefit of the doubt should be a guiding principle.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That is antisemitic jargon, and if you have any experience of antisemites you will know that they are not readily amenable to changing their minds. The contempt and prejudice runs too deep. Try to change their minds, and they will secretly think you are part of the 'Zionist racket'. The only way to deal with people like that is to show them the door, and boot them in the arse as they go out Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given Cush his chance, and after seeing his unapologetic and equally offensive reply, I am working at trying to report him.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion, Cush was banned indefinitely unless he agrees to cease to use the offending language, in which case he will be back in a week. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Update - At long last Cush agreed not to make any such statement in the future. I can't say what his general views are but clearly this was an isolated incident.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oldest city

'The city has a history that goes back as far as the 4th millennium BCE, making it one of the oldest cities in the world.[5] '

History =prehistory. Major construction only began in the Middle Bonze Age (11-111), which on a global scale puts it into a middle range.

Actually, it is not, as popular literature says, anywhere near one of the oldest cities of the world, and the ref. is not reliable. Aharon Kellerman in his Society and Settlement: Jewish Land of Israel in the Twentieth Century 1993 p.122 is closer to the truth in arguing that Jerusalem is probably the oldest among current capital cities around the world (Not quite true. It's roughly on a par with Athens. Damascus beats it by two thousand years. Jerusalem is 10th on the List of oldest continuously inhabited cities, which has huge lacunae), cf.Damascus. Archeologically, Jericho sets the pattern for this list with an establishment around 9000 BC. Jerusalem comes several thousand years after that, and there are a very large number of continuously inhabited urban areas all over the world going back thousands of years earlier than Jerusalem's first substantial settlement. I suggest someone looks into proper academic sources to get this right.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the criterion is not how far away it is from the oldest, but in what percentile it lies among current cities. My guess is that it is easily within the oldest one percent of the total among larger cities, which would justify calling it "one of the oldest cities in the world." Crum375 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way? There are hundreds of cities known to predate Jerusalem. They just do not exist anymore. Calling it "one of the oldest still existing cities in the world." would be more accurate. Cush (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where you get the "hundreds" of older cities. FWIW, it's number two on this list.[2] I am sure there are better sources, and they should be used, instead of our own speculations and hand waving. Crum375 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Egypt and Mesopotamia, and even the Levant, are full of older cities. They are just all gone now. And can I please see the evidence that puts a settlement (not city) there into the 4th millennium BCE? I would be surprised if there is any real evidence for it predating 2500 BCE or so. Cush (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And googling around, you can see numerous reliably published references to Jerusalem as being one of the oldest cities.[3] Crum375 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Guesses are not appropriate. Check your google sources, book by book. Most are not up to snuff as sources on what is an archeological designation.Wiki, particularly on the links both you and and I posted, which are lamentably ill-informed, is not a Reliable Source. No hand-waving at all. Just a note that a ref. in there reflects a common cliché (not restricted to Jerusalem. Many seem to like the idea of calling their city, one of the oldest in the world. I've removed this kind of statement from at least one other page before). Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We are only claiming one of the oldest, not the oldest. So the burden of proof is much weaker, and is not well defined. For reasonable persons, if there are lots of references in published books calling it that, it would suffice. If you can find a good reference countering those claims by saying, "contrary to popular opinion, Jerusalem is not one of the oldest cities at all", then please provide it. Crum375 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen Kenyon in her classic book Digging up Jerusalem only found, not a city, but an area of 4 and a half hectares on Mt.Ophel attesting to settlement around the Middle Bronze Age (11 and 111, to be exact). That's about 1800 BC, pretty late in Middle Eastern history. To get an idea, Hazor in the Galilee was almost 20 times bigger, and older. It's around that time that Jerusalem shows evidence of the beginnings of a walled city, much later than the early work on the Athenian acropolis, to note just one. Recent research shows that this flourished due to favourable climatic changes for some centuries, and then collapsed. For some centuries, as Israel Finkelstein and others show, the town was emptied, again because of environmental factors which mader ekeing out an existence there possible. It only began to revive as a small population centre around the Ist millenium. The 'oldest city' stuff is all out of 19thj century travel guides and religious.travel literature from the 19th century, that's when it started. Look at Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, India (some time back a sunken city dated to 7500 BC was found in Gujarat's Gulf of Cambay), China and Japan and you will find a good many sites that had a far earlier occupation, and are still occupied. Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Assuming all you say is right, it may need to be updated in the History section. Also, to remove it from the "one of the oldest" list, you'd have to show it's not within a reasonable percentile (a few percent tops) in age, or that there are reliable sources calling that common classification false. Again, the issue is not the specific age or how far down the list it is, but the percentile grouping, i.e. whether or not it is among the oldest X percent of cities, where X is small. Crum375 (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. A statement was made that is poorly sourced. The statement, being a technical statement of an archeological kind, requires grounding in some authorittive source from that discipline. It is not my burden to disprove what is dubious. It is the burden of those who would push this fragile and empty assertion into the text to provide a decent source. You talk of percentiles. That implies that there is a RS (and not just arbitrarily tweaked Wiki lists or amateur compilations one googles) which has actually looked into the argument, and made an appropriate analysis. Bring it up, if it exists. All sources I have consulted, for some months, are obviously full of lacunae, and therefore making percentiles based on dubious sources is a meaningless exercise. The argument can only stand if some authoritative source with archeological competence has drawn up a comprehensive up-to-date list on this theme. If you can point me to one, I'll examine it. In the meantime, what the Jerusalem article states is not sourced adequately to any informed authority.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

By your definition, any source that is not an archaeological authority would be dubious for this. I am not necessarily disagreeing with that, nor with your assertion that we don't have a reliable source showing the age-ranked list of cities of the world. But even if we did have such a list, to be reliable by your definition, every one of the entries would have to be certified by a recognized archaeologist, making it less likely to exist. So it boils down to common sense: We know that there are numerous sources that consider it among the oldest, and we have none that say it isn't on that list. Until we get a reliable source refuting all the other sources, it makes sense to accept them, especially since the term "among the oldest" is not scientific or well-defined, and effectively means "very old". Crum375 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia. Traditionally encyclopedias were written by experts in their field, and by people who didn't use commonsense, but a long competence in what constitutes good and bad sources, relevant from irrelevant information. Wiki is written by anonymous nobodies like myself, but we must keep in mind that the competition out there is what is written, in the Enc Brit. and elsewhere according to much superior standards, and by much more learned people, who actually know their subject, are trained in writing articles of quality at any level. That, at least for me, places us under an obligation to look at the best available documentation. In many of this area's articles, this is not done. People cite their favourite national story versions, newsprint by journalists, etc.

In one of those lists each city (a very selective list) is referred to a reliable source written by an expert, if I remember correctly. The Jerusalem entry is given as 2800 BC., and sourced to a general handbook puished by Eerdmanns. But in my own several decades of reading ancient history (my background is primaruily ancient languages) I have never met that figure anywhere. And I have, from memory read of many cities that do not figure in that list. It is eurocentric, for example, and ignores the Far East. So we have a poor source here, an apparently academic source for the list on Jerusalem, but I can't find any confirmation in the literature I know to corroborate it. I've employed the googling system youngsters enjoy, and only come up with highly generalistic remarks in middle brow publications. So there is no reliable source for the claim. It therefore should be on the agenda to find such a source. Otherwise the claim is just hype. As to 'among the oldest', many editors, with whom I agree, have often chucked out language like that though defended by a paraphrase, as a weasel word. Either one has a good source for a specifically formulated view, or one leaves the remark out of the text. Unless we do that, Wiki will remain an amateur's playground (and contionued to be banned as a RS for university student papers), and not a serious source.Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't disagree with most of your points about professionalism and I agree that we need to strive for the best possible quality. But I think in this case, adding the generic phrase "one of the oldest cities" is harmless. If you had a specific reliable source refuting it, by showing it is a hoax, and that actually it was founded in the middle ages, we would need to deal with it. However, given the fact that even by most conservative sources it is thousands of years old, and there being no known refutation to the widely repeated claim, I don't see a problem in keeping it. If you do care about this issue, I suggest you collect more sources and improve the history section. Crum375 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, it can stay or be chucked out at whiom, because there is no adequate criterion for saying whether it is pertinent or not. WP:RS establishes the only worthy criteria, and I can't see how the source given lives up to those. I note an extreme leniency in these matters. Try to slip in a poorly sourced generic statement that might endeavour to give a noble patina to Palestinians and their deep historical origins, and you have endless battles over RS. One more example of the systemic bias. But all I have done is drop a note on what I remarked on reading this article a year ago, but never troubled to comment on. I'm not surprised no one, among many well-informed editor.researchers, troubles to fix the formal defect. Why should they. High antiquity looks good, makes you feel good. So I've made my point, and will leave it at that, glancing in everynow and then to see if someone who edits here takes these things seriously. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Page temporarily protected because of the edit war

Please discuss below this line. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For those who propose to change the lead: may I suggest you spend some time reading the archived discussions about this issue. It might then be difficult to sustain the claim that this intro section insufficiently reflects the concerns of those who reject "Jerusalem = Israel's capital". I doubt there will be consensus for a change on this issue; fortunately, it's a pretty good article and I don't think it will be harmed by a long period of protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As you will, it's not that bad by Wiki I/P standards, but just the section on etymology is a complete mess, and inverts the normal practice for analysing etymologies, which in this case means (1)Egyptian hieroglyphic 19th-18th centuries BCE (2)Akkadian 14-13th century (3)Assyrian transcription 8th century (4) Hebrew assimilation. The folk etymologies are cute, but are hopelessly provincial and unscientific. The effect is to prioritize Jerusalem in Hebraic tradition, which cramps what little modern philological knowledge bearing on the etymology survives the ethnic folklore, so that the most important piece of evidence, from Egyptian hieroglyphic, attested more than 1000 years before the town name was assimilated into Hebrew, is given a line at the bottom of the section. Apart from these technical aspects, most of the Christian and Islamic history consists of a sparse set of dates and figures, sandwiched between the biblical and Israeli narratives.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do wish someone would take the time to write about Jerusalem during the Islamic and Christian eras. The Hebrew Wiki just had a great FA about Jerusalem during the time of the Mameluks, and had I the time, I would have translated it. okedem (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a change of the lead is absolutely essential to ensure this article takes both a NPOV and, as wikipedia policy states, summarises the rest of the article. Give me some time to read over the previous discussions though, and I will present my arguments back in this section. Cheers Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

- Yes, I agree. We should create a part of the article discussing the Islamic and Christian eras. This is a vital part of the History of Jerusalem. I cannot do this though until the article becomes unblocked. John26razor —Preceding unsigned comment added by John26razor (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can. Simply put your proposed edit, as a polished draft, here, for the purview of other editors, who can then provide their comments, after which, if it fits the bill, it can be posted in the article by an administrator. If I have time, this is how I myself will proceed in rewriting the hopelessly substandard section on etymology.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

John, that's good advice from Nishidani. I'd just add that:

1. it's a good idea to use the "new section" tab above to start a new section in which to present and discuss your draft
2. use the "show preview" button (or alt-shift-P) as many times as you like to polish your draft before posting it here

--NSH001 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I'm new here. I've just joined Wikipedia. I know a lot about Jerusalem, but I have no idea how to put it on anywhere. This is a huge discussion page, I am surprised that discussionS here could last for more than a year!!! There is controversy on how to write this article and the perspective it has to be in. I'll try to do the best I can. I can see Cush thinks Jews have one perspective of the palestinians. He is very much wrong by using the quote 'Jew Crew' John26razor--John26razor (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, welcome aboard. Don't worry about the discussion pages. If you have detailed knowledge of either the Christian or Muslim history of the city (what is lacking, though of course anything of importance overlooked on the Jewish history is also welcome)

(a) You must choose the really salient parts, (b) be succinct (c) provide reliable sources preferably for every significant statement (d) examine the page as it is, and pare down the contribution so that it does not exceed the space given to any other group. (e) that done, post it here for others to look over (f) the discussion that follows is all you need to follow but (g) it is handy to use a word-check over the discussion page to see if key things you are perplexed about have been raised. If so, examine those sections closely.

Finally, this is an on-going project, and if you wish to stay in and not be frustrated, think over the long-term, say a year or two time span. If something is rejected by another editor, it may be picked up later. There is no need to fight an edit-war. Regards, patience, and buon lavoro.Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try unprotection now. If the edit war reoccurs it will be reprotected. Please discuss before making any controversial claims; also remember WP:3RR. I will enforce blocks if it's broken. So, be careful, and hope all goes well. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Development Plans

I would like to suggest that we add a brief section summarizing development plans in Jerusalem, as has been done with Haifa (which actually needs more info added). For example, the Museum of Tolerance in Kikar Ha Chatulim, the Silwan settlement, and the Imperial Hotel/other Old City properties by Jaffa Gate, among others. I will add later when the page is unblocked. Please add to the list I just threw out there if you know about this kind of thing. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Annexation

I think that this matter, of using "annexation" and "asserting sovereignty" in the article is much more serious than the "Jerusalem is the capital" debate. The latter is a question of neutrality, of undue weight, of phrasing and semantics. But as for the first, the article is simply baldly stating as fact something which is untrue and uncitable, and jarring.

That statement is certainly not "uncitable". See [4] and [5] (sorry, can't find the original for the second source). There are, of course, many books that use this terming, which you can easily find through Google Books, among other places. -- tariqabjotu 17:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is POV, which happens to have no basis in either Israeli or international law. To use the word with a link that takes you to a page on the 'Jerusalem Law' which takes you to an expoert who says annexation is a fringe (WP:Fringe) legal view in Israeli not held by the majority of legal scholars there, who share a consensus Jerusalem, to the contrary, has not been formally annexed, and abroad, is to push a POV, which happens to be shared by Arabs who have exaggerated on the issue, and by of a certain vein of Israeli propaganda, that has lulled many to think annexation has occurred. That was John Z's point. Primary documents again are not as trustworthy, as reliable secondary sources. Many sources, even good ones, repeat hackneyed phrase that happen to be inexact. To resolve the issue you need a highly reliable secondary source on the actual legal crux of the annexation, and so far the only source we have on this specific point is Lustick, who documents in great detail that annexation is a fringe view. That I happen to share this view in no way disinvalidates the point made.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, but I actually wasn't interested in hearing your response. -- tariqabjotu 17:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East says East Jerusalem has been annexed. How's that for a reliable secondary source? :) --GHcool (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't citable to an official statement of Israel, which is what counts when one is talking about what Israel asserts, rather than even the best secondary source. Nobody could read "asserts sovereignty" as other than Israel has asserted i.e. said "sovereignty" over East Jerusalem, which is quite false - the word does not appear in any relevant Israeli law or official statement. The Knesset conciously avoided stipulating any boundaries in 1980. People speaking loosely say it. People with an anti-Israel POV say it. It's reasonable to say that the Jerusalem municipality "annexed" east Jerusalem, because it is then clear we are not talking about law, but "administrative convenience." Saying that Israel annexed East Jerusalem is not at all the majority or consensus view among people who know what they are talking about, e.g. in international law books and journals, knowledgeable authorities like Lustick, and are trying to be careful about this particular point, rather than just saying something in passing that is sort of true, but takes a great many words to clarify. Specific sources are superior to general ones. Saying it as strongly as we do here, essentially putting words in Israel's mouth, is indeed a fringe view. The second source above rightly puts it in appropriate scare quotes "annexing" which is fine by me, but it also inaccurately states that the 1980 law applied Israeli law to EJ, when that had already been done in 1967, when Israel explicitly denied annexing East Jerusalem. Again, neither specific nor overly careful. The standard, usual and best thing in such matters - when talking about what Israel says - is direct quotation e.g. Israel "extended its laws, jursidiction and administration blah blah blah"(footnote to Israeli official statement). Cheers,John Z (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rephrase similar articles dealing with annexation elsewhere on Wikipedia. I look forward to hearing arguments for phrasing like "The United States claims that it has annexed Hawaii." --GHcool (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well... okay. Either way, whether Jerusalem was actually annexed in the legal sense is not actually pivotal here for the intro. So, do you have a better word that gets the intent of the word annexed in the intro across, without bringing in this issue? Perhaps "unified" (although I can picture that being misinterpreted)? Or joined? Something to that effect? -- tariqabjotu 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GH, the problem is that Israel has never explicitly, forthrightly claimed it has annexed EJ. This is unlike the US and Hawaii, or Israel and West Jerusalem. Only Israel and its properly credentialled (and very competent besides) spokesmen, like Menachem Begin and Abba Eban, who were deeply involved in carefully drafting these statements, can speak for Israel, not us. Annexation became more complicated in the past century, as international law changed greatly. In classical international law, annexation by conquest and subjugation was perfectly OK. Another interesting, somewhat parallel, case is Jordan and East Jerusalem - cf the recent edits I made to East Jerusalem and the refs there. Thinking about this and the example of Berlin too could be helpful in getting the perfect wording. For me, quotes from the 67 and 80 laws and statements, with the clarification that the 1980 law (intentionally) did not specify borders, especially if we say "united", would be OK for now. Cheers,John Z (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have enormous respect for Lustick (his article "Israel as a non-Arab State" is brilliant, and his book on the "war on terror" is even better). But on this issue I'm not sure how far brilliance would take us. Sociologists sometimes quote an aphorism by W.I. Thomas: if something is perceived as real, then it is real in its consequences. Even if Lustick is right - that the legality of annexation is problematic - the pervasive belief that annexation has happened, even if legally erroneous, might be what counts for an encyclopaedic understanding of East Jerusalem at this stage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm delighted a fellow Wikipedian shares what is a widely held view in the academic world. The point is he has covered the specific issue with his usual comprehensive mastery of relevant sources, Hebrew and English, and has shown that the view he proposes is the majority Israeli legal view. The view of annexation is, he gives us to understand, a 'fringe' view in Israeli legal circles. Sociologists, yes, a vast literature on that, on what Peter L.Berger and Thomas Luckmann called The Social Construction of Reality (1966). But I hear it everywhere these days in politics, and naturally bridle at it. Anecdotally, entre nous, Italy is one of the quietest unviolent places in the world, but since the former leader of the opposition owns three major television networks, we were exposed to intense media coverage of any murder conducted by illegal immigrants for several months, and Silvio Berlusconi then won the elections running on a 'clean out the gypsies and Rumanian'-law-and-order ticket. When, as occasionally, government spokesmen hauled out the statistics and showed the real state of affairs, the invariable response was 'Yes, but irrespective of the data, Italians are generally very worried about their security, and perceive a threat to it from foreigners. Technically Berlusconi was only applying, via his usual American advisers like Karl Rove, the tried-and-true formula that the Reality-based community is out of touch, paradoxically, because as the White House perception-manager said:-

we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities

.

The reality created is that which politicians wish us to perceive in order to predispose us to it when it is created by force. To note this, as Chomsky does, is not a fringe leftist view. The first to analyse this was Walter Lippmann in his prophetic book, Public Opinion (1923)(it's downloadable on line). I edit as part of the reality-based community. I know that Israeli sources use this strategy to create the impression that will then, they hope will transmogrify into a reality, but until a formal act of annexation is passed (and it requires, technically, Palestinian/Arab consent in what this article (desperately needs copyediting. by the way) calls 'peaceful negotiations' (negotiations means one has resorted to peace, and not war, for the record), we shouldn't, in my humble but extremely boring opinion, use it. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ps.Compliments on the monicker or handle, by the way. It has a beautiful postmodern ring about it to anyone trained to listen with classical Greek ears! Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not the legality of annexation that Lustick and others like Yoram Dinstein question or deny, but the reality of it. In any case, nobody but Israel has the right to speak for Israel, and we should not put words in Israel's mouth. It would be perfectly OK with me to say that many have termed it an annexation, but we are running into undue weight problems; detailed discussion really belongs in subarticles like East Jerusalem and Jerusalem Law.John Z (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, my choice of wording was poor: what I mean is challenging the legal reality of it, i.e., whether Israel has in fact done what so many people believe it has done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Capital or no - a distraction from missing Arab perspectives on the day-to-day

My two cents: as much as I understand both points of view on the question of 'capital' versus 'disputed capital,' it also seems to me that people are getting awfully distracted. Fight this to the bitter end, that's your business. But in the meantime, the article suffers from a dearth of info on East Jerusalem. I think the outside wiki reader would get a lot more from an article which actually addresses the day-to-day of Arab life in Jerusalem as much it currently addresses the day-to-day of Jewish life. And this is largely absent. So I would ask those who have the info to spend as much time filling in skeletal parts as they do debating one sentence, however vital it may be.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Very sensible words.John Z (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'm not a real fan of general sanctions, I think it would be prudent to ask the protecting admin to make a sanction against changing the first sentence for now (i.e. for however long he expected the protection to last). People obviously want to change other, unrelated parts of the article and it doesn't make sense that one sentence (heck, one word) should prevent the entire article from being edited. This article needs to demonstrate once again that it's deserving of featured status and clearly there are some gaps that can be filled. -- tariqabjotu 06:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the protection will be lifted in a minute; it's holding up numerous other changes. What general sanction do you suggest for the sentence? My thought would be an only warning, followed by a short block of 3 hours, increasing each time the sentence is replaced. This would last for, say, a week, or however long until the discussion is definitely concluded. Thoughts? PeterSymonds (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that sound fair. -- tariqabjotu 06:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, now could someone please add an FA-worthy source for the paragraph about Umar and the Muslim conquest I added a few days ago? It's in the main Islamic rule section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering. -- tariqabjotu 07:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The source you require,Al Ameer son, is Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades:The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1951), Penguin, 1965 , who draws an eloquent vignette as part of his overture to the masterpiece by describing in detail the encounter between Umar and Sophonius. By the way, the wording ‘Having recognized the assistance of the Jews in the significant capture’ is inept., (what is a ‘significant capture’? and what would an ‘insignificant capture’ be?). It should read, ‘having recognized the significant assistance given by Jews (’With the help of Jews within the walls’, Steven Runciman, ‘’A History opf the Crusades, vol.1 p.10). On the capture 60,000 Christians, according to contemporary sources, were massacred, and 35,000 sold into slavery (Runciman p.10). Is this relevant? From 614 to 617 the city was actually ruled by Jews, until the Persians returned in that year, encountered Jewish resistance and subsequently expelled them.(Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel, (Handbuch Der Orientalistik 7) (1988) Brill Academic Publishers, 1997 p.6).Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the appropriate source. --Al Ameer son (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits that need to be made.

Lead.
I think it is now generally conceded that annexation is inappropriate and should be replaced?

Etymology
I wrote what follows below after reading the section and consulting notes I had made. I now find, purely by accident, that Zero0000 has done a fine piece of work summing up the real evidence, as opposed to the spurious or folklorish etymologies the text is strewn with now (all POV and WP:Undue Weight as it stands) and has more or less written the basics for the section I say is missing, and yet no one seems to have harvested it. Jerusalem's etymology. This place is mysterious. Info is handed out on a platter and the answer is silence.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole section should be written in chronological order, with reliable sources on the philology of the word. I.e.It is a semitic word predating the rise of the Hebrew dialect by 1000 years. The etymologies for it in Hebrew are folk etymologies that arose after the word, a foreign word was assimilated into the language. The major etymology proposed for this pre-Israelite toponym, is ‘foundation’ (yārā) of the god Shalem', though other suggestions exist.

(1) Rušalimum or Urušalimum (Egyptian hieroglyphic, 19th.-18th century BCE)
(2) Urušalim 14th-13th century Akkadian cuneiform
(3) Uršalimmu/Urusilimmu (Assyrian)
(4) Yerushalayim/Yrušlym (Hebrew)

(Omitting Yevus (Judges. 19:10) the city as dwelt in by Jebusites (perhaps a Hittite tribe, unless they are a clan linked to the Amorites cf.Yabusi'um) before David conquered it).

Surely someone properly qualified in Semitic languages could chip in here? This is supposed to have FA status, with the quality that demands.

History
Para 1. (Roshlamem or Rosh-ramen) are incorrectly transcribed. As in the etymological section to be written, these should be Rushalimum or Urushalimum.

Para 1. There is no mention whatsoever of the first recorded 'king' or ruler of the city, the first person history records as associated with the city. This is a serious oversight. See Abdi-Heba

Para 1. Some reference is required to the frequent suggestion that the strong shift in climate from 16th. made that area arid, and this may account for the demographic collapse of the Middle Bronze city, which then remained virtually deserted for some centuries 15-13th cent.BC.

The local potentate the Jebusite(Hittite?) Araunah, from whom David bought the threshing-floor which is supposed to be the foundation-site of the Temple Solomon built should perhaps also be mentioned.

(1) The text reads: 'From the days of Constantine until the Seventh Century, Jews were banned from Jerusalem.[42]'

The source is Michael Zank's snippet article which actually says:

' Jews were banned from entering the city until the advent of Islam, when they were readmitted.

Why is it necessary to restore the original wording? Because if Jews were banned from Jerusalem, and only readmitted with the islamic conquest (untrue, they were readmitted in significant numbers by the pre-islamic Persian conquest), the reader is left wondering how decades before the Islamic conquest, Jews within the city assisted the Persians in 614 to gain entry to and conquer Jerusalem. Zank’s text is a slovenly, unreferenced thumbnail sketch, and overlooks the fact that both Julian the Apostate around 360s, and Eudokia later, briefly changed the policy and invited Jews back into the city. A community existed there, the one the next paragraph explains was involved in the Persian takeover.

Rewrite therefore ‘From the days of Constantine, apart from two brief periods, Jews were banned from entering the city.’

(2) Para. 'Roman Persian Wars. This is a mess.

(a)'push into Byzantine' should read 'push into the Byzantine Empire'. Byzantine is an adjective, is solecistic and linking it to the proper phrasing, while retaining the error, is weird.

(b) The text reads:

'and advancing through Syria, Sassanid Generals Shahrbaraz and Shahin decided.

contains a dangling clause, contextually (see preceding line) which should be placed after 'Shahrbaraz and Shahin decided'.

Emend therefore to

‘the Sassanid Generals Shahrbaraz and Shahin, on advancing through Syria, decided’.

(c)The text reads:

'Sassanids to begin constructing a naval fleet and its (Jerusalem?naval fleet?) capture would undoubtedly weaken the Byzantine-Empire's overseas strength

(c.i)Sassanids to construct a fleet (fleets are implicitly always naval in contexts dealing with clashing empires, to say 'naval fleet' is pleonastic here)

(c.ii)'its capture would undoubtedly weaken the Byzantine-Empire's overseas strength'

This is completely meaningless (i) 'undoubtedly' is an editorial comment, for 'forseeably' (ii)the capture of jerusalem would not in itself weaken Byzantium’s oversea(')s (= 'maritime' dominance in the eastern Mediterranean)strength (iii) the comment is odd enough to require a WP:RS.

I expect what the editors intended to say was

'As a key city overlooking routes that connected the Mediterranean Sea to the hinterland, Jerusalem would provide a strategic launching point for gaining dominance over the littoral, in order to allow the Sassanids to construct a fleet that might forseeably challenge Byzantium’s dominance of the eastern Mediterranean.

Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

-capital of Israel-

The text has:

'By Israeli law, Jerusalem is the de-jure capital of Israel, and de-facto contains the parliament, government offices, Supreme Court, President's quarters, and Prime Ministers's quarters.'

the words de-facto (properly = de facto) are supererogatory, and meaningless and can be removed. De-jure = de jure, and is again pleonastic, since 'By Israel law' is sufficient to establish the point made.

- 'recent excavations of a large stone structure' requires a citation, as noted. The required citation is:

John J.Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Abridged and revised ed. Augsburg Fortress Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2007 pp.128f.

Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Section.Palestinian Claims I'm sure this sounds wonderful in a tourist brochure, for the lovey-dovey starry-eyed image, but it's odd at least to a reader of Haaretz, which even today remarks:-

'Earlier this month, when Israel marked 41 years since the reunification of Jerusalem, residents of the eastern part of the city saw no cause for celebration. Like 'most of the Arab homes in East Jerusalem, residents of the neighborhood of A-Tur are forced to live without infrastructure, paved roads and regular garbage collection. Roughly one quarter of a million Arabs, all of whom hold Israeli identification cards, live in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after the 1967 Six-Day War. According to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, 130 thousand of them have no running water.' Haaretz 23/6/2008

No mention of withdrawal by bureraucratic fiat of residential rights if you choose to study overseas etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. But then sacred cities must present their best face.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 1967. Moroccan Quarter. I note Nomoskedaskcity has added a note from rashid K's article. Rather than have a generic and unsupported text about reluctant residents killed (stuff like that should be removed, since it is a strong claim and needs immediate textual support, and whoever asserts these things in a text like this should do so with reliable evidence at hand), it perhaps would be better to note that 'approximately 1,000 residents (were) evicted' to enlarge access to wall, as the same Khalidi noted in his classic Palestinian Identity:The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Columbia UP 1997 ed. p.17 Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

-Nonsense sentences-

• Jerusalem has been sacred to the Jews since the 10th century BCE,

There is no respectable source that would ever say this. Since there is no historical evidence for the claim all Jews since David's time thought of him in term of sacrality. These concepts are usually regarded by objective historians as rabbinical creations some several centuries later.

• Historically, Jerusalem's economy was supported almost exclusively by religious pilgrims.

What this means is wholly vague. Periods of substantial annual pilgrimage over the two millenia to now were relatvively rare, yet Jerusalem had an economy. (2) The Jewish community there and in other areas survived, in more modern centuries, substantially on remittance assistance from the diaspora.(3) I would like to see how the non-Jewish (and perhaps non-Christian) half of the population is said to have survived. Did the Muslims survive by virtue of Islamic pilgrims historically? The sentence, whatever, is rubbish, ahistorical.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On slum. Notoriously in the old city, by most contemporary standards, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in what might be qualified as slums. The extraordinary use of 'slum' to designate an historical quarter which was waqf, i.e. inalienable property, while the word is withheld historically from earlier sections when, according to all 19th and early 20th cent accounts, the Jews themselves lived in slums, is just one more example of bias. One could cut out all the political bullshit about UN condemnations from this by all means, and simply replace it with some of the detail, which contrasts with details given here, in Mughrabi Quarter). To cover the eviction of a old historic population, and subsequent destruction of mosques, as 'slum clearance'? Slum clearance implies something done to raise sanitation and quality of life for the residents, not their eviction . . . well words fail me. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You know that the article's unprotected now, right? PeterSymonds (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Tariq said he'd automatically revert me if I touched a word I had previously declared I had no intention of touching, and I undertook, as proof of good faith, not to touch the article. This has, apparently FA status, but it is replete with bad grammar, loose and inexact references, a whole section that is misleadingly and poorly written (Etymology). Given my recent experiences with editors who do frequently contribute here, I think it best simply to offer suggestions. I wish above all not to be caught up in anything that resembles edit-warring. Others can take them or leave them.Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So as long as you do not indeed touch that word, go ahead and edit. It will take us all about 10x longer to review the above than to do so in the actual body of the entry.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a point of honour. I don't like being threatened by an administrator about something I explicitly said I never would do. In any case, I fail to understand why there are so many slipshod errors in phrasing here, and why no one is in a hurry to copyedit the page? Does everyone argue about their favourite paragraph or word while failing to read the piece through?Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not as if good editors and editing are being driven away by bad. PR^talk 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, some good editors, such as User:Tewfik, certainly have been driven away by bad editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd not noticed User:Tewfik complaining, but I'm sure he was getting fed up at constantly having to remove hateful material like "a Ha'aretz editorial drew attention to the IDF's widespread destruction of computer files and printed records, calling it "Operation Destroy the Data", and "In his book "The Samson Option", Seymour Hersh shares quotes ... "former Israeli govt official" ... "We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you with us.", and "100 Arabs killed ... (United Nations Archives) 13/3.3.1, box 13."[6], and "Since Israel's establishment in 1948, over the course of numerous protests ... "the only protestors to be killed by the police have been Arabs."[7]. PR^talk 11:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, PR, let's not spoil things by dragging in extraneous differences. I'm not going to check these things over, and this is not the place for them. (p.s.I doubt there's hardly an editor in here who has not made very bad calls, and politicized ones.Finis) Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence in lead section

The last line in the lead section reads:

"Palestinians consider East Jerusalem the capital of their future state"

The above sentence rings wrong to anybody good at grammar. The word "consider" in particular is a problem, because "consider" is present tense; and also the definition of "consider" doesn't go well with the grammar of the rest of the sentence. A better word or a restructuring of this sentence is needed; any ideas?

As every word here is measured; and gallons of ink has been spent on practically every word here; I'm not yet making any change, but rather making a suggestion to create a proper sentence which grammatically says the same thing. Itzse (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The expression is "rings false," Itzse. Properly speaking, it ought to say that Palestinians consider East Jerusalem the capital of their state; since the entire phrase is modified by "Palestinians consider," the qualifier "future" is unnecessary. I threw it in there as an olive branch.

Anyway, simply including the word "future" does not change the noun phrase "their future state" into the future tense. Actually, you can't have nouns in future tense, since nouns don't have any tense. "Anna is my future wife." "Our children are our future leaders." "Palestinians consider East Jerusalem the capital of their future state."

I guess it could be "Palestinians see East Jerusalem as..." that's the same semantics and maybe sounds better. <eleland/talkedits> 02:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It would not be correct at all to say "Palestinians consider East Jerusalem the capital of their state", because they don't have a state. However, I don't see a problem with the current wording. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are both right; Tariqabjotu is right that "It would not be correct at all to say "Palestinians consider East Jerusalem the capital of their state", because they don't have a state"; and Eleland is correct that "it could be "Palestinians see East Jerusalem as..." that's the same semantics and maybe sounds better". That’s why the wording as is, is grammatically wrong; not false; and a better way of saying the same thing is required.

As an "olive branch" is a noble reason to twist a sentence; but this is an Encyclopedia which needs to be grammatically as well as factually correct. Itzse (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

U.N. etc. consider it "occupied"

I've moved the following recently inserted text to here for further discussion:

The United Nations[8] and the International Court of Justice[9] categorize East Jerusalem as occupied territory, and

To begin with, one cannot really say that the "United Nations" categorized anything, at least as a unified body. The United Nations consists of many dozens of states, each with their own views. As for the references used, the first, a Security Council resolution, says nothing about "East Jerusalem" or "occupied territory", and the second is a General Assembly resolution, and therefore essentially meaningless. As for the International Court of Justice, it gave an advisory opinion about another topic: its authority here is nil. Please keep in mind that this is a Featured Article; changes should not be made to the lede (particularly poorly-sourced political ones) without a strong consensus first. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. First, Jay, if the UNSC and the UNGA pass resolutions staking out a position, that is the position of the UN, and it is wholly appropriate to note it as such - just as if Israel's government takes a position on some dispute, it is appropriate to say "Israel states that..." This does not imply that every UN member state / Israeli agrees with the Security Council / Israeli government's decision, and no literate person would think that it does. Furthermore, even if this were not so, the solution would be to write, "The UN Security Council and General Assembly both categorize Jeruslaem as occupied," rather than remove the information entirely. (As an aside, I would also note that despite the "many dozens of states, each with their own views," the votes on Jerusalem-related resolutions are consistently one-sided; 252 passed 13-0, and the even more strongly worded UN 267, which re-iterated everything in 252 and went beyond it, passed 15-0 - unanimously, with no abstentions; the trend continues year after year.)

The Security Council's position on Jerusalem has been remarkably clear and consistent. The relevant resolutions include:

Resolution 252 of 21 May 1968:

"Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, [...] all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status"

Resolution 267 of 3 July 1969:

"Recalling its resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and the earlier General Assembly resolutions [...] Reaffirming the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, 1. Reaffirms its resolution 252 (1968); [...] Confirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status"

Resolution 271 of 15 September 1969:

"Recalling its resolutions [...] concerning measures and action by Israel affecting the status of the City of Jerusalem, Reaffirming the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, 1. Reaffirms its resolutions 252 (1968) and 267 (1969); [...] emphasizes the immediate necessity of Israel's desisting from acting in violation of the aforesaid resolutions and rescinding forthwith all measures and actions taken by it designed to alter the status of Jerusalem"

One needs only a passing familiarity with international legal jargon to understand that these resolutions refer to the Israeli-occupied status of Jerusalem. Certainly no scholar could object to citing them in this context. But of course, this is Wikipedia, not real scholarship, and I suppose that by our mess of policies you would be justified in calling for secondary sources that support this interpretation (a very large number of high-quality sources, of course, do, and few if any oppose it.) But this is all moot:

Resolution 298 of 25 September 1971:

"Recalling its resolutions [...] concerning measures and actions by Israel designed to change the status of the Israeli-occupied section of Jerusalem, [...] Reaffirming the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, [...] 1. Reaffirms its resolutions 252 (1968) and 267 (1969); [...] 3. Confirms in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status"

Resolution 476 of 30 June 1980: "Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, [...] Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular [all of the above ...] Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, [...] 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; [...] 3. Reconfirms that 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 [...] 4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council"

Resolution 478 of 20 August 1980:=

"Recalling its resolution 476 (1980), Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, [...] 2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem; 3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith"

The record, Jay, is inarguable. The United Nations Security Council has affirmed and re-affirmed, confirmed and re-confirmed, that East Jerusalem is Israeli-occupied territory.

I would turn to the UNGA, but it's late, I'm tired of wasting my time on proving what you surely already know to be the truth, and I'm not eager to argue Personal attack removed about how UNGA resolutions are "essentially meaningless" - did you forget who passed Resolution 181, Jay?

Of course, the ICJ decision simply summarizes the historical background and the UNSC record, and comes to the same conclusion. Here are paragraphs 73 to 78.

73. In the 1967 armed conflict, Israeli forces occupied all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line).

74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and called for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency".

75. From 1967 onwards, Israel took a number of measures in these territories aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem. The Security Council, after recalling on a number of occasions "the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible", condemned those measures and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, confirmed in the clearest possible terms that:

"all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status".

Later, following the adoption by Israel on 30 July 1980 of the Basic Law making Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel, the Security Council, by resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, stated that the enactment of that Law constituted a violation of international law and that "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem . . . are null and void". It further decided "not to recognize the 'basic law' and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem".

76. Subsequently, a peace treaty was signed on 26 October 1994 between Israel and Jordan. That treaty fixed the boundary between the two States "with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a) . . . without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" (Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2). Annex I provided the corresponding maps and added that, with regard to the "territory that came under Israeli military government control in 1967", the line indicated "is the administrative boundary" with Jordan.

77. Lastly, a number of agreements have been signed since 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization imposing various obligations on each party. Those agreements inter alia required Israel to transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and responsibilities exercised in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by its military authorities and civil administration. Such transfers have taken place, but, as a result of subsequent events, they remained partial and limited.

78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

Personal attack removed eleland/talkedits> 02:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The UNSC has rejected Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, which is notable. The ICJ's advisory opinion regarding a different topic is, frankly, not appropriate for the lead, if anywhere in the article at all. For the past year, the last sentences of this Featured Article were as follows:

Today, Jerusalem remains a bone of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem (captured in the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial, as Palestinians view this part of the city as the capital of a potential Palestinian state.[10][11] The status of a "united Jerusalem" as Israel's "eternal capital"[12][13] has not been officially recognized by most of the international community, and nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.[14]

As you see, far more elegant and neutral than what is being proposed now. All this POVing worsens the article; please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

East Jerusalem, by definition and by international recognition, is occupied, I see no reason that this significant fact be removed from the lede. And I don't understand your rational for calling it POVing. Imad marie (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the statement is accurate, we do not need a full column of sources -- over 9 kb -- to support it. -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, we do. Because otherwise the pro-Israel faction will not stop editing out everything that could create a more accurate perspective. If a state commits illegal or vile actions there is no reason not to name them as such. Cush (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please moderate your rhetoric; don't refer again to "pro-Israel editors" or states committing "illegal or vile actions". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's great to see you're assuming good faith. </sarcasm> Biased articles do not become featured articles; this article (and the Israel article as well) contain more than just the Israeli position. They would not have made it through the featured process, which solicits comments from a variety of editors, if they didn't. That's why, for instance, even though you somehow consider the replacement of the one sentence regarding the UN and ICJ as evidence of a pro-Israel "faction", there's that entire paragraph surrounding it that talks about the dispute over the city. Seriously, I'm getting real tired of people complaining about this "pro-Israel" bias that's supposedly seeping from this article and others, seeing that as justification to add for the Nth time information about what Israel is doing to Palestinians. There's more to Israel and Jerusalem than how the poor Palestinians feel about everything. -- tariqabjotu 11:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I short lesson on logic,tariqabjotu

(a)Major Premise:'biased articles do not become featured articles'

(b)Minor Premise'This is a featured article'

(c)Conclusion.'This article is not biased'.

Your fatigue is showing, if you endorse that kind of ouroboric syllogistic assumption. It excludes you from perceiving the obvious, i.e. things Israeli newspapers report on Palestinians and east Jerusalem, but which are systematic elided from the page.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"How the poor Palestinians feel about everything." Tariq, to my knowledge, the Palestinian Authority has never held a seat at the UN Security Council table. Nor am I aware of any Palestinian jurists on the International Court of Justice. The information in question reflects a clear, durable consensus of international opinion. Even the United States, which is out at the extreme fringe pro-Israel side of international opinion, has voted for some of these resolutions, abstaining from the rest. The ICJ majority opinion was signed by 14 of 15 judges, and the 15th, American judge Burgenthal dissented from the overall conclusion on procedural grounds while conceding that "I share the Court's conclusion that international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel," and repeatedly, though ambiguously, refered to the Green Line as the de jure boundary of Israeli territory.

Tariq, one of the standard propaganda devices in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is to portray a solid consensus of opinion as a mere partisan claim. It's the same tactic deployed by creationists or global warming deniers. But not everything in this conflict is a he-said-she-said; some (in my opinion, most) of the issues are actually quite clear-cut. This is one of them. <eleland/talkedits> 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ gave an advisory opinion about a different topic; please don't try to make it to have more import than it actually did, and please avoid making pejorative statements about other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Tariq's comment was inappropriate "how the poor Palestinians feel about everything", just like many of his comments regarding the I-P conflict. Imad marie (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And he had already struck through that comment, long before your comment or mine, so what was the point of your statement? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying that Palestinian perspectives, or at least statements about the victimization of Palestinians, do not need to be repeated over and over. Obviously, such perspectives and victimization exist, but there is a limit to how much and how often that should be presented. If you think that's inappropriate, fine; I don't particularly care that you do. -- tariqabjotu 12:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but they do have to be registered in this article, from which they are, apparently, rigorously excluded.I refer to the following travesty of NPOV reportage:

Palestinian officials have encouraged Arabs over the years to stay in the city to maintain their claim. Jerusalem has been a magnet for Arab migrants, offering more jobs than any city in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.[119] Palestinians are attracted to the access to jobs, healthcare, social security, other benefits, and overall quality of life Israel provides to Jerusalem residents.[120] Arab residents of Jerusalem who choose not to have Israeli citizenship are granted an Israeli identity card that allows them to pass through checkpoints with relative ease and to travel throughout Israel, making it easier to find work. Residents also are entitled to the subsidized healthcare and social security benefits Israel provides its citizens. Palestinians in Jerusalem can send their children to Israeli-run schools, although not every neighborhood has one, and universities. Israeli doctors and highly regarded hospitals such as Hadassah Medical Center are available to residents.[121]

Here 'Palestinian officials have encouraged Arabs over the years to stay in the city' translates into the minutely documented reality that (1) the Palestinian third of the population only gets 7% of building permits, inhabited areas are subject to seizure, people evicted, etc.. Every year, the Jerusalem bureaucracy finds pretexts, such as momentary departure from the city to study abroad, to cancel the residency permits of Jerusalemite Arabs, 1500 a year. Virtually every sentence in that idyllic picture requires qualification. To use your words, there is a limit to how much can legitimately be suppressed of the Palestinian side while maintaining the pretense that it is without bias Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I resent your suggestion that I'm a propagandist, or even acting like one. I was responding to Cush's statement, which, aside from his simple "Oh yes, we do", was a blanket statement about bias in the article. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict - I agree with you Elaland that it is actually clear-cut. The United Nations voted that Zionism is racism which is clear-cut where they are coming from. I disagree with you that the United States is "out at the extreme fringe pro-Israel side of international opinion". I think that the United States is evenhanded (Saudi Arabia and Egypt is the proof); but to those who were spoiled into getting full support; the United States' position is indeed "extreme fringe pro-Israel". Itzse (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Itzse Most of the text will of course bore you, but the statistics on Jerusalem are interesting, given what our article says of the marvellous services available to Palestinian Jerusalemites. Enjoy Saree Makdisi Occupation by Bureaucracy Counterpunch June 27, 2008Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Itzse, to get a clearer understanding of your thoughts on the range of positions taken by various countries: if the US position isn't out there on one end of the continuum, then which country takes an even more pro-Israel position? Who is less evenhanded (in favor of Israel) than the US? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The previous wording is unconscionably weasely. The international community does not merely "not officially recognize" Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem; it categorically rejects and condemns it, affirms its legal status as under military occupation, and condemns Israel's drive to create "facts on the ground" as a serious threat to international peace and security. One of the most salient facts about Jerusalem today is that half of it is under occupation. Efforts to excise the word "occupation," and to replace it with watered-down, vague qualifiers are simply not neutral or acceptable.

On the ICJ opinion: Just so we're clear, the term "advisory opinion" refers to the procedural method by which the case was brought. It does not mean "recommendation." I'm not wedded to the idea of mentioning the UNSC and the ICJ opinion by name. I simply chose to do so because I felt sure that "international community" or some similar phrase would be rejected as "original research."

The current section under "Establishment of the State of Israel" is a travesty. It portrays a chorus of condemnation from 1967-present as a single critical resolution, plus a resolution cited by the Palestinians as "considering invalid" Israel's actions. The resolutions are far more numerous and strongly worded ("flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention," "inadmissible," "must be rescinded forthwith," "totally invalid.") And of course they're categorized as "non-binding," a dubious bit of POV commentary that is slapped reflexively on every resolution that Israel doesn't like - although for some reason nobody talks about the "non-binding UN partition plan," etc. They are "non-binding" in the sense that they are not Chapter VII resolutions - so what?

As Nishidani has pointed out, the "Palestinian claims" section is equally terrible. ~40% of it isn't about Palestinian claims at all, but is an extended advertisement for how great Tel Aviv is treating the Arabs. Not a word about the house demolitions, discrimination in zoning and permits, Kafkaesque passport revocations, systematic suppression of Palestinian political activity of any kind, iron ring of barrier settlements to the east, all in the service of a long-term plan to Judaize the city for all time. All of the promotional blather is cited to a news story about Palestinans being squeezed out of West Bank suburbs by the Wall; every Israel-positive sentence in the story has been scraped, while the vast majority of it lies ignored.

Jerusalem is a city with 1/3 Palestinian population, which the international community regards as half belonging to the Palestinians. One would think, therefore, that when discussing Jerusalem today, the Palestinian side gets somewhere between 2/3 time and equal time with the Israeli side. Instead, we have maybe three weaselly sentences about their views. Everything else is Israel, Israel, Israel.

And one more thing: enough of this crowing bullshit about FEATURED ARTICLES. Merely passing Wikipedia's ham-handed system of quality control Personal attack removed does not immunize an article from improvement or correction. As everybody using this argument already knows. Be serious. This article is a travesty. <eleland/talkedits> 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, the previous wording was neutral and accurate; "advisory opinions" are just that, advisory, and in any event the case was about something else. You wouldn't see Britannica pushing this kind of POV about the ICJ into the lead of their article on Jerusalem - indeed, it's unlikely they'd even bother mentioning it anywhere in the article. As for G.A. resolutions, the partition plan wasn't binding either, and the U.N. made no attempt to enforce it. Israel's legitimacy doesn't devolve from the partition plan, any more than Jordan's, or Syria's, or Lebanon's does. And finally, there is an article about East Jerusalem - but the plain fact is that it is "Israel, Israel, Israel" which has controlled and run Jerusalem, as its capital, for 60 years now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The "legitimacy" of Israel derives from the undemocratic colonialist actions of a certain Mr Balfour. And the lack of international recognition determines that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, whatever you may claim. The facts are clear. Everything else is but your personal opinion. Cush (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, Balfour didn't take any "colonialist actions", and please stop violating WP:SOAP. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

Asserting the conclusion you are trying to prove as part of the proof itself is called begging the question. The idea here is that we have a discussion about whether "the previous wording was neutral and accurate;" I have presented logic and evidence to support my claim that it is not. Now it's your turn to present logic and evidence refuting my position and supporting yours. That's how it works.

You are of course correct that the partition plan was not binding. That was what I just said. I said it to support my claim that the article treats UN resolutions differently based on whether Israel likes them or not. UNGA resolutions which explicitly call themselves "recommendations" are universally agreed to be non-binding. UNSC resolutions which use language like "determine" and "confirm," but do not authorize military or economic action under Chapter VII, are controversially claimed to be non-binding, although this is a matter of considerable controversy and cannot be stated as fact rather than disputed conclusion. Thus, when UNGA 181 is described as a "ruling" of the UN, but UNSC 242-478 are described as "non-binding," there is clearly a major problem of NPOV afoot.

You alluded to Britannica. [10] The very first sentence of their article on the subject defines Jerusalem as, "[an] ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly under the rule of the State of Israel." Not as an "ancient city of Israel" or "the capital of Israel" or anything like that; instead a very specific and nuanced formulation, immediately referencing the modern Isr-Pal controversy. In the first paragraph, Jay, Britannica states that "Although Israel’s actions were repeatedly condemned by the UN and other bodies, Israel reaffirmed Jerusalem’s standing as its capital..."

If you're going to pull out argumentum ad Britannicum, as you often do, it would be best to discuss what Britannica actually says on the subject, rather than what you think, falsely, that "you wouldn't see" Britannica saying. I'm almost embarrassed for you; I think your case here is extremely weak, but not as weak as you've presented it. <eleland/talkedits> 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the current wording is entirely neutral, and captures what is actually relevant regarding Jerusalem. The weight of legal scholarship and consensus view on UNSC resolutions is that only Chapter VII resolutions are binding, despite some minority opinions that wish that were not the case. UNGA resolutions are, of course, not binding in any way, and these days barely relevant to anything going on in the real world. As for Britannica its article on Jerusalem doesn't mention the ICJ or its ruling, exactly as I said. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One might conclude that, by replying only to the ICJ portion of eleland's points about Britannica, you are conceding eleland's other points about Britannica -- in particular the precise formulation of sentences using the word "capital". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One might, but then one would be committing the error of the false dilemma. As for Eleland's "other points", they were mostly premised on the claim that the article had been promoted to FA status by a pro-Israel cabal, and various other insults and digs, directed primarily at me, but indirectly at Tariqabjotou, who has been admirably neutral in these matters, displaying neither pro nor anti Israel bias, which makes Eleland's insults all the more scurrilous. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I have already explained that I don't see any particular need to mention the UNSC and the ICJ by name. Again; the reason I did so is because under Wikipedia's punctilious policies, wording like "condemned by the UN" or "condemned by the international community" would be challenged on the basis of "original synthesis," since the primary sources only support the assertion that the UNSC and the ICJ have condemned Israel's actions in East Jerusalem. Now that you have pointed out (sort of) what Britannica says on the subject, I think it would be best to use something like their wording, and say "condemned by the UN and other international bodies."

My belief that this article has been boosted by what you call a "pro-Israel cabal" — the "who, me?" chutzpah in that sentence is charming — has not been the premise of any arguments I've given here. That can be verified simply by reading what I've already said. I've only brought it up as an aside, to deal with amusingly sanctimonious references to "Featured Articles" and even "Featured Articles" which cannot, apparently, be touched by human hands without extensive discussion. Although you show no compunction in removing longstanding wording from the very same introduction which you claim to piously defend; this edit removed information that had been in the article since at least 2005, claimed to be "per talk" even though you've made not the slightest reference to its removal here. Comment is superfluous.

In short, you've offered only minor cavils, and have said nothing of substance to challenge my critique of this article. If this little brouhaha follows standard WP practice, this is the part where we start insulting each other, and you start linking to WP:CIV in bold text while violating it in the same breath. Oh, this place is getting tiresome... <eleland/talkedits> 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed neighborhoods sentence from lead

I've removed this incorrect unreferened sentence from the lead: "Its Jewish neighborhoods, circled around its civic and cultural hub, extend westward toward Israel's urban core in Gush Dan (Tel Aviv region). Its Arab neighborhoods stretch from the Old City to the East, towards Ramallah in the North, and towards Bethlehem in the South". The sentence is faulty for many reasons. Firstly, I don't understand what "extend" mean. They certainly don't extend from the Old City for example. There is also a good distance between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv or Gush Dan and other cities. If anything, it extends to Modiin and Maalee Adumim. Secondly, there are many "Jewish" neighborhoods in the east part of Jerusalem. Thirdly, there is no such thing as Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem since many Israeli Arabs live today in western Jerusalem neighborhoods as well... Amoruso (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)