Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Etymology

According to the Midrash the name of Jerusalem comes from a combination of 2 names. The first name "Shalem" was given to the city by the King Malchizedek. Later on during the binding of Isaac, Abraham named the city "Yireh" G-d will see. To honor these two great biblical figures, G-d combined the name and called the city Yerushalayim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.13.10 (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I like etymology and toponomy.

• This secondary reliable source might be appropriate for inclusion, discussing Moriah thought that Melchizedek‘s שׁלם Shaleem or Shalem (Gen. 14:18) might actually be located in Shechem based on evidence preserved in the LXX, where the city is referred to as Σαλημ Shalem (33:18). Emerton argues that the Melchizedek narrative (14:17-20) is a Yahwist interpolation, which was meant to associate Shalem with Jerusalem, and Abraham with Jerusalem instead of Shechem.[578] which remains sacred to the Samaritans AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• This secondary reliable source also discusses Shalem as "Place of Peace." The place on which Abraham had erected the altar was the same whereon Adam had brought the first sacrifice, and Cain and Abel had offered their gifts to God--the same whereon Noah raised an altar to God after he left the ark;[251] and Abraham, who knew that it was the place appointed for the Temple, called it Yireh, for it would be the abiding place of the fear and the service of God.[252] But as Shem had given it the name Shalem, Place of Peace, and God would not give offence to either Abraham or Shem, He united the two names, and called the city by the name Jerusalem.[253] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus of scholars expert in the required disciplines is that the name derives from the name of the God Shalim. Some years ago I did an extensive search of the academic literature and wrote a summary. It seems impossible to get this fact in this article though, since City of Peace is such a popular hypothesis that it won't go away. Zero^talk 23:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, interesting text. Why couldn't you just add that to the article though? --Dailycare (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Foundation of Salim is etymologically sound, let's see if it sticks. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

foreign embassies

I haven't understood the sentence 'Most foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem.' . Can any one give a recent source that no embassy is in the district of Jerusalem or that some embassies are there ? Words 'most' and 'none' can t go together. --Helmoony (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It could, of course, mean that there are some embassies that are in neither Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but I think it's more likely that its just a bastardised sentence that's resulted from editors using different sources. Last time I looked, there weren't any foreign embassies in Jerusalem. I think that the Americans changed their mind about relocating theirs there.     ←   ZScarpia   00:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we change it to < All foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv except Paraguyan and Bolivian embassies in Jerusalem District. > Existant sources don't really fit the subject. We have to change them using these links [1] [2]. The US embassy is officially in Tel Aviv [3]. --Helmoony (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks as though you're using good sources so go ahead.     ←   ZScarpia   14:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the change, can any one review it, I am not fluent with the citeweb template. --Helmoony (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are two recent sources that were published in connection with the OECD spat over (yes...) the non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. 1 2. The French source says that "all or almost all" embassies are in Tel Aviv. Concerning the Paraguayan and Bolivian embassies, the source says they're in Mevaseret Zion, not "Jerusalem District". (I don't have the foggiest if that's the same thing, but see no reason to deviate from the source here). I also don't think the location of these two embassies is lead material for this article. --Dailycare (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But terms like < All or almost all> may not help us to understand the importance of the non-recognition. Are they 5% of embassies in Jerusalem, 10 embassies only in Jerusalem including all G7 countries, Is the US embassy in Jerusalem or not ? By citing the only 2 embassies not in Tel Aviv, it helps a lot to understand. I wrote Jerusalem District not Mevaseret Zion because the suburb is not internationally known and we may not understand where is it really. But we can write < in Mevaseret Zion (Jerusalem District)>. --Helmoony (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous version said quite succinctly "most in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem". Instead of "Jerusalem" there, we could say "Jerusalem proper", for example. Another option would be to not use quantitative language at all and write something along the lines of "Since the international community doesn't consider Jerusalem to be in Israel, foreign embassies have typically been placed in Tel Aviv." Saying "Tel Aviv District" and/or "Jerusalem District" in the lead sounds a bit artificial to me. How would that sound? --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Since the international community doesn't consider Jerusalem to be in Israel, foreign embassies have typically been placed in Tel Aviv AND ITS SUBURBS-or an other expression like that-." because in this list [4] [5] we find embassies in small cities around Tel Aviv. --Helmoony (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't seriously think "Since the international community doesn't consider Jerusalem to be in Israel" is going to fly, right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. "Since the international community doesn't consider Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, foreign embassies have typically been placed in Tel Aviv AND ITS SUBURBS-or an other expression like that-." is the appropriate one. --Helmoony (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While we are picking through the thorny bits of that section it's worth mentioning that Jerusalem has more than 4 consulates (looks like at least 18 and this list is outdated). Sol (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Use google earth or google maps to view that in those 18 there are 16 in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and so in Tel Aviv District and only 2 in Mevaseret Zion and so in the Jerusalem District. Take a look on the discussion above. And try to just count embassies not Consulates. --Helmoony (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't explain that well, my comment was on a related issue in the sub-section and I didn't think it was worth starting a new talk section about the number. Just wanted to give notice. Sol (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at google earth and counting stuff is WP:OR. Find a source. While you're at it, find a source that says "Since the international community doesn't consider Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, foreign embassies have typically been placed in Tel Aviv...". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of whether the international community recognises Jerusalem as being Israeli, let alone the capital of Israel, can anyone advise what the current position is? From the reading I've done, it appears that as late as 1967, stemming from the UNGA partition resolution in which Jerusalem was to be a special area under international control, not even West Jerusalem was officially regarded as being in Israel. Apologies if this is dealt with extensively in the archives, but the impression I have is that it hasn't.     ←   ZScarpia   14:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That is the crux of the problem. Jerusalem is now much larger than the partition plan area and even includes bits of the West Bank. West Jerusalem was 38 square km. before '67, gained the 6 km of E. J'Lem and about 64 km of mainly west bank land. The municipality has extended its boundaries a few times to reach 125 square km. Not sure how much overlap the current boundaries have with the Green line and the current ones. I assume this article is talking about the municipal boundaries (maybe we should clarify) much of which isn't recognized as part of Israel, hence the balancing problems. Sol (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposal in the comment above (23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)) sounds good to me. (capital not capitalized though) No More Mr Nice Guy, for a source see source 2 in my comment timestamped 16:48above. --Dailycare (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your BBC source says "The international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital". It does not say "the international community does not consider Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". That's an important distinction. I think you're very much aware that the language that's used almost exclusively "recognition". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any substantial difference in meaning and am consequently equally OK with either. --Dailycare (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Twin towns and sister cities

Hi,

Can we change the section to this one:

See also: List of twin towns and sister cities in Israel and List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian territories

Jerusalem is twinned with:

• New York City, United States (since 1993)
• Fes, Morocco (since 1982)

here is my source [6]

Great source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That source is great. Those fountains remind me of my visit there. (The maintenance guys were really cool, they let me tour the pump room under the fountains itself!!) Anyways, how can this be correct? In 1982 there was no Palestine as there had not been the 1988 declaration yet? Chesdovi (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess the usage of flag is similar to "PRODUCT OF IRELAND" labeling of Black Bush bottles. I guess Al-Qods might be Al-Quds, since o-u are interchangeable in Semitic languages generally. New York might be a sister city, twin city is a European lingo. Nevertheless, according to Jerusalem muni site, Jerusalem does not have at all siblings cities, so go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Football club in Jerusalem

Hi guys, Can we add something like that in the Sports section: Also, the most popular Palestinian football team is called Jabal Al-Mokaber (since 1976) which plays in West Bank Premier League. They are not allowed to play any of their games at home and instead have to travel through the separation barrier to the Faisal al Husseini stadium in Al Ram.

here is my sources [7] [8] [9] [10] but other sources are welcome too. --Helmoony (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, especially CNN and PFA, providing both primary and secondary view. Let's see if it sticks. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Page move protection

Why is there a big sign saying the page is protected from page moves? From what i can see on the talk page there is no serious dispute about the name of this article, so if it has been moved a lot it must just be vandalism. Why do we need the big template about page protection, most protected pages do not have such a template, which suggests the article title may not be endorsed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The template was changed from one with no visibility to one that is visible by someone who's not an admin. I changed it back to the original. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Occupation vs. military occupation

Israel extended its civil rule over EJ while the rest of the WB was still under military rule. Any military occupation in EJ is long gone. Of course it is still viewed as being "occupied", but I would not call it "military". Am I correct in asserting this? Chesdovi (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Military occupation" does not necessarily mean that there are "boots on the ground", it only means that a state exercises "effective military control" over territory outside of its borders. But "occupied" means "military occupied". If the word "military" really bothers you we can come up with something else, but you removed not just "military" but also "occupied". nableezy - 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression the MO meant that an area was under military administration, not "effective control" of a states civil law. Chesdovi (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Kind of. All occupations in international law are military and only end when the occupied legal acquires title or the land is returned; there's no provision for placing it under civilian rule as that's straight up illegal. Is the military the proper administrator despite domestic law? Maybe, but the sources agree on the status as occupied. I've no problem with you removing "military" from in front of "occupation" as it's implied but removing "occupation" looks like "Golan Heights Talk Page 2:The Sequel". Sol (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well this needs clarification. The WB is always cited as being occupied. But with PA control in a large chunk, should it not be "parts of the WB..." Chesdovi (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources say that regardless of areas under PA "control", the entire area is seen as occupied. The same applies to Gaza and East Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

Timelines can be nice, but the one inserted in this article pushes all the text down and leaves a gaping hole in the middle. I removed it, but someone objected. If someone can find a way to create an acceptable layout, please restore it - but not in the format it is now, where it veers drastically to one side, and is both disruptive and illegible. --Yespleazy (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I see that there is a whole article called Timeline of Jerusalem that includes this graph. Thus a link to it in the Jerusalem article is more than sufficient. --Yespleazy (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Yespleazy. I have found it an eyesore for too long! Chesdovi (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Amarna letters image....

...is nice, but uneeded. Chesdovi (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Syntax problem

After the 1967 Arab Israeli War Israel annexed East Jerusalem (which was controlled by Jordan) and considers it a part of Israel, although the international community has rejected the annexation as illegal and considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation.

This whole line needs rewording. One does not "reject" an annexation... etc. Chesdovi (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you propose the line be reworded? I don't see a problem here since reject can be just an opposite of accept, and the text days it's rejected as illegal, but I'm open to suggestions. --Dailycare (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you open to the suggestion that Arabs of EJ are given full citizenship & equal rights under Israel, as they enjoyed previoulsy under Jordan? Chesdovi (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That isnt true. Residents of East Jerusalem were given status of "permanent residents" with "permanent resident" having a decidedly non-permanent meaning. And even if they were, the line is accurate. The annexation was rejected as illegal (see UNSC Res. 478), and EJ is recognized as occupied Palestinian territory (see the sources cited). nableezy - 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Telephone Area codes

A wikipedian has revoked Telephone Area Codes of Jerusalem with the Palestinian network (+970, 02 23). He said that it's not relevant. Do you have an idea about the use of the Palestinian Network in Jerusalem? Does it work ? Does the relevance of a network in a city is linked to it use or to its presence? --Helmoony (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the Orient House contact info their central line number is 972-2-627-3330, but your mileage may vary. It really depends where you are calling from. Sometimes 972 or 970 are blocked by local governments. Do we have any reliable sources discussing dialing into Jerusalem? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

All parts of Jerusalem use the same dialing code, and that includes East Jerusalem. Overseas dialing to Jerusalem is 972-2. When dialing Jerusalem from other cities in Israel the code is 02. Any other information is irrelevant in the infobox. --Yespleazy (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Source for capital of Israel

Here is a UN source blankly saying Jerusalem is capital of Israel [11] 216.249.58.120 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This sources says nothing about Jerusalem, it doesn't even have the word "Jerusalem" in it. Koraiem (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and even the map indicating "Jerusalem" in it in-spite of not mentioning that it's the capital has a hover notation that says "The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Map created Jun 2010". Koraiem (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The International Law, International community, UN resolutions, US, Europe, Australia, Canada, Latin American countries, Asian countries and Middle Eastern & Arab countries recognize Jerusalem as an occupied city, and do NOT recognize it as a capital of Israel.

Israel is the only "country" in the world that claims Jerusalem to be it's capital. On the other hand, the Palestinians recognize Jerusalem as their capital; so writing on wikipedia that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is misleading and biased! wikipedia is an objective neutral source and does not take sides, so you either add that it's the capital of both Palestine & Israel and do not add any!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

PLC Building

The building in the picture added is the PLC Building in Ramallah. This is not a new college in Al-Quds University campus. This source contains some images of the future Honors College building dated March 27, 2009. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. We may need to find a free picture for the new building in Jerusalem. --Helmoony (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"East Jerusalem," "International Community" and "Occupied Palestinian Territory"

I find the following portion of a sentence in the fourth paragraph of the Lead very troubling, misleading and erroneous:

• "…although the international community has rejected the annexation as illegal and considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation." [Emphasis added].

First, Mt. Scopus is located in East Jerusalem yet the “international community” is in agreement that this area is part of Israel proper as it fell within the 1948/49 armistice lines. Thus, we need to rephrase the sentence to reflect that. It should be re-stated as, "…considers parts of East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory." [Emphasis added].

Second, there is no international consensus concerning the status of East Jerusalem. There may have been a GA and SC resolution that passed but that in no way translates to international unanimity. In fact, according to this source, the United States and Canada actually abstained, reflecting their displeasure over the Resolution. Therefore, the sentence should read, "some in the international community have rejected the annexation," (emphasis added).

Third, while I find the term “occupation” to be personally offensive, I won’t argue that point because my personal opinion does not matter. What does matter is accuracy. Only one of the four sources noted refers to East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory,” and incidentally, this same source refers to the Temple Mount as “Haram Al-Sharif,” completely ignoring the Jewish connection. While the territory may be occupied, it is by no means an established fact that it is “Palestinian territory.” In fact, it has been the policy of the United States that the parties themselves would negotiate the ultimate status of East Jerusalem. In fact, at Camp David, it was proposed that Israel keep those portions of East Jerusalem that have a Jewish majority while the PA would keep portions of East Jerusalem with an Arab majority. Thus, while the territory can technically be referred to as “occupied,” (and I certainly don’t concede that point) it is certainly not “Palestinian” territory.

Therefore, I propose that the sentence should be changed as follows:

• "..although some in the international community have rejected the annexation as illegal and consider parts of East Jerusalem to be occupied territory." [Emphasis added]

I welcome further discussion but clearly, the wording needs to be changed or the sentence entirely removed until agreed upon language is established.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I love a good intractable land dispute! Hmm, I'll have to come back in detail tomorrow as I must return to more pressing matters (i.e., making bathtub gin) but this could all be running up against the OR monster, a lot of the original looks well sourced. Sol (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

East Jerusalem refers to the area of Jerusalem held by Jordan between 1948 and 1967. The phrase "East Jerusalem" does not include Mt Scopus, see for example the following:

• Efrat, Elisha; Noble, Allen, "Planning Jerusalem", Geographical Review, 78 (4): p. 387 {{citation}}: |page= has extra text (help):

  East Jerusalem usually refers to the parts of the city outside the walls of the Old City that were under Jordanian rule between 1948 and 1967. The population of East Jerusalem is mostly Arab. Mount Scopus, which lies northeast of the Old City, never was under Jordanian control and hence is considered to be an outlier of West Jerusalem, the third component.

That renders moot the objection to the idea that saying East Jerusalem is considered occupied Palestinian territory includes Mt Scopus as "East Jerusalem" does not include Mt Scopus, thus removing the need for "parts".

Next, as to whether or not the view is that EJ is not only considered occupied but additionally considered Palestinian territory. In the Wall case, the ICJ repeatedly referred to "the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem)". The ICRC regularly makes statements about actions taken by Israel "in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory", see for example here. The rejection of the annexation is almost without exception (the almost may not even be needed here). nableezy - 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And here is a source that explicitly says East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied Palestinian territory by the international community. nableezy - 21:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

the sources, the sources... WP:V is very important, but the sources are often ignorant of all the facts, and being from newspapers, usually have space limitations restricting them from getting into more context. It is clear that Mount Scopus is not in 'occupied East Jerusalem' and this cannot be ignored. --Shuki (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, the first source I provided says that Mt Scopus is not considered to be a part of East Jerusalem, rather it is an "outlier of West Jerusalem". The term "East Jerusalem" does not include Mount Scopus. nableezy - 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, it looks like Nableezy has you on the Mt. Scopus point, unless you can bring other sources to bear. We can't bring private knowledge to WP, however accurate it may. IronDuke 02:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite my good man. This source from Frommer's describes Mt Scopus as being "deep in the heart of Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem." Therefore, my opinion above stands in that the subject sentence should state:

• "..although some in the international community have rejected the annexation as illegal and consider parts of East Jerusalem to be occupied territory." [Emphasis added]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed in the heart of East Jerusalem, but it is not a part of EJ, and your source doesnt say that it is. Compare with this which says that Vatican City is "in the heart of Rome". It isnt a part of Rome or even a part of Italy. That area has been considered a part of West Jerusalem in Israeli territory. I also provided a source that explicitly says "East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied Palestinian territory by the international community". nableezy - 00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am still confused by political nuances of the Holy See and the Vatican city. When people disambiguate Vatican toponym as "city-state", they are plain wrong. Basically Holy See is kind of state here and Vatican is only a territory on the Vatican Hill in Rome under the sovereignty of the Holy See. Now you see how troublesome it is. I guess when we're looking at the lede paragraph #4, current status, we look at the I/P variation of Northern Ireland painted kerbstones. Some might call this paragraph a prominence issue. And I know we have to reflect in the lede notable controversies, per WP:LEAD. However this is the article about municipality after all. We better discuss such political nuances in the body. Do we have already International law and Jerusalem article?AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Whelp, let's just put it out there: we can talk about Jerusalem with a big disclaimer (the paragraph in question) or we could eradicate any mention of East Jerusalem's status in the lead and leave casual readers wondering why exactly people are so pissy about an area that is Israel's. It's just too complicated not to have a disclaimer; we have a municipality that extends beyond the sovereign borders, which makes no sense. We should probably put in a big disclaimer that this article is about Jerusalem the municipality and its shifting borders, as is done in the East Jerusalem article. Sol (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel that part of the disagreement here is a terminology one. According to East Jerusalem article the term is used in different, incompatible ways: to describe 49-67 Jordanian part of the city (6.4 km2) and also to describe facto annexed into Jerusalem municipality West Bank territory (70 km2) (including Jordanian part). Kind of metonymy if you want. Maybe in order to avoid confusion we need to disambiguate, when we use the term, per manual of style. As lede goes, we should definitely describe history (49, 67) and legal status (occupation). East Jerusalem wikilink in the lede improves readability for curious reader for sure. I personally in favor of readable summarizing lede, 3 paragraphs usually do the trick. Current lede might be little bit bloated, generally. But that would require serious discussion and weighting priorities to trim things up a little bit to come up with new phrasing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think as it stands now, the section on EJ is way too detailed. Boil it down to a sentence or two, then deal with it in the body. IronDuke 19:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly would you suggest trimming? Agada's last edit had several problems, among them saying that "Modern Jerusalem" is Israel's largest city without clarifying that this is true if and only if you include the residents of the territory not in Israel as part of "Israel's largest city". Additionally, it removed the non-recognition of the capital. I recently added a total of 8 words, changing considers East Jerusalem occupied territory to considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation. That couldnt possibly have by itself tipped the scale to being "too detailed". And even if it did tip it to being "too detailed", that doesnt mean that everything that has been discussed over the past year, such as the clarification on largest city or the non-recognition of the capital, should be removed unilaterally. nableezy - 01:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, did I not just defend your hindquarters above? I have no idea who inserted what in re EJ, all's I'm saying is, it's too frigging argumentative for a lead. But in the body, yes, by all means have claim versus counterclaim. IronDuke 04:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, what specifically would you remove from the lead? What is too detailed there? Should we just say that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel without noting that this is true only if you include the population and territory of what is not in Israel? Should we only say, after making clear that Jerusalem is the "capital of Israel", that the status of East Jerusalem is "disputed" or "a matter of contention" and not include that it is recognized by nearly the entire world as occupied Palestinian territory? Ill take suggestions seriously, I really will, but I dont see the few sentences in the lead about EJ as being "too detailed". nableezy - 11:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

After a quick look, I'd have it read something like this: "Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.[23][24] Israel, however, considers the entire city to be a part of Israel following its annexation of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Arab Israeli War." Everything I cut out of the middle could go in a footnote. I'm not saying it isn't important, what I'm saying is, in the totality of Jerusalem's long, long existence, is this one issue so important that it should take up that much room in the lead? IronDuke 15:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So in Jerusalem's long history, its status as the capital of the modern state of Israel belongs in the first sentence of the article but EJ's status as occupied Palestinian territory becomes something that "Palestinians want" as a future capital? Cmon man. nableezy - 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My mind, it is wide open... but I don't understand exactly what your beef is here. Do Palestinians not want it as a future capital? And I think the idea of it being "occupied Palestinian territory" is possibly slightly controversial, no? Which is why there can't be sentence after sentence hashing it out in the lead. IronDuke 16:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, it isnt controversial that EJ is considered oPt. It is disputed by Israel, but thats about it. I have problems with "future capital", but thats already in the article so we can ignore those issues for now. The fact is that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" has much less acceptance around the world than the sentence "East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory". But for some reason we can include the first but not the second. What is that reason? We repeatedly present Jerusalem as a single "unified" city that is "Israeli", that is we repeatedly accept the Israeli government's view as fact and ignore what nearly the entire world says. You dont think that view is slightly controversial? nableezy - 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Well, this discussion has been had before, but it is my firm belief that foreign countries may not determine the location of another country's capital, however much they might wish to. If Jerusalem isn't the capital, then Israel, curiously, has no capital. I return your "Cmon man" to you with interest, on that point. I'm not sure I agree about oPt either. It looks a lot more like occupied Jordanian territory to me, if occupied it be, but the Jordanians have released their claim. So its status is... uncertain. But regardless, I don't think EJ, important as it is today, is so important that it can take up so much of the lead, even if I am dead wrong about the above facts. IronDuke 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I really dont want to get into whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, to me the bigger problem is that in several places, including the lead, we say treat areas of Jerusalem that are not in Israel as part of an "Israeli city". It would be one thing if all the political material were removed, but that isnt what is suggested here. What is suggested is that whatever political information that does not back the idea that Jerusalem, "whole and united", is in Israel should be cut down. There lies the problem. nableezy - 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for getting into the dispute, but can the lead not be cut down? Can it not be in a footnote? Does that destroy the lead? IronDuke 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure it could, I just dont like what you propose cutting. I dont have a problem removing The international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and most foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv and its suburbs. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state. Israel, however, considers the entire city to be a part of Israel following its annexation of East Jerusalem through the Jerusalem Law of 1980. nableezy - 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the progress made. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the Agada's idea of cutting down the lede but it's going to be a balancing act. Sol (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Jordanians ceded their claim to the PA (via the PLO) in '88, I think it was, and it's considered to be part of the oPt by all of the usual suspects (UN, ICJ, BBC, etc etc). You could make a case for giving it a different label but that's the usual category.

You raise a valid point on the issue of "If Jerusalem isn't the capital, then Israel, curiously, has no capital" but the rejection of the city as capital is founded on the jurisdictional issues of the Jerusalem Law. The international community's reasoning is that the law is invalid as written, as it attempts to extend Israeli sovereignty beyond the borders of Israel. Sol (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but in the end it doesn't matter. Many countries condemn the government of Myanmar, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nicolae Ceauşescu questioned the legitimacy of his trial, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that facts on the ground did not eventually overtake him. IronDuke 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is the trimming diff, for clarity. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate editors input above. I guess both "undividable" and "Jordianian" claims could be balanced in the body and do not belong to the lede. Mentioning population dispute, in first paragraph, is not really readable, when we touch EJ and status only latter in the lede. In any case I would not read it otherwise (i.e. EJ population might be excluded?) also without this inclusion clarification. Anyway we could expand this discussion in the body. Some new summarizing EJ phrasing do float around, I am leaning towards Iron's wording which is both balanced and reflect all points of view carefully. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have explained my objection to removing what ID suggested we cut. And yes, when you say Jerusalem is Israel's largest city you need to say that includes territory not in Israel. If you want to remove the line on it being the Israel's largest city then you can remove that is true only if it includes EJ. nableezy - 16:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand there is generally openness of mind in question of cutting & rephrasing. We clearly say about EJ, and what it means from International Law point of view. My OR is that most of Jerusalem municipal territory is outside "Israel-proper". No argument about it. However there is a question of flow - at first paragraph EJ is not clearly defined and thus comes as a surprise, also not really clear, how can you read it otherwise, that EJ population is not counted, really? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess at this stage everyone has given (at least grudging) agreement. I do not want to make any sudden move, so I will wait to see if any objection is surfacing, before implementation stage. 10x everybody for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you really not understand what I have written, or is this reaction simply feigned? I have objected, multiple times, to the removal of the material that you claim everyone has agreed to remove. You would like to say that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel, but you want to remove the fact that this is true only if "Jerusalem" includes a large amount of area and population from territory outside of Israel? You want to remove that EJ is considered occupied Palestinian territory and only leave the extreme minority view that EJ is Israeli territory? No, not everyone has given any sort of agreement, grudging or otherwise. nableezy - 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion twice, who says Jerusalem is in Israel ;) Jerusalem municipal territory includes EJ (with all the consequences, like population). That's just the way it is. We say it all along. My feeling is the main threat for "bigness" comes from Gush Dan and Haifa Bay areas, but let's not get into political motivational of people who draw municipal borders. So how about lede trimming? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Same problem as Golan; Israel considers the municipality of Jerusalem to encompass East Jerusalem. Everyone else rejects the ability of Israel to extend municipal boundaries into occupied territory. If we want to talk about the municipality from that perspective that's great but it needs to be done in the proper context. Sol (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Everyone else." Who are they? A third do not even recognise the country itself. A third don't recognise Israel's presence in W Jerusalem and a 3rd want the whole city a neutral zone. Yet Israel is there, in each and every inch. What other countries want or don't want has no bearing on us describing the location of the city, which is factually in Israel. Views of the IC can be mentioned, but tucked away somewhere that only avid readers will come accross! Chesdovi (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And "facts on the ground" rears its head yet again! In this context, yes, it very much matters that every other country in the world (except Micronesia, I think) recognizes East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory that's not part of Israel. I'm sure tucking away those pesky "every other country but mine" perspectives would be pleasing but those damnable policies keep getting in the way. To re-iterate, unilateral annexations aren't considered valid until you receive recognition. This coupled with WP:FRINGE means that we don't write the article as though East Jerusalem is a clear cut part of the municipality. We can remove the portions of the article that mention the sections of the city not in Israel or we can just leave our little disclaimer as is and move on with our wiki-lives. Sol (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess if you consider this content dispute as continuation of territory dispute in the real world, than OK, it seems reasonable, Sol ;) Such disclaimer would be appropriate in West Jerusalem article, after all Al-Quds already redirects here ;). Wiki however is not a place where political recognitions mean a lot. I also heard that Micronesia joke before, it is funny. You are a decent person, Ahimsa. However I still feel it does not belong to the lede and should be discussed in the body in more serious way than this "disclaimer". After all bubbles it does not help to understanding of Jerusalem's complex subject to casual wiki-reader who never been in Jerusalem. Such reader would stumble upon it in the first paragraph of the lede, sequentially before EJ term is introduced in #4, and might say Micronesia, which Micronesia? Just my thoughts... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Doh, I'm sorry, Micronesia recognizes Golan as part of Israel, I get confused. No one recognizes EJ as part of Israel. My reason for keeping the current disclaimer in the first paragraph is that this article is pretty much always going to involve disparate definitions of Jerusalem; the city itself is a POV fork, a political gom jabbar. We could break it into West Jerusaelm/East Jerusalem/Historic Jerusalem/the municipality of Jerusalem . . . but that seems ridiculous. Keeping the disclaimer seems like the simplest way to avoid edit-wars while maintaining accuracy. Sol (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The clause is needed in the first paragraph because the first paragraph makes the assertion that Jerusalem is Israel's largest city. That is not true unless you include EJ as part of Israel, so the article needs to say that. If you dont want to include that clause you should also remove that it is Israel's largest city. You cant demand that the only political information included is the super-minority view that Jerusalem is, as "complete and undivided", an Israeli city. You dont want to include the qualifier, remove what it is qualifying as well. Not just the qualifier. nableezy - 14:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We have recognition issue just couple of words before this disclaimer, we don't have to repeat ourself pedantically. I guess the appropriate way to address this dispute, in Wikipedia, would be to attribute the claim fairly to primary reliable source and not state it as a matter of fact, though some pretty reliable secondary sources, like NYTimes do so. Something like according to Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics Jerusalem is biggest Israeli municipality in population and territory. I hope we don't feel a need to add proclaimed to each claim in the lede. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This isnt an issue of recognition as a capital. If you wish to include the political statement that Jerusalem is the largest Israeli city you need to include the fact that this only true if "largest Israeli city" includes the population and area of territory not in Israel. This really is not that complicated. nableezy - 00:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess recognition and this disclaimer, somehow relate to the fact that the Green Line passes within Jerusalem. No argument about it, it's too frigging argumentative for a lead, good for body though ;) We could proclaim each time Jerusalem term is used. As per location, I've removed Israel as location in my suggestion. Appropriate way to address such problems generally to attribute the claim fairly to primary reliable source and not state it as a matter of fact. This is how Wiki works, WP:TRUTH, is useless here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhh no. You cant just attribute a minority view and demand the super-majority view not even be mentioned, that isnt how it works. You want to include the view that Jerusalem is an Israeli city? Then you need to include the super-majority view that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. How about we include the line "Jerusalem is a city largely in the Palestinian territories" as the first sentence of this article? If I were to attribute it to the UN and most of the world would that make you accept it as the opening line of the article? NPOV is clear on this, you cannot include only minority views. nableezy - 16:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please review the proposed wording again. Green line fact is not disputed. Your point has passed OK. The root of both recognition and this disclaimer dispute is in 1967. I personally would love to change all references to I/P and change it to Palisra. Meanwhile, Nir Barkat is a mayor of Israeli municipality whatever angle we look at this. And according to Wiki he is also mayor of Al-Quds, hope no problem there. Attribution is how Wiki works. Attributing to minority is OK, fixing sources to reflect your political view - not really appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot simply attribute a minority opinion and demand the majority not be included. NPOV is fairly clear on this issue. Im not playing this game with you, if somebody who understands what I have written would like to comment then great. But you are either playing dumb or genuinely do not understand the plain meaning of what I have repeatedly written. Either way there isnt a point in carrying on with you. nableezy - 18:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was probably not clear enough. I offered compromise wording, in order to address your concerns. I have no argument about political terminology, though it is fair to note that some Israeli population centers, like Ariel are not in Israel. What are moral implications, I personally do not know, though clearly it is just the way it is. My main concern is readability: if you re-read the discussion, EJ is ambiguously defined term, see above. From number of refs used to supports "biggest" claim, it appears that this sentence was subject of many debates. When I read the available sources, in order to disambiguate "EJ population", i.e. do we consider today, at 2010, population of pre-67 EJ and/or Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem over the Green Line, I could not, since no source specifies it. There is discussion of history - how demographics of Jerusalem developed after the-67, however I have noticed no statistics/demographics classification of population to J population and EJ population, in context of year 2010. I guess this classification is just not there and as WP:CK goes TA and not J (even including EJ) is the biggest Israeli population center ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd side with Nableezy here. I don't see a readability problem in the longstanding version, and don't think that attribution to (all of things!) an Israeli government source in the lead is good wikipedia form. EJ population is all population that isn't WJ population, obviously, and that is a well-defined distinction. --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Daily, thank you for joining this discussion. I guess more eyeballs - better. With all my support to Nab, EJ is used in different, incompatible ways: at least according to EJ article lede and defining EJ as whats is not WJ also does not really help, since we do not have WJ article at all. Additionally I did find some EJ population statistics see here. Some resourceful editor analyzed Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies statistics, which no longer available online but here is later version. JIIS does not distinguish between EJ and J population, yet the editor used WP:CK on each neighborhood location and came to conclusion (summing up and doing math of population of "over the Green Line" neighborhoods) that the population of EJ was 428,304 in 2006. From other hand, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, they counted 208,000 Palestinians in EJ, which is sought by the Palestinians as a future capital. This is not surprising, definitions and mileage may vary. Bottom line we're not here to paint on kerb stones, rather to urge editors to open their mind, just a little bit. Unlike wise us, some people read this article to learn about Jerusalem. It would be interesting to know:

• Which of the available sources exactly is used to support the discussed disclaimer?
• What are numbers we consider reliable for EJ population?
• How many people would live in Jerusalem if EJ population would not included?

Thank you, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the source you point to above says that the population of EJ is 430.000. Demographics of Jerusalem says that the population of EJ+WJ is 710.000, therefore the population of WJ would be 280.000, which is less than e.g. Tel Aviv (which is in Israel) which has around 400.000 inhabitants. If this is cutting corners straight, we could of course just omit the mention from the lede that compares Jerusalem's population to those of other cities. There do exist the complexities you mention and also the fact that WJ isn't strictly in Israel, either. --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Daily, if you read the source you refer to, you will not see there 428,304 or EJ population term, though ;) The source however specifies breakdown by neighborhoods and we could check with Google maps where those neighborhoods located exactly. The source also does not say that TA would be bigger municipality if EJ would be exluded form J. It would be original research, since no source provided as ref, makes this distinction. I propose to drop both "in Israel" location from Jerusalem description and also drop EJ disclaimer as lede goes. We should clearly say though that majority of the city is over the Green line both as population and territory go. Do you think it is reasonable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, so the text could be something like "Jerusalem's population is X, most of whom live in East Jerusalem"? I think that would be OK. (FWIW, I don't think that comparing two numbers is OR, but that point becomes moot if we choose wording along the lines we're now discussing) --Dailycare (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If other editors do not object, maybe, looking at Northern Ireland lede organization precedent, at paragraph #1 we could summarize total number of residents and the fact that it is "largest Israeli municipality", without saying "in Israel", since location is fairly disputed. At paragraph #4, when we expand on current status, we could mention both (a) "majority of city territory and population over the Green Line" per WP:CK (b) "according to Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 208,000 Palestinians live in EJ, which is sought by the Palestinians as a future capital", per this. I guess there is no problem to mention both I and P primary reliable sources, to get a neutral and full picture. However generally we need to move some of lede's paragraph #4 to the body, per discussion above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. According to Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, which is sought as a future capital of a future Palestinian state. Israel, however, considers the entire city to be a part of Israel following its annexation of East Jerusalem through the Jerusalem Law of 1980.

I guess this could be symmetrical and neutral phrasing of current status, for paragraph #4, reflecting all sides carefully. The rest could be expanded in the Political status section in the body. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh no, the residents of East Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens so calling it an "Israeli city" does not work. How would you like the first sentence to read Jerusalem is a predominately Arab city in the Palestinian territories and in Israel? nableezy - 17:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are Palestinians in EJ, it is obvious, Nab. No one argues with that or with location. Still Nir Barkat is not jobless yet and numbers we have relate to municipality he is heading. I would not object though comparing with Gaza city or Hebron if reliable source do so. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is not any consensus for removing the status as occupied Palestinian territory from the lead, stop doing so. nableezy - 19:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Nab. Nothing was removed. There is generally openness of mind in questions of moving and rephrasing. Moreover the exact numbers of Palestinians living in EJ was added to the lede, per PCBS recently, That was valuable data that was missing, imho. Maybe other editors would like to express their opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you have reverted already. Good for you, Nab. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the status of East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory was removed from the lead. There is no consensus for that. nableezy - 19:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, maybe other editors would like to comment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines that we might mention the total population in the sentence we're now discussing, and that most of that is in EJ, without using the terms "Israel" and "Israeli" or "Palestine" or "Palestinian". AFAIK we're only discussing the one sentence, not the entire lead. Also, mentioning exact numbers of residents in WJ and EJ might not be necessary in the lead, IMO. --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, painted kerb stones could be annoying. The lede trimming was discussed from multiple angles, see above, though I guess it got tldr ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW those two additional discussions might be relevant Ariel, Ma'ale Adumim. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I might be misreading Daily but I did not read Nab's comment from 17:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC) as objection to rephrasing paragraph #4, rather as comment about paragraph #1. It is obvious Jerusalem as city is a multicultural population center, however we're using Israeli municipality numbers. We're using their numbers and it is OK to note it. We go in length describing J's religions, being balanced and symmetrical. No one wants to hide the fact of occupation. Though neutral wording we're using now is revolving around annexation vs. occupation. It was noted from multiple angles about para #4 that those issues could be expanded in the body. I guess if we aim to summarize per WP:LEDE, we need to wikilink current status ( which go into details about occupation ) and note clearly Palestinian national aspirations for EJ as their capital. That's why the proposed wording for para#4 above is neutral as I/P discourse is concerned. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Agada, your edit neither has consensus nor can it be called English prose as it is nonsensical in multiple spots. Please stop continually reverting to include poor phrasing and removing pertinent material. nableezy - 04:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope we're all more relaxed now. When there is a disagreement even with one editor, wider consensus is due. This issue was addressed from multiple angles see above, there is wide agreement that the current lede does reflect the content of this article in a balanced way per WP:LEAD. Para #4 wording ( from 01:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC) ) was not challenged seriously so far, it addresses concerns by editors expressed during this discussion and balances all views per WP:NPOV. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

International community view

The International community view should be in the lead of the article as it is the view of the entire world and therefore it belongs there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What kind of edit are you proposing? The lead already mentions that the Israeli claim that Jerusalem is their capital isn't recognized, and that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. --Dailycare (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats because I re added it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

cats revert

I reverted this edit that removed a number of categories and a template. Some of the cats appear to have been present for a long time and the edit is contentious, hence the revert and this note. I don't have any views on the matter other than that it probably needs discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Governor of East Jerusalem

We should have in the infobox that the Governor of East Jerusalem is Adnan al-Husseini, see this source:[12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

I have slapped a 'dubious' on the Hebrew etymology as it conflicts with the rather more plausible description on the French version of the article, which itself agrees with the Hebrew version (as far as I can tell, my Hebrew is limited).

Please either add a scholarly reference, or consider changing the information. I won't do it myself as I can see some cunt gratuitously reverting my edits two minutes latter on the basis of being made from an IP (I refuse to sign up for a username), plus I'm not an expert in the subject area anyway.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.134.35 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Think a tag might have been warranted if there was evidence on the talk page of an editor interested in engaging in civil discussion about the relevant content. --FormerIP (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I don't bother, see? Since when is "overly aggressive" (your opinion) talk page comment grounds for leaving erroneous information on an article. I call it a pre-emptive strike since I knew some fucking zealot was going to show up soon enough, and I wasn't mistaken. I'll re-slap 'dubious' once (and only once) again in case someone who actually has a life turns up this time. If not, you lot can live with the embarrassment of leaving wrong information in the very first sentence of a high-profile article, I couldn't care less.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.134.35 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your argument, you will gain more respect and cooperation here with temperate language and a less combative attitude.Hertz1888 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong end of stick mate. Not interested on "respect" or "cooperation" from any of Mrs. Palmer's partners here and I use whichever language register I feel like. Now that we got that out of the way, you may wish to stop whingeing about the form and concentrate on the content of this issue, i.e., revise the article if you consider it appropriate on the light of the French and Hebrew versions, or provide references that support the current statement. Yalla bye for now! - (88.27.134.35}

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA.     ←   ZScarpia   21:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, what we have in the may well be a religious, rather than an academic, English rendering of the name of the city, so there may well be an issue (based purely on my elementary Googling). That said, I have removed the tag again since there doesn't seem to be any point in a tag in the absence of interest amongst editors in discussing the matter. --FormerIP (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, one theory is that the Hebrew form of the name carried over from what the Canaanites called it. The Ancient origins of the city section on the article on Jerusalem in the Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the earliest known form of the name, Urusalim, "apparently" meant “Foundation of Shalem (God)”:

The name, known in its earliest form as Urusalim, is probably of western Semitic origin and apparently means “Foundation of Shalem (God).” The city and its earliest rulers, the Egyptians, are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts (c. 1900–1800 BCE) and again in the 14th-century Tell el-Amarna correspondence, which contains a message from the city's ruler, Abdi-Kheba (Abdu-Ḥeba), requiring his sovereign's help against the invading Hapiru (Habiru, ʿApiru). A biblical narrative mentions the meeting of the Canaanite Melchizedek, said to be king of Salem (Jerusalem), with the Hebrew patriarch Abraham.

    ←   ZScarpia   03:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new lead

Discussion on my attempt at a new lead section is welcome. I know that the current status of Jerusalem is one of the most contentious issues in this article and I hope that by moving it out of the first paragraph and placing it in more of a historical context, some of the difficulties can be transcended. *** Crotalus *** 21:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing this while there's an RfC going on is unacceptable. I can't imagine how you decided there would be no objections to something like this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any substantive (as opposed to procedural) objections to the new lead? I believe that my editing was well within the framework of WP:BOLD, and something has to be done to stop the sterile edit warring over the first sentence. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. *** Crotalus *** 22:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not "procedural" to expect editors not to change something that is currently discussed in an RfC. Particularly in an article that's subject to WP:ARBPIA. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have also violated 1RR. Please self revert or I will report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on city article leads, but this looks much better to me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I also like Crotalus's out of box thinking. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

When Paris and London, two cities with quite long and illustrious histories, don't mention they are capitals in the first sentence of the lead, we can discuss doing the same for Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Jerusalem is objectively a special case. And you have yet to show that RS consistently define Jerusalem as Israel's capital. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with putting it in the first sentence of the lead? This is supposed to by an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are supposed to be consistent. Jerusalem is no more "objectively a special case" than Nicosia, which nobody recognizes as the capital of Northern Cyprus, yet lo and behold, it is declared as such in the first sentence of the lead. The "this is a special case" thing just doesn't fly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a problem with Nicosia. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much that nobody recognises Nicosia as the capital of Northern Cyprus, as that nobody, apart from Turkey, recognises Northern Cyprus. Therefore nobody really cares that Northern Cyprus has declared Nicosia as its capital. A bit like the State of Palestine declaring Jerusalem as its capital, except more countries have recognised the State of Palestine. Even so, the same rules apply as apply to Israel, nobody can unilaterally change the status of Jerusalem.     ←   ZScarpia   01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it too (the only thing I would quite like added is a statement that the international community regards the sovereignty of Jerusalem, as a whole, to be undertermined).     ←   ZScarpia   00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that would make a great change and have no criticisms. Also think Zscarpia's comment above is correct, but maybe one thing should be dealt with at once.

Only thing I would say is that, since the discussion above has been about one issue, perhaps the new version should reflect that one issue and nothing else (e. g. not moving information to different places in the lead). Personally, I have no problem with the way this has been done, but the more changes are made, the more potential objections are opened up for consensus-blockers. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

wp:Consensus does not mean unanimity. If we can't reach consensus on this lead, then I agree. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Without taking a position: This issue has been brought up time and time again, and discussed to no end. Each time an RfC is closed, the side that doesn't "win" comes back and tries to make changes using different vantage-points of the same old, tired arguments. History has shown that no matter the outcome of this current discussion, one side will not be happy and will return to try to attempt to make changes again to reach their pre-conceived outcome. Given the long, tenacious history regarding the status of Jerusalem, I suggest the case be taken to ArbCom so that it may be viewed in a neutral light by parties who are not so deeply and emotionally attached to the issue; see Judea and Samaria. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 03:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell us what ArbCom would do, given that they don't decide content? Also, I know I'm very new here, and knew nothing coming in. However, it seems as if this is a totally cut-and-dried case of sourcing. It seem predetermined, not something we can really legitimately argue over. The sources just don't justify naming Jerusalem unequivocally as the capital of Israel, even though anyone can see it is (but that's original research). So, what would ArbCom achieve? Would it ban more users? I know this is already under ArbCom's thumb, and what more can they do than discretionary sanctions? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin (or at least an uninvolved editor who is experienced in consensus rulings at deletion discussions for example) can make a consensus ruling. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements for example. That case resolved an issue that had gone on for years. It was also something that couldn't really be legitimately argued over....but was repeatedly. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay maybe I should have read that whole page, but I'm a little confused about the process we go through to get such a closure? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a request at WP:AN. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. So you're saying people have been over this very question any number of times, and it's useless to try and build another consensus here. So we need to go straight to a more permanent solution? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I was only really intending to answer the 'how to' aspect of your question about the procedure but yes, a formal ruling would help at some point once there are concrete proposals for content changes. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that by far the best thing that I have seen in this discussion is the wonderful new signatures of BE——Critical_{__Talk} and  nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎}. Great work! --Ravpapa (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Aww, thank you, that's really nice of you to say :D BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the newest lead is going to quell the controversy, but I still think it is better writing to place the current squabbles about control into historical context. Presentism is a very common problem in Wikipedia articles. And WP:NPOV is a foundation policy, so we cannot "simplify" the wording by pretending that one side is right and ignoring the claims of the other. *** Crotalus *** 17:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as if we have sufficient consensus to put the new version on the lead in. Anyone want to count heads? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like four in favor (you, me, AgadaUrbanit, and FormerIP) and two against (NMMNG and Noon). Of the opposers, only one (NMMNG) has commented here and neither have suggested any specific changes to the modified lead proposed below. *** Crotalus *** 21:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it in then. If reverted, let's go with an Arbitration related process. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And I think there are more in favor than you counted, ZScarpia for sure and others in principle (relative to the main controversy about "capital" which inspired the new lead). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add my voice to those opposed to the new lead, per the reasoning used by nice guy. Why Me Why U (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you allowed to add your voice here ? To me, you look like a sockpuppet of a blocked user. If that is the case could you please stop editing in this topic area ? If you aren't, carry on. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying we need to ask for a checkuser? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just reminding the editor that if he is a sockpuppet he should stop editing and if he isn't he can carry on. Filing reports and blocking people doesn't seem to work very well because they come back so I'm using the new time saving approach of simply reminding people about the rules when they look a bit sockish. I may start offering prizes for openness, honesty and ethical behavior at some point to help reduce socking with the slight but popular caveat that prizes can only be collected in the next life. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, suggestions as to exactly how to go about using the Arbitration enacted processes to help solve this issue? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What Arbitration enacted processes are you referring to? Why Me Why U (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sean's suspicions seem well-founded but SPI's are more trouble than they are worth.

I'm in favor of the new lead. I'm also in favor of taking the issue to ARBCOM if that's possible. Sol (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you guys change the lead now, I'll take it to arbitration, specifically WP:AE. We had a long discussion. No consensus was reached. Then an RfC was opened. Now you're trying to preempt that RfC by declaring you have a consensus? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS does not mean everyone thinks the same way. It's a nebulous concept, and usually means a supermajority with the best arguments per policy. It doesn't mean every person agrees. I'm waiting for nsaum75 or someone else to suggest a specific course of action. The RfC did have a specific outcome, which was general agreement that describing Jerusalem as Israel's capital instead of describing the controversy is against policy. In consensus, there is also the issue of whether the issue is cut and dried or whether there is a difference of opinion which would be easy to argue both ways. We do not have such a case here. We have clear policy and clear sources. The RS sources disagree. The policy says we describe controversies rather than taking sides. Therefore, our proper course of action is crystal clear. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I know what consensus is. I also know what WP:DR is and what WP:ARBPIA is. I'm glad to see you think the RfC had the outcome you prefer, as well as how clear the "proper action" is to you. I'll reiterate that if you change the text that has been in the article for years, that has survived at least one RfC and multiple discussions, while there is active DR on the talk page, I will take that disruptive editing to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to get involved in anything without the full support of the majority of editors who support NPOV on this article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And I may have some time to edit tomorrow, but for the next several days my editing will be severely restricted. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's a good principle in Wikipedia as in life not to make threats. As far as going to AE is concerned, ARBIA cases taken there have a nasty tendency to rebound on the editors opening them.     ←   ZScarpia   01:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone reminded me that RfCs have some tradition that they stay open 30 days, but this one looks kind of dead. It's interesting that the ArbCom had the effect of letting disruptive editors or socks control the article because the enforcers made everyone too scared to use the ArbCom enforcement (and I can see where that would happen, having read a few of the cases). It seems that there is a great deal of confidence that such a threat will have a positive outcome for the threatener. I would certainly have been willing (in about 3 days) to try and help this article get out of deadlock, through ARBIA or other means. That's because it looks to me like this is a thoroughly obvious case of NPOV making it necessary that we describe the controversy and not take sides. But not if I'm going to get sanctioned for my efforts. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to be intimidated. I think any fair-minded administrator surveying the situation can see who is trying to reach consensus and who is trying to obstruct. Given that there is currently consensus for the new lead (consensus does not equal unanimity), I am going to restore it. *** Crotalus *** 14:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

New lead- consensus building

I'm pasting the new lead here to build consensus or so changes can be suggested:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (audio)^ⓘ, Yerushaláyim, "Abode of Peace"; Arabic: القُدس (audio)^ⓘ, al-Quds [al-Sharif], "The Holy Sanctuary") is one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in human history. It is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea.

Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In Judaism, Jerusalem has been the holiest city since, according to the Torah, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE, and his son Solomon commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city , as recorded in the Torah. In Christianity, Jerusalem has been a holy city since, according to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified in c. 30 CE and 300 years later Saint Helena found the True Cross in the city. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city. It became the first Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (Salah) in 610 CE, and, according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad made his Night Journey there ten years later. As a result, and despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi), the Old City is home to sites of key religious importance, among them the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.

The old walled city, a World Heritage site, has been traditionally divided into four quarters, although the names used today—the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters—were introduced in the early 19th century. The Old City was nominated for inclusion on the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger by Jordan in 1982. Modern Jerusalem, however, has grown far beyond the boundaries of the Old City.

Throughout its long history, the control of Jerusalem has often been a contentious issue. The city has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times. In the past two thousand years it has been controlled by, among others, the Roman Empire, several Caliphates, Christian crusaders, the Ottoman Turks, and the British Empire. Today Jerusalem is controlled by the state of Israel, and is its seat of government and functions as its capital which claims it as its capital. That status has been rejected by the international community, who also consider the eastern sector of the city to be held under military occupation which considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation (we cannot say that it is viewed as PT, since the US sees it as having a separate status from the rest of the West Bank}.

All branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister and President, and the Supreme Court. Jerusalem is home to the Hebrew University and to the Israel Museum with its Shrine of the Book. The Jerusalem Biblical Zoo has ranked consistently as Israel's top tourist attraction for Israelis.

I have added strikes and green bits. Chesdovi (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should merge the old with the new lead because the new one doesn't address the political situation. It could look something like:

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such. Jerusalem is one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in human history and if the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city. It is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea Someone65 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• This misses the entire point of the new lead, which is to remove the contentious arguments about Israel's capital from the first sentence. The fact that people are squabbling about the political status of Jerusalem now is not the most important thing about the city from a world-historical perspective. *** Crotalus *** 18:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support the new lead, though I disagree with the striking and re-writing done by Chesdovi. It does not even mention which nation east jerusalem belongs to and gives undue weight to what one nation thinks. Also the part that states "If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city" doesn't make any sense, as how can foreign territory and people be added to the city and still be called an Israeli city? maybe it could be called the largest international city in israel, but if EJ is included it is no longer an israeli city. Passionless -Talk 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"al-Quds" redirects here. For other uses, see al-Quds (disambiguation).

Just wanted to point out that when you type al-Quds, you are redirected to Names of Jerusalem instead of Jerusalem. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I restored the redirect to here. Redirecting to Names of Jerusalem instead of Jerusalem doesn't make sense, it's an alternative name and it's in the lead of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Other problems with this lead

Jerusalem's status as the capital/not the capital of Israel is not the only problem with this lead. The statement that "it is Israel's largest city", while technically correct, is misleading. In fact, it is the largest city only because peripheral cities have been incorporated into it. The Tel Aviv municipal area has fewer people, but if you include the neighboring cities of Ramat Gan, Bnei Braq, Givatayim, Holon and Bat Yam, it has well over a million people. Moreover, the figure 763,800 includes a large population of Palestinians whose status as residents is in many respects challenged by both Israelis and Palestinians.

Another problem with the lead, in my view, is one that is endemic with just about every city article in the Wikipedia: it reads like a travel guide. Problems, conflicts, anything negative, all are pushed out of the lead; every city sounds like Valhalla. An especially egregious example of this is the article on Lod, a sink of crime, drug use and corruption, and a focus of intense Arab-Jewish conflict within Israel - the lead makes it sound like a prime tourist resort. And so it is with Jerusalem: all the passions of the Middle East, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the seething tensions between Jew, Moslem and Christian, religious and secular, rich and poor, are concentrated in Jerusalem like sun through a magnifying glass. None of that conflict gets anywhere near the lead sentence, and most of it not in the lead at all.

Here are the things most notable about Jerusalem today:

1. It is the seat of Israel's government.
2. It is the focus of intense dispute between Palestinians and Israelis, both of whom claim it as their exclusive capital.
3. It is holy to three religions, and religious and political conflict have been a hallmark of its history for 3,000 years.

Those three things must be in the lead sentence.

Something new to argue about from --Ravpapa (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. This, to me, is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM. Dozens of different powers have controlled Jerusalem throughout the centuries; what makes today's conflicts so special? What has not changed in well over 2000 years is the status of Jerusalem as a holy city to the Abrahamic faiths. That status, not current political squabbles, is the single most important thing about the city. Indeed, the current political squabbles either wouldn't exist or would be greatly attenuated if not for Jerusalem's perceived sacred status. *** Crotalus *** 15:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you certainly do take the long view of things. Recentism is "documenting controversy as it happens". The controversy over Jerusalem's status has been going on since partition - That's over sixty years, longer, I bet, than you have been alive. I suppose that, in the context of Jerusalem's 5,000 year history, 60 years could be considered recentism. I didn't realize we were writing here for posterity. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to avoid leadsentenceism, a malady which often afflicts highly contentious articles. Trying to fit all important aspects of a complicated subject into one sentence won't work. However, it's quite true that those significant facts do belong in the lead as a whole. If a reader is only going to read the first sentence, or even the first paragraph, and not even get through the whole lead, then the reader is out of luck and we don't need to consider him. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so much if you take out all the other claptrap in the lead paragraph:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (audio)^ⓘ, Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym, "Abode of Peace"; Arabic: القُدس (audio)^ⓘ, al-Quds [al-Sharif], "The Holy Sanctuary"), an ancient and modern city in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, is, as it has been for the last 2,000 years, the focus of conflict: the seat of Israel's government, and claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians as their exclusive capital; holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians alike; divided in space between national and religious groups living in wary and sometimes violent proximity, and divided in time between modern skyscrapers and ancient stone dwellings, still inhabited after hundreds and thousands of years.

I suppose that's a bit poetic for an encyclopedia written by a committee, but you get the idea. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm. Not bad... that might just be a workable solution. I like the wording, and it does put the current issues into historical context. *** Crotalus *** 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• While that's nicely written, it's not encyclopedic even if this wasn't a committee. It's inaccurate. Both sides don't claim it as their exclusive capital, neither has it been the focus of intense controversy for 2000 years. "Wary and sometimes violent proximity" would be pretty hard to make compliant with WP:V. The "divided in time" and "still inhabited" are unnecessarily poetic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• There's no policy that Wikipedia writing must be dry and uninteresting. "Wary and violent proximity" seems to me that it would be fairly easy to verify — pretty much any source that discusses conflicts between religious communities in Jerusalem would qualify. *** Crotalus *** 21:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it needs copyediting, and goes to extreme lengths to force into one sentence what should be broken up into several sentences. Perhaps it also needs editing for accuracy, I don't know. But the basic concept is sound, as it avoids the NPOV problems of the current lead. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that you guys will accept anything that doesn't say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the way we're supposed to do it: be willing to form consensus so long as we don't have to sacrifice neutrality to accomplish it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NMMNG. The suggested change doesn't sound encyclopedic but more importantly, is fraught with inaccuracies and unnecessary drama.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the way we're supposed to do it is to discuss the problematic issue, not sacrifice the the whole first part of the lead just to get one more editor to agree to a change you want. Let me put it this way - if it said "capital" rather than "seat of government", would you still support it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it does say "capital". In fact, it says it twice (once as "seat of government"), which is more than the current lead does. Also, I want to defend the expression "exclusive capital." The Palestinians, along with just about everyone else, reject Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Israel rejects the Palestinians' claim that Jerusalem is their capital, and, in fact, bans any activities that have a hint of national status about them (see, for example, in the section on Culture). Last I checked, no one else was suggesting that Jerusalem was their capital. So I guess that makes it exclusive, no? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think "seat of government" is the same as "capital", try changing it to "capital" in your suggestion and see if the same people still support it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• NMMNG, we've been over this before. The article cannot state, without qualification, that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." That is a controversial claim (denied by most of the international community) and stating it as fact would violate WP:NPOV. The question then becomes how we can word the lead so that (A) it is conformant with Wikipedia policy, and (B) isn't unnecessarily clumsy, badly worded, or difficult to read. *** Crotalus *** 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I know your opinion on the matter. How about we stick to the real issue instead of trying to obfuscate it by changing the whole lead? We should continue with WP:DR regarding the language we use to define Jerusalem's political status, not turn the lead into an exercise in creative writing just to get one more editor on your side so you can once again claim consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• My "opinion on the matter" is that you are engaging in POV-pushing. I'm attempting to gain consensus among as many editors as possible, but if you persist in this behavior, I don't see the value of further engagement with you. *** Crotalus *** 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am so ecstatic with the few voices of support that I am going to attempt the second paragraph of the lead:

There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts: what country is it in, and how many people live there. The western sector of the city is indisputably part of Israel; the rest of the municipal area, including the old walled city, Arab suburbs like Shuweifat and Silwan, and outlying Jewish neighborhoods like Gilo and Pisgat Zeev, are on land annexed by Israel after the 1967 war - an act that is central to Israeli policy but which is almost universally rejected by the rest of the world. The Israel census bureau puts the population of Jerusalem at 763,800, making it the largest city in Israel. Yet that, too, is misleading: it includes many Arab residents who were annexed along with the territory and who don't consider themselves part of the Israeli-run city; and it includes many neighborhoods which, before the annexation, were independent municipalities. So, while it has the largest municipal population, it is far behind Tel Aviv as the largest urban center.

Yours in controversy, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You get my support. Passionless -Talk 06:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. I like the idea that well-written, creative writing might be a better way out than tacking 50 citations onto each word (the usual "solution" on Wikipedia for controversial leads). *** Crotalus *** 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tacking 50 citations in the lead is not necessary, but we can't write things are "misleading" in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. Same goes for saying stuff like "there is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious". Some other problems are what is the "western sector of the city"? Is it really "indisputably" part of Israel? Who says annexation is an "act central to Israeli policy"? Etc. Etc. Again, while Ravpapa seems like a good writer, this kind of language belongs in an op-ed, not an encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa, this is excellent work - you have my full support. If wikipedia articles on contentious subjects are ever going to be worth reading, we need more people to be as thoughtful as you have been.

You have been very creative to bridge the pov here - sadly there's a good chance that this creativity will be matched by the continued creativity of those editors who will say anything in their fight to retain the statusquo pov.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, what we have here is a demonstration of the capacity for editors on this page to work together collaboratively to come to consensus (not that the proposed text is without problems). This is the second demonstration I've seen of this capacity in the brief time I've been at this article. It is something worthy to be set before the Arbitration Committee. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand all this bickering. The current lede is not without its problems, as are all articles in I-A. However, Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital and that should be reflected in the first or second sentence of the lede. The fact that it may not be internationally recognized as such is also noted. So what's the problem? All sides are represented. The current lede, which has been in existence for some time, problems and all, stands head and shoulders over the recently proposed revisions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This will go on forever unless we go to arbcom. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Commenting here on one detail in Ravpapa's text, West Jerusalem isn't indisputably in Israel. West Jerusalem is under nonbelligerent (armistice) occupation, while East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation. Israel's borders, officially, are still the ones in the 1947 partition plan which doesn't place any section of Jerusalem in Israel. This is also the reason the international community didn't accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital before 1967. However the consensus is that in any future two-state agreement with the Palestinians, Israel will get West Jerusalem. In the one-state solution, "Isratina" will get the whole city. --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is a demonstration that some editors will get behind any text, no matter how problematic, as long as it gets the one bit they're concerned about changed to their liking. Anyway, if ArbCom is the next step in DR, let's do that. This is getting nowhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a full consensus for taking this to ArbCom. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I like Ravpapa's. We should probably just have some sort of vote on different versions or else it will just get filibustered to death like the last handful. Sol (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No case for arbcom

BE——Critical_{__Talk} thinks there is consensus for an arbcom case. As the gadfly in this discussion, I have to disagree. There is no case of misconduct, there has been little edit warring, and all the editors in this dispute have behaved pretty exemplarily. The dispute is over content, pure and simple, and arbcom generally does not accept cases where the dispute is one of content.

It is a dispute that, as things look now, will never be resolved. The supporters of the "capital of Israel" lead (the capitalists) have the upper hand because they claim, rightly so, that there is no consensus for changing the status quo. The anti-capitalists (anarchists? socialists?) are right in contending that there is no consensus for keeping the current lead, but that doesn't give them a mandate to change it.

There is, in fact, no position in this dispute that can be said to be unequivocally neutral. Every nuance of phrasing has become so saturated with exegesis that you need a Rashi commentary to understand it. It is a dispute that fundamentally challenges the second pillar. It is the Wittgensteinian paradox of the Wikipedia.

My position in the dispute is known. It is perceived as by the capitalists as anticapitalist (even though my version of the lead says clearly that Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital). It was an attempt at bridging the gap that was doomed at the outset.

So now is the time, friends, to archive this discussion, and move on to better things. Ignaz Schuppanzigh, anyone? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So what are you saying - that this discussion should remain for posterity as an example of the reason that wikipedia did not succeed in its idealistic goals? Why be so defeatist?! Let's take our inspiration from the Revolutions of 2011, rise up and improve wikipedia's broken policies!!! Oncenawhile (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, lets riot aka, edit war, until ARBCOM will listen to us!!! :P. Passionless -Talk 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this is an example of how disruption happens after an ArbCom case. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems this filibustering of valid new edits is a well known problem - see e.g here. Now that these filbusterers have become so sophisticated, is there any hope for wikipedia's credibility on disputed articles?! Perhaps we just have to accept that the bias inherent in 2004 versions of controversial articles will remain forever. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a perfect word for what is happening. And we can't just give up without going through the proper channels. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Let's go to Arbcom, and take it from there. Wikipedia needs to be made aware of these situations when they arise or it will never improve. Ravpapa are you ok with this? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am but a tool in the hand of the Almighty. Or maybe not. I haven't decided. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I like how anyone who doesn't agree with you guys (which seems to be more or less half the editors who have commented) is filibustering or disruptive or a sock or a SPI. One of the reasons I support taking this to ArbCom rather than going with the regular DR process is that ArbCom will look at everyone's behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your anger is unwarranted. I, for one, believe you have a legitimate point of view, and I think that, while people have occasionally gotten testy, everyone has pretty much behaved with respect and decorum. I cannot fault you for defending a lead that you believe accurately presents Jerusalem, just as I admire those who seek to revise it to remove what they see as an inherent bias. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I disagree with you about everyone behaving with respect and decorum, although I've seen worse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem, the capital of Palestine

It is very misleading and biased to add that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, as Israel is the only country in the whole world that recognizes Jerusalem as it's capital; while the whole international community including hundreds of US resolutions, international law, US, EU, Russia and the vast majority of the countries all around the world recognize Jerusalem as a Palestinian city occupied by Israel. On the Other hand, Palestine and another dozens of countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

So, if you want to be neutral and non-biased, and not promoting any propaganda nad fabrications, the least thing you can do is to add that Jerusalem is the capital of both Palestine & Israel!

it's a shame you that you violating wikipedias rules and regulations, while asking others to do so!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if you read the above, that's what we're currently discussing. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom

So, are we going? From looking through the archives, the "capital" question has been debated on this page (and on Talk:Israel) non-stop for years. It would be great if arbcom could help us reach a formal decision once and for all similar to the way it was done for WP:WESTBANK so we can all move on and focus on more constructive uses of our time... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus on all sides about this and I agree. Whether it will work or not I don't know, but nothing ventured nothing gained. At this point, it just requires someone to do the venturing... --FormerIP (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We have to remember that ArbCom doesn't do content decisions. Thus, we have to be able to show that this is a problem of user behavior. I'm sure that it is, however, showing ArbCom will mean you guys have to remember what has happened in the past and be able to show that there is a demonstrable pattern of (what seems to me to be) subtle civil obstructionism and POV pushing on this matter (capital status) and hopefully others (if you go to ArbCom try and get all the laundry washed). Here's what I'm guessing: you guys went to ArbCom in the past, and got a decision which got rid of a few POV pushers, and a few uncivil editors. What was left was a tightly controlled article where there were still POV pushers... the clever ones who know how to be civil and subtle. Those POV pushers both goaded the rest of the editors into a lot of complaints and also complained loudly themselves, so that the admins got fed up, and started whacking about with their sticks at anyone near, especially if they'd been complaining before. Thus, everyone, no matter whether they were trying to be NPOV or had a legitimate complaint, got scared to complain. The result is that the article got handed to the subtle POV pushers. We have to show this (or whatever the actual progression of events was) in diffs . Comments or corrections? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a comment: This is wikipedia. There are archives of everything that goes on here. Instead of speculating and not-so-subtly attacking other editors, why don't you do some reading? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If people will help me with the formatting, I'd be willing to post it, if it's a new ArbCom case. I'm a new editor here, and although I have an opinion based on what I've been told of the sources, I'm in little danger of being sanctioned. I came here to try and break what looked like a deadlocked issue, and that's still my only purpose. If the majority of other editors were to come to consensus that it's correct to say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," I'd be happy to support that consensus. I'm not an expert on the sources or issues here. So it can be posted under my name, if you wish, but I'm busy in RL life now, and if you make me do all the formatting it might take me a couple of weeks. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to "edit process not working"

Ravpapa recently posted on the Strategic Planning Wiki about the problems you have all been facing with this article. Ravpapa suggested that this page is an example of Wikipedia's editing process failing, and that a new process (non-consensus based) was needed. I felt it was more appropriate to reply here, so here's a copy/paste of what I replied:

Personally I see that as an example of Wikipedia's process working. When there is a legitimate dispute over content (ie, not involving trolls, but involving reasonable people with different opinions), the goal is not to convince one side or the other that they are wrong, but rather to reach a compromise solution. Sometimes the compromise involves changing the existing wording, and sometimes it involves agreeing to a temporary deadlock in order to make sure things aren't made worse.

The key thing to remember here is that the acceptability of compromise solutions differs depending on the situation. On obvious issues (or easily solved disputes), both sides can be made happy. But sometimes you have to accept that both sides are going to be unhappy unless they "win". In such a situation all possible compromises will leave both sides ticked off. Former Prime Minister of France (and WWII resistance fighter) George Bidault once said (paraphrased): "A good agreement is one in which both sides are equally dissatisfied." Sometimes both sides can be satiated, but in the case of the Jerusalem article, Bidault's sage advice is the path to follow. Gopher65_talk 14:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

But for the time being only one side of this dispute is unhappy. We have been unable to negotiate a version of the lead with which all parties will be equally unhappy. Nor is the deadlock we are in a reflection of agreement between the two sides. On the contrary, the deadlock serves only one side, and is completely rejected by the other side.

This is why I contend that the process has failed. My suggestion is not exactly "non-consensus based", as you describe it; rather, it is a suggestion for another approach whose objective is to break the deadlock and achieve eventual consensus. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you should give a link to this wiki, or a means to getting there if that's not allowed. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's here. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . My post was at the village pump. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you about both sides not being unhappy with the current wording (not sure how you'd determine if both were "equally unhappy" though). If you follow the discussion over the last few years you'd find that the current wording is already a compromise over wording that existed prior. I think it is unreasonable to expect one side to "compromise" until the wording is exactly what the other side wants. What kind of compromise is that?

After making the previous compromise, editors (some of which participated in the previous discussions) continued to push for more and more changes to the text making the previous compromise just one step on the road to making the text fit one side's POV. That doesn't really encourage further compromise, apropos the editing process breaking down.

As a side note, I noticed that at this point the Nicosia article has been brought in line with this one ("is the capital but not recognized"), while others such as Taipai or Pristina don't mention any dispute at all. "Compromise" to the extent this article uses language way beyond what any other similar article does is not very likely to happen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Although compromise is the right approach in almost all things on Wikipedia, compromise involving questions of NPOV is not appropriate. The current dispute above, as I see it, is a clear-cut issue of NPOV, and therefore not a matter for compromise. You should disabuse yourself that we are trying to compromise about the basic issue in that discussion. Although some of the editors might have been trying for compromise wording, that is about the wording, not about the NPOV issue. On that (whether or not Wikipedia describes the dispute rather than takes sides in the dispute), there is no compromise to be had, and we are not trying to find one. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I never suspected you of trying to compromise about anything. I was talking about other editors, like Ravpapa for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm speaking to them also: compromise is great, but NPOV is non-negotiable. If you (No More Mr Nice Guy) feel they were trying to compromise, then they might have been trying to compromise on the wrong things. They should have been willing to compromise on things like wording, placing, etc., but not on NPOV. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully support the views of Becritical and Ravpapa - i would summarise by saying that (1) [as per Ravpapa] since deadlocks serve to retain any POV in an article, tendentious editors can take advantage of WP:STATUSQUO by filbustering; and (2) [as per Becritical] a true NPOV compromise is sadly very rare in these black-or-white-type debates.

On the second point, Gopher65's view that all is fine in wikiworld needs to consider carefully whether controversial topics are dealt with appropriately. This page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size is worth looking at. The top 10 most discussed articles in wikipedia are Intelligent design, Barack Obama, Catholic Church, Global warming, Gaza War, Race and intelligence, Sarah Palin, Jesus, Chiropractic, Prem Rawat (Jerusalem is number 57 and Israel number 36). It is suprisingly rare that the controversies which fill the talk page archives are adequately pointed to in the article leads, as statusquo filibustering is used time and time again to ensure valid improvements are reversed.

Many of the established wikimedians have become conservative and resistant to consider improvements. But if wikipedia doesn't evolve with the times it will stagnate - the number of new editors has been dropping and is beginning to accelerate.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

When you say "filibuster" you mean "I am not able to achieve consensus for my preferred change". Nobody can delay or prevent a vote here. Not individuals and not groups of editors. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with you, or to stop debating just because you don't like their opinion. The fact you people keep calling people who oppose your POV "disruptive" or "tendentious" or "POV pushers" or saying they are "filibustering" doesn't exactly help things. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue concerning the lede has been discussed ad nauseum and what you see today is a product of that discussion. It was thoroughly debated, questioned and reviewed and this was the compromise result. But it appears that some will not be satisfied until their exact language is utilized. That's not called collaborative editing, it's called bullying and that's a word that doesn't mesh well with words like compromise and collaboration.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet you had no answer to my question about why we assert that Jerusalem is the capital when the RS do not unequivocally say as much. Unless I'm missing something, that fact shows that the former discussion came to a compromise on NPOV wording, so that it wasn't quite as NPOV as some would have liked, but a bit less POV than others would have chosen. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the basketball equivalent of a slam dunk!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good example of avoiding the question and answering a different question as though it were the one asked. No one disputes that RS say that Jerusalem is the capital. I asked if they are consistent in that statement. Are they consistent? If not, then we describe the controversy, that's basic WP policy isn't it? Also, some at least of the RS there do describe the controversy in various ways. So, the question remains, and apparently you can't answer it in a positive way or you would have by now. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you have not followed the link or the sources. Wait, let me guess. Jerusalem is a special case and every single source must say the words in the exact formula you decide? You only want to break the deadlock and would support any consensus, even the one you ostensibly agree with but we just can't use because of those pesky rules? The same rules that don't apply to other cities in similar situations? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And now for something completely new...

That title is a bit misleading, I suppose, but just trying to get your attention.

However, what I have to say is, perhaps, a new approach to the dispute. Let's leave off for a moment the specific issue of capital/non-capital, and look at the problem from another perspective: To what extent should this lead present Jerusalem as a city in conflict?

The lead, as it presently stands, gives conflict a back seat. It is mentioned in a throwaway line in the first sentence ("though not internationally recognized as such"), and in the fourth paragraph of the lead. Overall, the lead gives the city a feeling of normality (or, as it is called these days, normalcy), and emphasizes its religious and historical importance,

The version of the lead that I started to write puts conflict at center stage: political, religious and ethnic, and historical. It is the exact opposite in approach from the lead as it stands. The question is, which is right?

If you look at Wikipedia articles on other cities of conflict, this idyllic approach is the rule. The city that comes immediately to mind is Belfast. The lead to that article, you will note, makes no mention of Bloody Sunday, of weekly and daily bombings and terror that gripped that city for half a century. (The article, incidentally, also sidesteps the "capital" issue by calling Belfast the "seat of government.") Another example is Pristina, capital of Kosovo, site of ethnic cleansing and massive war crimes. What was important to the authors of Pristina is that it is "home to the University of Pristina and is served by the Pristina International Airport." Look at the articles on other cities which are, by any human standard, dumps: Cairo, Gaza City, Colón, Panama (I speak only of cities of which I have firsthand knowledge of their ghastliness). They all sound like thriving, sun-washed tourist destinations in the Wikipedia.

The point being that, should we choose to limelight the conflict in the article on Jerusalem, we will definitely be taking a novel and unorthodox approach to describing cities in the Wikipedia. As one who, all his life has been on the wrong side of the fence, I certainly don't shy away from being novel and unorthodox. But I do think it is fair to ask if emphasizing the issues at conflict over Jerusalem's history, economic an government roles, and religious significance is the right approach. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to make a similar point for a while now. This encyclopedia tends to describe certain situations in a certain way. The fact we have so many examples from so many unrelated articles just strengthens that point. I think it's inherent in the way wikipedia works that nobody would object to describing the airport that services a certain city, but you'd have a hard time finding consensus for saying "X is one of the poorest and most dangerous cities in the world". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ravapa, you make a great case that those other articles need to widen their perspective, and possibly that they have been whitewashed. I can't think of any reason Wikipedia would legitimately shy away from presenting facts as they stand, except if the available RS do not cover the facts. I can't imagine any logical way that we would leave out the fact that most of a city is a ghastly slum in a lead about that city. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A ton of pages are whitewashed by nationalists, Rio de Janeiro is well known for its slums-its intro does not mention them but the body does, but this is far from the worst - there's Washington, D.C. which also has large slums, yet these are not mentioned at all in the article due to whitewashing. Jerusalem seems to be one of the very few city/state articles which is not heavily whitewashed, this should be an example for all other articles, not the otherway around. Passionless -Talk 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I looked up "Colón, Panama" and found "Simply put, Panama's most notorious city is a sprawling slum of decaying colonial grandeur." I'm sure that info could be sourced well. We're not talking about a Wikipedia convention, we're talking about pervasive whitewashing and POV pushing. Using other pages of such quality as precedent for this page is the wrong move. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

[13] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions for Arbitration

I have some questions, and I'll have more as I prep the case. These are generally things which any user who has been involved long-term can answer off the top of their head, but I can't find without a lot of research. Also: there is a draft of what I have so far on the talk page of my sandbox in case you have suggestions of text of where to go with it: everyone's welcome to edit there or leave suggestions on my talk page.

• I need feedback on my characterization of editor behavior and on how to best describe it.
• I need help on how to make it plain that it's not really a content dispute, but user behavior. That is obvious to me because of the patency of the content dispute itself and the types of ad-hock and argument from authority arguments put forward, and the stonewalling, but how do you communicate this in the request?
• Question: how long has the dispute about saying in the lead that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel been going on?
• Are there other arguments which show the same pattern?
• I name several users (two already blocked), who were involved in drive-by POV support. Are there other editors who have the same pattern?
• Do we want to go for a new Arbitration case or an amendment to the current sanctions? In either case, what do we want to ask for? What kind of sanction would work? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I read your draft, and think you have a very weak case for arbcom. I say this as one who is in sympathy with your views. I think the current lead is somewhere between mediocre and piss-poor, and doesn't reflect the outstanding characteristics of the city. Full and fair disclosure: I actually lived in Jerusalem for a while, and I detest the city. It is a city seething with hatred, repressive, creepy. I think that an article that doesn't reflect that, that doesn't emphasize the culture of conflict that permeates the city, has failed.

That said, your contention that this is primarily a problem of editor conduct and not of content, is unlikely to fly. You yourself admit that the lead as it stands, while misleading in your view, is not inaccurate. "The reliable sources display a controversy on this issue, some saying that Jerusalem is the capital, and some saying it is not and/or is not internationally recognized as the capital."

I don't know No More Mr Nice Guy personally, but your suggestion that he is a sock puppet is unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. He has been around for more than three years, and has established himself as a respectable editor. While he has been pretty much a one-topic guy, he has edited a variety of articles, and has never been blocked. The fact that he has been active on this talk page without making substantive contributions to the article suggests that, on the contrary, he has taken contested edits to talk rather than edit warring over them. If arbcom investigates NMMNG and reaches the conclusion that he is not a sock, it will further weaken your case.

You should also be aware that, in relying on the ratio of talk page comments to substantive edits of the article as a criterion for constructive editing behavior, you are exposing yourself to criticism. You are a newcomer to Wikipedia, and almost your entire editing record has been to argue the case for changing the lead of this article. In that respect, your own editing record is much more suspect than NMMNG's. I am not suggesting impropriety on your part - I am sure you are a legitimate editor with a legitimate beef - but if your tactic is to use patterns of editing as an indication of improper behavior, you had best establish your own legitimacy by some serious work on Franz Kneisel or Naguib Mahfouz.

As I suggested in the previous section of this talk page, I do not think the focus on the particular issue of Jerusalem's capitalness is the central issue, and further bashing over it will not be productive. Rather, the issue is how much focus we want to put on the issues of conflict in Jerusalem, as opposed to the happy-go-lucky, Smallville approach to describing cities in the Wikipedia. As NMMNG, points out, this article actually goes further than other articles on contested cities in discussing conflict in the lead. And, also as NMMNG points out, the political problem of achieving consensus for negative statements about a city is very problematic in Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. I think BCritical's characterization of this problem as "whitewash" is right on.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that, if we want to escalate this dispute to a higher level, we concentrate on the weaknesses of the collaborative editing model as they are exposed in this dispute, and initiate a discussion of possible new ways for dealing with disputed articles. I have raised this issue before in various forums, with little success. Perhaps if a group of editors were to ask to open such a discussion, it would have an effect. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, NMMNG is a sock of someone, and appeared if I remember right about a month prior to the ArbCom decision on these articles. I didn't intend to create the impression that there was some problem with using the talk page and not editing the article; rather, that doing only reverts on a single issue is the problem, as is drive-by POV support. "You are a newcomer to Wikipedia, and almost your entire editing record has been to argue the case for changing the lead of this article" That's not true, you have to click the link for 500 edits, then previous 500 edits etc. if you want my record [14]. I'm new to this article, not WP. I also have no particular interest in this area of WP, I came here from a noticeboard. I most definitely agree with you that there is a problem with the whitewashed treatment of this and many other cities in WP, and I'd love to do some work on that, but don't want to create a list of enemies, either lol. I can't remember if you have looked over the current Wikipedia:Town sheriff proposal, which would go some distance toward helping in these areas. I think what I might try first would be to get a vote on various arguments and issues on this page, but that assumes there is sufficient participation. At that point, changes can start on the article, and with a more clearly defined consensus we would be able to pinpoint editor behavior and then take it to ArbCom if necessary at that point. Also, a couple of the disruptors have been blocked recently. Thanks for the feedback, and tell me what you think about further defining issues here first? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

MY apologies. I was mistaken about your editing record.--Ravpapa (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not anyone's sock. I suggest you open an SPI report about me or stop making baseless accusations. This is getting quite old. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How did you learn wiki markup and lingo before your first edit to Wikipedia? (Remember that calling someone a sock on WP does not necessarily have negative connotations: it merely means you seem obviously have previous experience.) BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the help pages. How did you learn wiki markup?

While calling someone a sock might not necessarily have negative connotations, it does the way you're doing it. So for the last time, report me or stop making accusations you can't back up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)