Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28

The comparison between Jewish nationalism and history and Palestinian nationalism is ridiculous and not historically based!

The passage from : "Given the city's central position in both Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and Palestinian nationalism" to "modern Palestinians descend from all the different peoples who have lived in the region" is really an insult to the intelligence of the readers and a gross historic error. With all due respect to the feelings of the "Palestinians", I think it is historically fair to say that until 1967 no one recognized or spoke of a "Palestinian" people, let alone one which descended "from all the different peoples who have lived in the region". This is the CURRENT and may I add ridiculous claim of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians but it is not supported by ANY historic evidence whatsoever. You can't compared the fabricated nationalism and history of the "Palestinian people" to the thousands years proven and documented history of the JEWISH people. This whole passage is highly politicized from the "Palestinian" side and has NOTHING to do with real factual history and it SEVERELY DAMAGES the credibility of WIKIPEDIA as a reliable source of information. One can argue whether the Jews had a right to re-establish their national home in Palestine, but one should NOT invent a whole new people and history as part of that argument and Wikipedia should've certainly not lower its standards so as to include such baseless arguments just because the authors "feels bad" for the "Palestinians". I do hope that corrections will be made to this passage. You can start by giving historic proof that connects the Arabs in Palestine in any way to the different peoples who have lived in the region, or by finding historic proof of a thousands year long Palestinian peopole. If such evidence does not exist, please remove the sentences that suggest this is so. I thought that Wikipedia tells us about the history that REALLY was and not what some people SAY it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.178.85 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, sorry. Your thesis seems to be that Zionist historiography is unique amongst all of the world's national histories. I suggest you read the article Historiography and nationalism properly, and possibly educate yourself by reading the sources at Historiography_and_nationalism#Nationalism_in_general. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you understood one word that I wrote. Did I compare Zionism to the "world's national histories"? NO. I compared it to the "Palestinian" national history which started after 1967 and not thousands of years ago like the "Palestinians" started to claim in recent years. I again stress that NO ONE SPOKE OF OR KNEW ANYTHING about a "Palestinian people" before 1967. And their claim from recent years that instead of ARAB Muslims (mostly) which they REALLY are and which they THEMSELVES identified themselves as ALWAYS, they are actually the lost decendants of peoples who lived in the holy land thousands of years ago and have LONG disappeared from world stage and no one heard of, their culture, religion, language or nationality for THOUSANDS OF YEARS are no less than the ARABS who lived in Palestine when Zionism startd and were less than a quarter of a million people in 1900 (accoeding to Ottoman data). GIVE ME A BREAK. This passage seriously damages Wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.178.85 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have some suggestions for you. First, do some research. After a while, you will realize that much of what you so strongly believe is just propaganda. Don't feel ashamed, but take pleasure in the fact that your eyes have been opened. And then question everything you have ever been taught, and question the ignorance of those who taught you. And then consider joining us at WP:IPCOLL.
To illustrate, let me give you some facts.
  • The "Palestinian" national identity began in the early 20th century - for evidence see for example the 1911 newspaper Filastin (newspaper) or the 1921 Syrian–Palestinian Congress. The term Palestinian had been used for much of history, see for example the article Timeline of the name "Palestine" and do a search for the word Palestinian.
  • The "Arab" national identity began in the second half of the 19th century, and is based solely on a shared language. The propagandistic suggestion that Palestinians originate from the Arabian peninsular is as confused and absurd as suggesting that all English speakers come from England or all Spanish speakers from Spain.
  • All nationalisms, including the Palestinian or Arab, are imagined communities. The "Jewish" national identity is also from the late 19th century, and formed as a reaction to German, Russian and other new romantic national identities of that period. Palestinian nationalism may be a few decades younger than Jewish nationalism, but it is no different in substance, and was similarly formed as a reaction to "the other".
I am sure the propaganda you have been exposed to goes much deeper than these three bullets, but I will have to leave you to do your own research from now on. As I said at the beginning, i advise you to double check everything you have been taught on this subject. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, while you eloquently explained the matters of Palestinian identity, this section seems to be irrelevant to Jerusalem. Perhaps any further discussion should be moved to Talk:Palestinians. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
When 'Once' writes such ignorant drivel as "The "Jewish" national identity is also from the late 19th century" (and note the scare quotes around the word Jewish), he reveals himself as quite unqualified to comment on the 100% correct observations of the OP.
Jewish national identity is documented back 3000 years. The lamentable situation that the world is awash in anti-Jewish bigotry, doesn't change that fact one iota.
To the OP: Wikipedia has nil credibility in this area, as in many others. It is in the hands of a politically motivated clique. That is why Jerusalem's FACTUAL status as the capital of Israel is hedged about in the article with mealy-mouthed caveats. If it were fashionable among the chattering ignorami to regard the sun as revolving around the earth, despite the scientific observations to the contrary, Wikipedia would say 'There is no widespread agreement with the statement that the earth revolves around the common CoM of the relevant bodies'.
"The term Palestinian had been used for much of history" - beyond ignorant. It was not used for the group CURRENTLY claiming to be a 'Palestinian' nation (and which is SELF-admitted to be nothing other than an artefact in the programme to annihilate Israel as the national home of the Jews).
To the OP: No, one cannot "argue whether the Jews had a right to re-establish their national home in Palestine", because it never stopped being that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you're lost. This isn't some lefty pro-Israel blog, this is Wikipedia. Your random conspiracy theorist ramblings don't belong here and never will.80.6.70.42 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2015

Ghsukuhi (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

<Jerusalem is not in Israel. Jerusalem is a corpus seperatum under international law - remove Israel from this site>

217.28.4.224 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done please see the extensive discussions in the archives, above - I'd start with Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 20, but there are plenty more. - Arjayay (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

British Mandate

The term British Mandate should be replaced by The British Mandate for Palestine, Mandate for Palestine, or the Palestine Mandate. or Mandatory Palestine. These are terms that are generally used on wikipedia e.g. at https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Mandatory_Palestine and https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=British_Mandate_for_Palestine_%28legal_instrument%29 Why would the Jerusalem article be an exception? The term British mandate means nothing to the reader and does not give any geographical clue to the significance of this term or this period.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User JesseRafe wrote this Jerusalem‎; 15:28 . . (-14)‎ . . ‎JesseRafe (talk | contribs)‎ (Reverted to revision 681574526 by AttilaTotalWar: Wordy and I suspect NPOV given history, note that the title of the province is not given for Ottoman Empire, etc, just controlling body, "British Mandate" is more than adequate. (TW)) I doubt that Palestine can be considered POV as it is the name given to the Mandate, it was the British Mandate for Palestine. That is the official title, and it can't really be regarded as POV. The ancient name 'Land of Israel' would be considered POV if it were not for its ancient use, historic usage of the term Palestine should be regarded in the same light.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 31 external links on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we have the facts please?

Proposed separation of Palestine

It is written in the section of 1948-1967 that: "Israel conquered the area which later would become West Jerusalem, along with major parts of the Arab territory allotted to the future Arab State". Can someone give the facts here. There's a link to the 1948 Arab Israeli war but I don't see there details about the "major parts of the Arab territory allotted to the future Arab State". It also worth mentioning that while it is Jordan who conquered illegally THE most important part of Jerusalem and the most disputed parr of it - i.e. THe OLD CITY, and while it is the Arab side who started the 1948 war, the article choose to mention first Israel as the party who conquered parts of the city illegaly. Is this one sided or what?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.241.127 (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the map from the 1948 Israeli Arab war page, it shows how much of Palestine was to be kept by the Palestinians which was considerably more than it claims today. Sepsis II (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Accoring to the map that you've shown ALL of the Jerusalem area - INCLUDING ALL OF WEST JERUISALEM was to be under international law. The parts in west Jerusalem that Israel conquered in 1948 WERE ALL supposed to be part of the international enclave. You can see that that international enclave included Bethlehem and parts of Ein Kerem, which is on the most western outskirts of Jerusalem today. Meaning - Katamon, Talbiya. Bak'aa, Armon Hanaziv, Talpiot etc. - all the Jewish neighborhoods of west Jerusalem were supposed to be part of the INTERNATIONAL enclave and NOT the future Arab state. PLEASE CORRECT THAT. It's also worth mentioning that Jotdan conquered ALL the territory that was supposed to be part of the Arab state, not just "major parts" of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.241.127 (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sepsis is referring to all of Palestine, not just Jerusalem. Look at the western Galilee, for example. Zerotalk 10:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem, Israel for pre-1967 locations

pre-RFC question: For those neighborhood articles that are inside the green line, such as Meah Shearim and Katamon, etc. I think Jerusalem, Israel should be the norm because it is Israel proper, however because the borders are not finalized, I would propose that instead of having it say Jerusalem, Israel it should say neighborhood in Jerusalem, Israel. Those neighborhoods were never part of Jordan or the PA and are not part of disputed territories. This would be only for those neighborhoods that are inside the green line or in Israel proper. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the current situation bothers many editors, an RFC would likely end in no consensus, the RFC would waste editor's efforts which could be better used elsewhere, and if you really push it you might be about as happy as those Americans who wanted Jerusalem, Israel on their passports. Sepsis II (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I asked is that some say Israel and then some don't, and recently I saw one editor went on a revert spree getting rid of Israel from all the articles on the inside green line neighborhoods. So I brought it here. I didn't mean for an RFC, I meant for an informal RFC. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Those neighborhoods have never been part of Israel, either, so saying "Israel" in that context would just amount to adopting the view of a single government with which other governments disagree. --Dailycare (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Those neighborhoods *are* in Israel de facto and saying otherwise is misleading the public. Ideological and governmental opinions are irrelevant to the facts on the ground. Benjil (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Dailycare,why do you say those neighborhoods have never been part of Israel? They are all in pre-1967 lines? I'm not understanding your argument. Please clarify. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
He means that governments do not recognize even West-Jerusalem as part of Israel (for example they refuse to move their embassies there) while in fact they also do recognize West-Jerusalem as part of Israel (since they have no problem visiting there when they come, and on the opposite refuse usually to go to East-Jerusalem or at least come to Israeli offices there). Saying that these governments are inconsistent is an understatement. Benjil (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That isnt how recognition works. The UK for example does not recognize any state as having sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. The recognize Israel's control of W Jerusalem and consider E Jerusalem held under illegal military occupation (see here). That a UK minister would visit W Jerusalem does not change that formal view that W Jerusalem is not Israeli sovereign territory. nableezy - 18:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep your patronizing for your friends. You just proved this does not make any sense. They do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem (which in fact is not true since until 1981 they did) but it's control is seen as legal, which is basically the same. Indeed that's not exactly coherent. Benjil (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to be blunt, but Arabs lost W Jerusalem to Israel in 1948 and E Jerusalem in 1967 but still can not recognize those facts. 213.91.208.170 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Nableezy is right. Even the United States doesn't recognize West Jerusalem as part of Israel. That American officials meet with Israelis there, or in New York, isn't even remotely connected. During WWII, the Belgian government was in London and met with lots of people there. No-one, however, would then conclude London is in Belgium. --Dailycare (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It's ridiculous how people here are freaking out about recognition or non-recognition. It looks like the aim of Wikipedia is not to reflect data as it is in reality, but to create fake reality out of thin air, in order to meet their political agenda. The neighborhoods of Jerusalem are in Israel. That's the reality guys, in any dimension outside of this website. Maybe someday they will not be in Israel, or in any other country (for example after a third world war that will destroy half of the world), but as soon as it didn't happen yet, you can visit these neighborhoods and find out that all the citizens are with Israeli citizenship (Jews and Arabs), the legal system is Israeli, the schools are Israeli, the sanitation systems are Israeli, the healthcare and police is Israeli etc etc. Of course, you are free to write here that these neighborhoods are part of the "State of Santa-Claus" if you want, because a group of foreign politicians with ties decided so, but in reality it'll still be Israel. Elvenking (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
After the horrors of WWII, the world agreed to not allow the forced seizure of land through war, thus the world is still waiting for Israel to negotiate peace with Palestine before recognizing any land changes. Sepsis II (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
As well as should wait for the Palestinian territories to negotiate with Israel for peace and abandon the violence and incitement against Israelis. Elvenking (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Capital of Palestine" Quote

I find it purposefully deceptive. It is a real quote, but does not mean what modern readers think it means (Palestine as in State of Palestine). Of course it is referring to Palestine the region. It makes this clear by calling Palestine "the Holy Land, sometimes also called Judea". Anyway, I think the quote should either be explained so it isn't (as whoever inserted it likely intended) misinterpreted or removed altogether. Unfortunately the word palestine itself, once a geographical descriptor, has become politically loaded.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Which quote are you referring to. The only quote I see is for Palestinian Basic Law and I assume you aren't talking about that because of course that is referring to Palestine, the state. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You assume correct. I mean "Jerusalem is still reckoned the capital city of Palestine". [1] The source was likely put in because someone thought it supported the Palestinian narrative, actually it doesn't. Its a Protestant Christian source which is very critical of the Ottoman regime in Palestine and its treatment of Greek Christians. It refers to Palestine in very Biblical terms, ex. "holy mount of Zion". --Monochrome_Monitor 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It also comments one the "barreness" of Jerusalem because of its "want of inhabitants", terms not exactly favorable to the Palestinian narrative. In fact the sentence it quotes ends: "though much fallen from its ancient grandeaur"... referring to Israel and Judah.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Right. I see what you see now in the source, but I think your link is wrong. You mean page 461 rather than 534, correct?[2]. Your conjectures about why it is like this have no use so why bother with that? You just need to propose a new wording and see what happens. I don't care about this but no doubt others will. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, you're correct. Wrong page, thanks. Hmmm, I think it would be much more balanced if it included the end of the sentence, which is cut off. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.. It looks like http://www.jamd.ac.il/en works, though, so I will fix that one. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Link now good. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Shuafat, (pre)historically, is NOT Jerusalem

As I have written to the editor who first reverted the separation between "AGE / Shuafat" and "AGE / City of David and J'lem proper":
"Some smart newspaper guy - or municipality PR smart... donkey - made up the line "Jerusalem's age pushed back: now 7000 years old". BS. Shuafat has only been "included" (pro forma, administratively) into J'lem after 1967. Not 7k, 6k, 5k, 4k, 3k, 2k, 1k, 500 years ago, or 100 years ago - no, hardly 50. Finding Chalcolithic or other prehistoric traces in Shuafat and basing a new "birthday" for J'lem on that is... it starts with "bull" and ends beneath his tail."
I can rephrase that, but the truth remains the same: Jerusalem as a historical city that has grown organically out of the first settlement next to the Gihon Spring has its own (pre)history, which has NOTHING to do with Shuafat. Shuafat was administratively added to the municipality of Jerusalem AFTER 1967 (b.t.w., this has not been recognised internationally), the fact that Shuafat's prehistoric settlement is far older than Jerusalem's does in no way make Jerusalem older. Cairo growing as much as to include Gizeh does not make the pyramids part of Cairo's history.
If anyone wishes to deny such basic logic, I won't waste any more time with arguing on this topic. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The distance between Shuafat and Old Jerusalem is less than 3km, the distance between old Cairo and the Pyramids is over 11km. Just because Jerusalem diminished to the Old City throughout history doesn't mean that the the extent of Jerusalem in 1947 is the historical extent of Jerusalem and all archeological founding related to Jerusalem can be found only there. Shuafat is part of the archeological human settlement in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the city but around Jerusalem there were and are villages so Shuafat very will be in this article. Jerusalem's 1st century population was estimated at 80,000-600,000 so I think it is safe to say the the city's extent was very close to where is today shuafat and every human settlement there had connection with the city.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Shuafat is Jerusalem area. It is definitely not Jerusalem, not now and even more so in older ages. I think this should be removed form here. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Again I say, Shuafat is only less than 3km from the old city. Any human settlement there, especially 7,000 years, much be in that article. Tell es-Sultan which is actually "ancient Jericho" which gives Jericho the title "the oldest town in the world" is actually 2.6km from the center of Jericho, which was the only part of the village some 130 years ago (per Survery of West Palestine map). So we should remove any reference to ancient Jericho from modern Jericho because it is actually historically 2.6km from modern Jericho? Shuafat is today part of Jerusalem and this article discusses Jerusalem today. Removing neighborhoods becuase they weren't historically part of Jerusalem is like removing references to ancient Jericho from modern Jericho becuase historically the village was established far away from ancient Jericho.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and change my mind. It was not in Jerusalem then, but is now, so should be in this article. But the way this was placed in the lead suggests that Jerusalem is as old, and that is misleading. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

a) see heading: Shuafat, (pre)historically, is NOT Jerusalem
b) check the Shuafat lead: "about three miles north of the Old City", and Google maps (https://www.google.com/maps/place/31%C2%B048'55.0%22N+35%C2%B013'48.0%22E/@31.7916441,35.2221465,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d31.815278!4d35.23?hl=en): some 5 km from center of Sh. to CoD AS THE CROW FLIES, which is not the right way. If 5 or 11 km is irrelevant, clearly 2 distinct settlements - they didn't have tramway in the Chalcolithic period, for crying out loud!
Debresser, we're this time in full agreement - relevant enough to leave the info somewhere within the article, but not in the lead, and not as the age of Jerusalem, but of an entity now admin'ly included by Israel into J'lem municipality. Let's put it to rest and leave it as it is. ArmindenArminden (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

On a completely different topic ... can we promote this article to at least B-class?

Is this article really only C-class, after all the attention it gets, and with 419 distinct in-line references? Really? I could see where this article is just too politically hot to make it through a GA (not to mention FA) discussion. But C-class? I'd like a quick show of hands (include WikiProject[s] you work on) to see if people would be comfortable calling this B-class. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Votes

  • Support as proposer. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (WikiProjects: Judaism, Israel, and occasionally Geography)
  • Support Much and varied information, many sources, no serious tags. I think it could go even higher than B-class. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This is certainly a lot better than C class. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It's well sourced and thorough. I've seen B-class articles worse than it. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Per arguments above. Such a topic deserve more than C.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs)
  • Support as per proposer.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    Comment. Compared to the number of people who come here, six isn't a large number of votes. But it does cover at least a reasonable bit of the political spectrum as it relates to Jerusalem. So absent somebody's objection in the next 24 hours, I'm going to go ahead and push this up to B-class. (I'm personally not going to try to push it higher than that. As I recall the discussion that demoted this from FA a while back, one of the problems was that this page had ongoing political and POV controversies. Anyone see that stopping any time soon? ) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
     Done StevenJ81 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Addition to the lead

@Irondome:, regarding my revert of your revert, cus the edit summary wasnt long enough, but this material was added without discussion just 3 days ago. There was an RFC that was mandated by the Arbitration Committee and is binding for at least another few weeks. Part of what was binding was no one may add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead. nableezy - 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I just finished a brief note on your talkpage Nableezy. Stick it here for the whole pedia to see if you want. It is a rare instance of someone admitting they were wrong. Regards Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Sourced, relevant, neutrally worded. The Rfc is expiring. The Rfc avoided the issue. All in all, ample reason to keep this addition. By the way, is there anything you think is wrong with the text, apart from bureaucratic arguments? Debresser (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Its not neutrally worded, it is unnecessary, the RFC is binding for more than another month. All in all, actual reasons not to include it. And, fyi, binding means an obligation that cannot be broken. nableezy - 22:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
"to which Israel is seen as having a legitimate claim to sovereignty" is sourced to a quote saying that Israel's claim to sovereignty in the west is stronger than it's claims in the east...evidently no source could actually be found to back up such text. The added information was unnecessary and also very unbalanced as nothing was added on Palestine's claim to sovereignty. Sepsis II (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Can't we all act sensibly on this, and take the Arbcom ruling as dictated by good sense, and only worth breaking when, if ever, some fresh political arrangement by the two parties breaks the deadlock and sets out terms that, mutually agreed to, allow us to drop POV manouevering and battling, and simply transcribe what a final negotiation determines. I suggest all those of good will endorse a maintenance of the relevant textual status quo beyond the term of expiry. If you don't, I'll be heavily investing in suppository company stocks, which are bound to rocket when the 3 years of peace here expires, and the invariably pain-in-the arse POV warring resumes, giving all participants cerebral hemorrhoids.Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I would leave it Dov. I reverted, but I had a cup of Tea and by that time it had been reverted by N. I re-read it, and do you know, it is actually better. It notes that neither party has much or any international support. It's good NPOV. Lets leave it and continue the gradual detente which appears to be growing and the colleageate discussions which are now becoming far more common in this area from my observations. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The name is Dovid, by the way. I have made my point, and am fine with leaving this article with or without that paragraph at this time, if only because of that Rfc. At the same time, I do think this issue should be revisited and clarified in the near future, and I the text that was recently added is good. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry if I offended you Dovid. Irondome (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. I just wanted to clarify what my name actually is. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I see no need to change the lead just because the RFC will expire soon. If there was another RFC all the arguments and sources would be the same and the result would remain the same. Perhaps we should ask for a 3 year extension considering this. Sepsis II (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
A consensus that was time-limited, can not simply be "extended". The subject is up for discussion, and we might as well start it here and now. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Given that consensus is supposed to be established by the strength of the arguments not as the result of a vote, with arguments based in policy having a greater weight, it will be interesting to see how claims for a change of consensus are handled.     ←   ZScarpia   10:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes it can. Let's extend it. The facts on the ground haven't changed over the last 3 years, the same arguments remain true. If there was another RFC I would just copy and paste my old comments. Sepsis II (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, what had a time limit was the RFC being binding, meaning modifications to the lead in violation of the RFC should bring sanctions for those 3 years. Consensus doesnt, and you would need to show that consensus has changed before making changes to the article. Good luck with that. nableezy - 19:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No problems here. That is more or less the same as what I was saying. On the other hand it can be argued, that consensus that was enforced, is less of a consensus, because the natural process of consensus confirmation was forcibly interrupted. Either way, I agree that some consensus has to be shown for any serious changes can be made. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it cant be argued, because an RFC is an explicit method of determining consensus, unlike the sneak an edit in and wait a few days hope nobody notices and then claim the edit has consensus modus operandi of unnamed editors. nableezy - 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
If the consensus had been challenged over those three years, and been upheld time and again, it would be another story, but a consensus reached three years ago, that stands only because of an arbitrary decision made three years ago to not allow changes, has no real backing. I am not saying it can be dismissed out of hand, but it certainly does not enjoy the same degree of consensus as in the first case. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The RFC was binding because we are all sick of people trying to add in their biases every month and going to the talk page and arguing constantly that there is no consensus, consensus can change, blah, blah, blah. For the third time show us the reason you believe consensus will change or drop it and stop wasting our time. Sepsis II (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
lol, I think you seriously misunderstand how things were put together. The basis for consensus on the lead having the formulation that it does (Israel and Palestine see it as their capital, neither claim has gained international recognition, dont say its in Israel or its in Palestine) was the RFC. Regardless of it being binding for 3 years or not, the RFC is what determined consensus on this issue. ArbCom, due to this perennially being edit-warred over, made that consensus unchallengeable for 3 years. That is coming to an end, and you are free to challenge it. However, the consensus is what it was until it changes, and you will need to demonstrate that it has changed. There was no arbitrary decision, there was a close by uninvolved administrators of an ArbCom mandated RFC. Im not going to waste any more time dealing with this completely pointless discussion about process, because this is a talk page for an encyclopedia article and as such discussion about the article is what should happen on this page, not talking about your idiosyncratic views on strength of consensus, whatever that is supposed to mean. nableezy - 22:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to admit my point, if you feel that would diminish you in any way. Still, it is true in and of itself. That indeed does not detract from the fact that it is consensus, as you righly point out. Debresser (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Clearly the fact the RFC was large, formal and binding for a number of years doesn't reduce the weight of the outcome, but to the contrary increases it. Of course consensus can change once the binding time is up, but in this kind of case it would probably require one or more of the following: 1) a substantial change in the underlying situation in Jerusalem (e.g. implementation of the two-state solution), 2) some kind of significant new insight into the matter in the most reliable sources, or 3) some kind of significant new insight into the same sources by the Wikipedia community, with broad participation --Dailycare (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Clearly the opposite is true. A consensus that was enforced by rule of the sword, rather than continuously upheld by consensus forming processes, is weaker than one that continuously affirmed by active editing and discussions. I agree that consensus based on an Rfc can be stronger than just a regular consensus, depending, by the way, on the support for the solution that was implemented, but the fact that it was enforced for 3 years is a big minus. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Your view on this is no longer relevant, as there is now a specific discretionary sanction that says:

As the results of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem regarding the article's lead represent the community's consensus at a well-attended discussion, a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. Editors editing the lead without consensus from an RfC are subject to sanctions such as page or topic bans or being blocked from editing. Reverts of blatant and obvious vandalism or edits made in violation of this sanction are exempt from this restriction.

In sum, your view on "degree of consensus" is wholly irrelevant to the issue and if you wish to change the lead you are required to get a new RFC to overturn the one that you think apparently has a low "degree of consensus". nableezy - 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I am aware of that decision. The point remains valid though, and still needs to be made, in view of the previous editor's comment. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The point isnt valid, its been explicitly rejected. The RFC represents "the community's consensus at a well-attended discussion". The end. Toodles. nableezy - 20:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The RFC was worded and moderated by an admin who prejudged both the issue and the participants. A small group of activists were allowed to closely control the wording in order to get the result they wanted. If the time is up someone who gives a crap could open a new RFC and hope this time a more neutral admin would allow a more neutral RFC. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Or the RFC was moderated and closed by three admins selected by the Arbitration Committee, and a large number of users that are not usually involved with this topic area participated in a well-attended RFC that saw anybody allowed to propose a wording and have that judged by the community at large and was closed by admins that took to heart what WP:CONSENSUS actually means. All that is however moot, as again there is a specific discretionary sanction on changing the lead of this article absent a new RFC. nableezy - 20:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine

There seems to be consensus for Option 4, to "Refrain from making a guideline and leave it up to local consensus." (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following the discussions at Talk:Birthright_Israel#Jerusalem.2C_Israel and User_talk:Debresser#1RR I want to open an Rfc about the question "Is Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine?"

After I reverted the removal of "Israel" from "Jerusalem, Israel" in a certain article, I was referred to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem. I noticed there that "There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine." It does not say what to do. I also noticed that that Rfc was about the Jerusalem article only, and that it is binding for 3 years only, till July 9, 2016.

My first reaction was that in the absence of any clear consensus on this potentially controversial subject, the only acceptable course of action per Wikipedia policies and guidelines would be to refrain from changing any status quo. Then I cam to the realization that I could also initiate a process to try and establish a project wide consensus on this issue, some guideline on the issue, much like WP:WESTBANK regarding another related hot potato.

I then did some research. A simple search of Wikipedia teaches that there are 438 instances of "Jerusalem, Palestine" on Wikipedia and 9,268 of "Jerusalem, Israel". I came to the conclusion that that fact proves that both alternatives are considered completely acceptable on Wikipedia, and with a ratio of roughly 1:21 even makes a point for "Jerusalem, Israel" over "Jerusalem, Palestine". Also compare the Google search results, which are 331,000 to 5,950,000, roughly 1:18. I remember from my elementary school in Holland, that there never was any issue that Jerusalem is in Israel. Mind you, I am not talking about East Jerusalem, the status of which is widely acknowledged as ambiguous, just simply "Jerusalem".

Then that same respected editor who pointed me to the Jerusalem Rfc, made another interesting point, namely that there is a difference between [[Jerusalem, Israel]] (or [[Jerusalem, Palestine]], for that matter) and [[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]] (or [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]), with the latter being more problematic in his eyes.

I see four general options:

  1. Replace all instances of "Palestine" by "Israel" (unless specific reference was made to [[[East Jerusalem]]);
  2. Remove all instances of "Israel" and "Palestine" from after "Jerusalem";
  3. Keep all instances as they are. This means that no changes will be allowed to whatever is the present version. In the case of a new article, local consensus should decide;
  4. Refrain from making a guideline and leave it up to local consensus. This option might be rephrased, and I mean this non-judgemental, as keep the present anarchy.

In addition there is an idea that can be implemented independently of whichever of the above options will be chosen:

  1. Replace all [[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]] and [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]] by [[Jerusalem, Israel]] (or [[Jerusalem, Palestine]], to address at least the most problematic form of this issue.

Please take part in the discussion below, and at the end also express your vote. Please note that I made no discussion section regarding the independent replacement option, because I expect the general discussion to cover this as well. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding options 1, 2 3, or 4

Comment - I think this is too hard to make a general rule. What if an article is referring to something built in 1946. The land was known as Palestine at that time. Are we automatically going to change that to saying Israel even though it was not known as that at the time? - GalatzTalk 13:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We can easily address the issue over before/after 1948 in the discussion below, as some editors have indeed done. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment It often seems sensible to avoid describing Jerusalem as being in Israel or Palestine altogether. For example, both Temple Mount and al-Aqsa Mosque describe the sites' location as the Old City of Jerusalem, and changes to "Jerusalem, Israel" or "Jerusalem, Palestine" are quickly reverted. See Gordian Knot. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Vote regarding options 1, 2 3, or 4

  • Option 4 because in different instances, different phrasing is appropriate. For West Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, Israel"; for East Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, Transjordan", "Jerusalem, Palestinian territories" and "Jerusalem, Palestine" depending on the era. A blanket "Jerusalem, Israel" (option 1) is not acceptable for obvious reasons, and not having a country listed (option 2) is unhelpful to readers because the country listing makes it clear which part of Jerusalem is referred to. Option 3 is not a good idea because some may be wrong. Number 57 11:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 1 4: The usage of Palestine is problematic not only because Palestine is yet to be in the same recognition status as Israel (i.e. not a member of the UN), it also doesn't control East Jerusalem and was declared after it was annexed. In addition to that, per a long list of sources I provided in a discussion (that ended with no consensus because some editors tried to kick me from Wikipedia) that imply that Palestine (the state) doesn't physically exist because the process of its establishment never occured and most of its recognition is symbolic.
With that said I also add that West Jerusalem should be considered part of Israel. The Green Line is the recognized Israel and West Jerusalem will fall within it. Regarding West Jerusalem not as Israel is also problematic if you consider the fact its municipal boundaries expanded through the year so it will mean that every time Israel expand the municipal boundaries west, it expands its unrecognized territory which makes no sense. What about Ramat Rahel? it is outside the boundaries of Municipal Jersualem but completely serounded by it and within the Green line.
So Green lined Jerusalem should be referred as either Jerusalem, Israel or West Jerusalem, Israel and East Jerusalem should be referred as East Jerusalem or East Jerusalem, West Bank--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought about it more, and the text in Option 1 doesn't reflect my opinion. I think that only West Jerusalem should be always referred as Israel and it doesn't entirely fit with Option 1. I suggest that all that chose Option 1 to re-check on that, cause as it is written right now, it is unacceptable. I think that currently All options are unacceptable except Option 4--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Per argument of User:Number 57 the above is for present day and not for historic references.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment if the votes won't be homogeneous is seems to me that Option 4 will have to be accepted.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean "homogeneous" votes? Debresser (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
If we will not have a large majority for one option without a very strong opposition.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Plurality/Majority. For me, 4 is first, but I can go for 1 as well if it will swing it. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4 seems the safest. For items that are well within pre-1967 borders, then there is no reason not to show J,I. What I have been doing to help concerns is to have the J,I in two wikilinks, to show that it's not Jerusalem,Israel, but it's in Jerusalem and it happens to be in Israel. People need to realize that it's not Wikipedia making a final determination, but we do know with 99.99% certainty that many parts of Jerusalem will be part of Israel in any final negotiation and for ID purposes it is silly to not have a country. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Out of the four options its probably best but its very difficult to really say. West Jerusalem is on Israel's side of the green line which is internationally recognized border. Firstly this rule should only deal with West Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem, or the city as a whole. Anything that could be debated whether it is West or other, should not contain Israel in the description. Second, anything about prior to the end of the British Mandate should not say Israel. Third I think any article that deals with post British Mandate should say Jerusalem or Jerusalem, West Bank. - GalatzTalk 13:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4, since the correct use depends on the context. For modern everyday use "Jerusalem, Israel" is correct, but when discussing Mandatory Palestine, "Jerusalem, Palestine" would be correct. When discussing issues of international law and recognition - just "Jerusalem". “WarKosign” 14:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Jerusalem's status is not something that is settled, for either East or western Jerusalem. That said I can accept option 4. Option 1 to me is a fairly blatant NPOV violation in that there are a number of sites in East Jerusalem that our articles just say Jerusalem for (and that isnt even a problem in my view for at least some of them), so we would effectively be promoting a minority viewpoint in those articles if this find and replace were instituted. nableezy - 15:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Why do you call option 1 "minority viewpoint"? The simple research I showed above points to Jerusalem being in Israel and not Palestine by about 20 to 1. Debresser (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Because google search results arent reliable sources? Nearly every state on the planet says East Jerusalem is not in Israel, the overwhelming majority of scholars say East Jerusalem is not in Israel. So for those articles that just say Jerusalem for places in EJ, or the Old City of Jerusalem, adding "Israel" to that would be promoting a minority viewpoint. nableezy - 15:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
But we are not discussing East Jerusalem, just Jerusalem. That is the whole difference.
Google results are not reliable sources, but a 20:1 (and we are talking about over 5 million ! finds here) is pretty convincing... Debresser (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No, not at all, because we are concerned with what reliable sources say on the topic. Not how many blogs or forums or whatever use the term "Jerusalem, Israel". And we are discussing those articles for places in East Jerusalem, including the Old City, that simply say their location is "Jerusalem". Your proposed idea here would sweep those places with the rest and have them say that they are in Israel, which reliable sources by and large do not agree with. Therein lies the problem with option 1. Besides that, there is a significant POV that none of Jerusalem is in Israel. That is the view of the United Kingdom for example, and as far as I can tell also the view of the United Nations. So even for places in western Jerusalem saying that they are in Israel is a disputed POV. nableezy - 02:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4 – per Number 57. Option 1 blatantly POV per Nableezy. Baking Soda (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Baking Soda Please notice that Nableez only meant those article where "Jerusalem" is used incorrectly or as short for "East Jerusalem". That should be fixed in any case, so this issue is not supposed to reflect on the Rfc as such. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Im fine saying a place is in Jerusalem, Israel if places in EJ also say East Jerusalem, Palestinian territories/Palestine (I prefer Pt). Oddly there seems to be a number of people that feel that only Jerusalem, Israel should appear and we shouldnt say places in the Palestinian territories are in the Palestinian territories, but thats a deeper problem. I dont think its necessary, I think Jerusalem by itself is sufficient in most cases. nableezy - 18:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem with that is we won't know the status of EJ until it's said and done. We do know that Western Jerusalem is in Israel and will 99.9999% stay as Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Making our decision here based on what we think the future status would be is WP:CRYSTAL though. The answer should be based solely on the current status. The current status of West Jerusalem is Israel, the current status of East Jerusalem debatable. - GalatzTalk 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
That isnt a little bit true. The current status of East Jerusalem is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory. It is no more debatable than saying western Jerusalem is in Israel. nableezy - 15:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 this is what is technically correct, as mentioned: the status of Jerusalem is not fixed. Option 1 is completely unacceptable. Option 3 & 4: well, I guess I could live with this: BUT: if there is one thing editing in the I/P area has taught me, it is to "keep conflict in as few articles s possible": I fear endless bickering eh, discussions, on literally thousands of articles if any of those options are passed. Sorry, but to me, it looks as a recipe for an endless waste of time. To avoid that: Option 2. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as first preference, Option 4 as second preference. WP:NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." WP:NPOV says that "achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality" means "attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in" reliable sources "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." WP:NPOV says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Is the assertion that Jerusalem is in Israel seriously contested in reliable sources? Yes, it is. Is the assertion that West Jerusalem is in Israel seriously contested in reliable sources? Yes, contrary to what some editors are contending, it is. Therefore, would the assertion of those contentions as facts in Wikipedia articles be a breach of the fundamental policy requirement WP:NPOV? Yes it would. Option 1 may satisfy the Zionist ideologue (armchair or otherwise), but, unfortunately for them, their opinion on what the "reality" of the situation is, is totally irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources say. Also note what WP:CONSENSUS says, that consensus is not the result of a vote.     ←   ZScarpia   00:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The reality is that Israeli government administers all aspect of the area, not the PA. Any other wording may satisfy the armchair activist but does not reflect the reality on the ground and will confuse the reader. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Im pretty sure that "reality" does not translate to the place being in Israel. nableezy - 15:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Option 4 is a vote for endless edit warring and Option 1 obviously violates NPOV so it wasn't a valid option from the beginning. Option 2 would bring us in line with most governments and international organizations; purposefully ambiguous, purposefully leaving out any reference to either nation when making statements on Jerusalem. Sepsis II (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Jerusalem is in Israel as a fact and there is no State of Palestine on the ground. Any other presentation of the facts is a lie, a misrepresentation of reality and motivated by political or ideological considerations. Wikipedia is supposed to state objective facts and not "obey the international diplomatic consensus" or whatever. Benjil (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It is more complicated than that so I would suggest not using the word 'lie'. The international community doesn't recognize the sovereignty of Israel over the Eastern part of Jerusalem, annexed to Israel in 1967 (you probably know that) and therefore it can't be referred as a recognized part of Israel--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The international community doesn't recognise Israeli sovereignty over West or East Jerusalem (similarly, it didn't recognise Jordanian sovereignty over East Jerusalem during the period that Jordan made that claim); the difference between the two cases is that it doesn't regard the former as occupied while it does regard the latter as such. The position of the international community on sovereignty affects how that is reported in reliable sources, which in turn affects how that should be presented in Wikipedia in order to fulfil the neutrality requirement. It is what reliable sources say which concerns us; discussions or comments about what editors think the "reality" of the situation is have no pertinence to what the article should say.     ←   ZScarpia   10:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
What I am saying is that while Wikipedia should state this fact, that should not prevent it to write that Jerusalem is in Israel because, simply, it is (you can just check yourself by booking a plane and going there). Wikipedia is not working for the UN or "the international community" as far as I know. Why should Wikipedia limits itself to the politically-motivated opinions of the diplomatic corps of countries ? Let them recognize or not recognize whatever they want and let Wikipedia just describes the reality as it is. Benjil (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
We can always list as Jerusalem, Israel with an inline note or ref that clarifies. This would be for those entries where it is within the pre-67 borders. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Even for parts of Jerusalem west of the Green Line it is contested that they are 'in' Israel. The position under international law is that they are not. To see the problem with your suggestion, ask yourself whether you would see a statement that 'Jerusalem is not in Israel' (with an inline note that Israel contests that) as neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   20:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is not working for the UN or 'the international community'." True. Then again, it's not working for Israel or its supporters either. Another editor's 'reality' might be what international law (which is determined by bodies such as the UN) is regarding sovereignty over Jerusalem. Stating that Jerusalem is in Israel or stating that Jerusalem is not in Israel would both be pushing points of view as fact, which is why Option 2, which ignores the question, is a neutral solution.
  • "Wikipedia is supposed to state objective facts." Actually, Wikipedia is supposed to neutrally present what reliable sources say about particular topics. It's purpose is not to state "objective fact", the reason being that, as with sovereignty over Jerusalem, what constitutes the facts is often a matter of opinion. In Wikipedia terms, facts are assertions over which there is no dispute; everything else is an opinion. Claims that some opinions are objective fact tend to indicate that the editor making them doesn't understand, or is incapable of following, Wikipedia policy.
    ←   ZScarpia   20:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no dispute that Jerusalem is under Israel's control and de facto in it's territory. Everybody agrees on that wether they like it or not. So that's what Wikipedia should state. The recognition by the international community is not our concern, just a footnote. Benjil (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
As far as your facts go, the truth of the first is obvious, but I doubt that your assertion that everybody would agree on the second is true. What Wikipedia should state is a neutral distillation of what all reliable sources say and, though it obviously isn't to your liking, what a large proportion of those reliable sources will say will be affected by the legal situation as formulated by the international community. "The recognition by the international community is not our concern." Of course, there will probably be editors pushing the opposite point of view who would say, "What the Israelis claim is contrary to international law and should be disregarded." I should think that there are numbers of editors here who will regard themselves as being part of the international community and for whom the position of that community is not insignificant who will take your comments to the effect that only the Israeli "reality" matters as a sign of rather extreme ego-centrism. Since there are competing views, the neutral path, as required by Wikipedia policy, is to treat the differing views as opinions rather than facts. Trying to promote one point of view, in your arguments, the Israeli, as factual is not the way to go.     ←   ZScarpia   13:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Benjil just leave it, it's much more complicated than that and you both are arguing about nothing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - I had not planned to !vote on this issue, and I realize that this RfC was begun with the very best of intentions, but I think no matter what consensus emerges here there will not be any reduction in the controversy Wikiwide. Some of the options will actually increase the controversy on many articles. Wikipedia will not (and should not) have any bearing on the controversy in the real world, and as long as that controversy exists, there will be no panacea on Wikipedia. Option 4 is the lesser of the evils. Sundayclose (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2, if I must give an opinion, and if not that, then Option 4. But ther RfC should never have been raised. In a very technically complex area, any legislative solution to impose a principle is only a recipé for confusion. Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Irondome (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4. As bumpy as that road is, every other option is worse. But Nishidani is right: this RfC should never have been raised. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - As others have said, this is the least bad option. PPX (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 4 – Anarchy on the ground, anarchy on the wiki… — JFG talk 19:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (or 4) The consensus view is that currently no country has sovereignty over Jerusalem (colloquially, that Jerusalem is not in any country). The RFC cited above has a good collection of sources in there to establish this, and it is also reflected in its end result. Having said that, a few countries (Russia, China and some others) do recognize East Jerusalem as part of the State of Palestine (while no countries recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israeli), but Option 2 overall is simpler. Option 4 is something I could also live with. --Dailycare (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Vote regarding independent replacement option

Note: I made no discussion section regarding the replacement option, because I expect the general discussion to cover this as well. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

If there is a consensus to place Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine, exactly how pervasive is that decision? I am concerned because biographical articles sometimes simply state Jerusalem without designating a country, which seems the most neutral way to handle it. For example, this has been the long-standing way it is done on Natalie Portman, who was born in Jerusalem and has Israeli citizenship. Occasionally IPs or new editors will add Israel, which is almost immediately reverted with the explanation that Wikipedia does not take a stand on the political controversy and simply states Jerusalem. What I want to avoid is opening a can of worms on such articles that have been relatively peaceful on this issue by remaining neutral. Let's say hypothetically a consensus develops that Israel is in Palestine. Do we have a knee-jerk reaction and change [[Jerusalem]] to [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]? If that happens, we then have a relatively non-contentious issue in an article erupt into major controversy. I hope someone can address this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is already a contentious issue, and what we seek to achieve here is to resolve the issue and reach a binding decision for all Wikipedia articles. The position which reflects reluctance to change articles is one of the options above. Debresser (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
An Unreliable source told me that Natalie Portman was born in a neighborhood in East Jerusalem. As I think, West Jerusalem should be referred as Israel and East Jerusalem should be referred as part of nothing and this is entirely NPOV. In articles such as "Natalie Portman" where there are no (reliable) sources of where she was born, the best is to keep it as "Jerusalem". The current arrangement seems to be good there and reflect NPOV, and achieved consensus here won't affect this article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: "The position which reflects reluctance to change articles is one of the options above": Unfortunately for other articles that is not the only option in the RfC. So you're saying that if the consensus is to place Jerusalem in Palestine we have to place Portman's birthplace as Jerusalem, Palestine? That will resolve nothing on that and similar articles. As I said, there will be an explosion of editors on that article who will fight it endlessly. I'm not personally taking a position on where Jerusalem is located, and if editors for this article want to put Palestine as the location of Jerusalem, so be it. But I think it is ill-considered to force that into every article, just as it would be ill-considered to force Israel into every article. There needs to be some limitation so that we don't resolve a problem on this article and create huge problems for other articles. I propose that this consensus apply only to this particular article or other articles specifically named in the consensus. Accordingly, I'm am creating an option below. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Just guessing here: If Natalie Portman was born "in a neighborhood in East Jerusalem," I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the location was the Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. That facility is located on land that was east of the "main" Green Line—but was an Israeli exclave within Jordanian-administered territory during the entire period between 1948 and 1967. (See Hadassah Medical Center § Mount Scopus campus. The original campus of Hebrew University of Jerusalem is also in this enclave, as is the Arab neighborhood of Isawiya.) This suggests to me that there are unquestionably going to be at least some articles where you can't even pin it down to "West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem". StevenJ81 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Restriction of the above consensus

  • Note The following proposal is not part of the original Rfc and factually contradicts its purpose. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The consensus that emerges from this discussion shall apply only to this article unless any other article is specifically named and approved in this or another consensus discussion. Please provide !votes below:

  • Support this restriction for reasons that I stated above. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article will certainly have no country listed next to it. The proposal is how to identify Jerusalem in other articles. Is a neighborhood in West Jerusalem part of Israel or not? That's why option 4 for me makes the most sense, it's on a case by case basis. Clearly Jerusalem is a hot issue and we shouldn't enact a Wiki wide policy. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Just for clarity, can you explain an "oppose" vote here if you think "we shouldn't enact a Wiki wide policy". Maybe I have misunderstood you, but an oppose vote means that we should have a Wikiwide policy, that it applies to all articles, and that all articles identify Jerusalem as being in Palestine if the consensus here is for Option 2?? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It was my reading of option 4 which basically leaves it up to the talk page of the specific article. So this page, which can't have a country for obvious reasons, is one thing, but a neighborhood in the far western part of Jerusalem (which as an aside was annexed by Jerusalem municipality just a few years ago, as Jerusalem grows) would have Jerusalem, Israel. And for the record, what I do instead of Jerusalem, Israel is Jerusalem, Israel.
Thanks for clarification. But am I correct in assuming that if Option 2 is the consensus that you are OK with requiring "Jerusalem, Palestine" in all articles? Sundayclose (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 is to remove all mentions of Israel and Palestine, so all articles will just show Jerusalem. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This Rfc was specifically designed to reach consensus for the whole project. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Your offer is equivalent to option 4.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
That's not entirely correct. It's equivalent to Option 4 only if Option 4 is the consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we hat this? An RFC is to have one question so as to avoid confusion later on. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect (and I understand your concern), but I don't see any evidence of confusion. This particular issue could easily have been an Option 5 (and I would not oppose that), but it was not my place to alter another editor's wording in the RfC. Hatting this section would reduce visibility and thus participation. If anyone appears confused, we can discuss this again. Editors are free to ignore this section, and the 4 options are presented well above this issue. Additionally, if you look at some of the discussion where I sought clarification, there are others who have concerns about birthplace in some articles. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC expired

Umm, for those of you reverting a bot that goes through and removed rfc tags after thirty days, the bot is going to continue doing that, and having the tag is not going to bring somebody to close it. I thought it might be funny for this to keep happening, but seeing an edit-war with a non-sentient being with the non-sentient being winning was not as funny as I thought it would be. You want to have an admin close it ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and leave the rfc tag off. nableezy - 21:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. I had already requested official closure of the Rfc there. However, I fail to understand how the bot "knows" to remove the template even after I remove the rfc-id. Debresser (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
timestamp in the signature following it. nableezy - 08:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

The statement made throughout this article " recognized internationally" seems very political in nature. Would it not make more sense to create a section concerning the political disagreements about Jerusalem?

CaptBlackEagle (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There is an extensive section called Jerusalem#Political_status. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

Please replace the capital H with a small letter in the word 'holy': It is considered a Holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Last line of first paragraph.

154.122.20.174 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Map removal

Nableezy removed the more detailed map in this edit. IMHO both maps are valuable additions to the infobox, and I propose to restore the removed map. Please note that this map was for many years the only map in the article, till somebody added the more general map and removed this one, and Hertz1888 promptly restored it with the correct edit summary " not an adequate substitute for the detailed maps removed". IMHO this should be done again. If there is a problem with two maps, then the other map should go. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I dont really care which map, but its stupid to have 2 maps in the infobox. Most articles on cities use the pushpin map (eg London, Paris, Chicago, Cairo) which is why I kept that one but I really dont care which map is used. Just that there shouldnt be two maps in the infobox. nableezy - 17:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2016

To change Jerusalem's city status as the capital of the state of Israel, which is globally recognized save for a few nations, and has long been the center of Israeli life. 65.28.170.66 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As explained in the header to this page, there was a well-attended RFC that addressed the lead. The RFC squarely rejected your proposed change: "There was a consensus that it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,' nor is it compliant to state 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.'" Rebbing 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Cities in the Palestinian territories

The {{Cities administered by the State of Palestine}} templates can't be used on this article for two reasons: 1. Jerusalem is not administered by the State of Palestine. 2. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Debresser (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Since we couldn't reach a consensus to change the factually wrong title of the article, the article's title should be treated as what is suggests and not what it actually is, Palestinian cities in the Palestinian Territories.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Nableezy reverted his/her revert of me when he/she realized this. It's not administered by the PA, and not in the Template. I think the template should be moved to clarify.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Banned editor

I have just reverted an editor who is banned from I/P related articles. Pwolit iets (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

Hello, my name is Ilya Schreiber, we are cartographers from Dominican Republic. We wanted to help improving this article by adding a printable map of Jerusalem, that we`ve especially created for. This map is very usefull for people who don`t have GPS and visit this sacred place, so they can print it out and orientate better.

So, here it is: http://vectormap.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/printable_map_jerusalem_israel_g-view_level_12_hebrew_svg_by_vectormap_info.svg_.zip

And here is reference link on our website: http://vectormap.info/free_vector_maps_downloads/free-download-svg-map-jerusalem-israel-hebrew-names/

Hope the better place to put it is below the "pushpin_map": | pushpin_map_alt = Location of Jerusalem

Adding this lines below>> |image_map1 = printable_map_jerusalem_israel_g-view_level_12_hebrew_svg_by_vectormap_info.svg |mapsize1 = 250px |map_caption1 = Printable map of Jerusalem, Israel


P.S. We are now working on adding printable maps in some cities, you can check this here ("|image_map1" section in source): https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Vista,_California https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=San_Angelo,_Texas https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Renton,_Washington https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Davie,_Florida

Sincerely yours, Ilya Schreiber.

Ilya Shrayber (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This map is not suitable for the English Wikipedia. The idea of writing Jewish locations in Hebrew and Palestinian locations in Arabic might seem sensible to you, but it means that quite a small number people can read it all. (Most Jewish Israelis cannot read Arabic.) Also, on my Macintosh computer, in both Safari and Firefox, the Hebrew and Arabic names are displayed backwards. There are plenty of errors too (names inaccurately placed and strange red arrows). Sorry. Zerotalk 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's just use the common name for them and latinize it.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

On SYNTH

The purported justification offered for palestinian claims to jerusalem is that palestinians are descended from all periods of palestine's history- including non-existent jebusites. That's wrong of course but it's not the problem. It is SYNTH because none of the sources are specifically referring to jerusalem- they are much broader, one of many origin stories the palestinians claim that one editor happened to favor. In truth the main palestinian justification for their claim to jerusalem is purported canaanite descent and a denial of jewish history- not an embrace of all periods.[3] Remember, this pararaph is about historiography- and in arab historiography not every period of jerusalem's history is mentioned. I welcome it if you find another justification, besides "they had lived there for generations", which is for the most part true. The current formulation dishonestly implies Jews are biased in the treatment of their own history, which is depicted as just one era of the city's history rather than its origin. It's a disaster and should be deleted if not corrected.I'm tagging @Bolter21: since I discussed this with him on his talk.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I also noticed an editor claimed he was restoring the "stable version" but removed some text he didn't like at the same time. That's not nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me the entire thing is poorly written and must be rewritten. It gives too much weight to nationalism while in reality the absolute majority of Israelis and Palestinians who care about Jerusalem, care about it over religious reasons. Also the "Israeli nationalists (Zionists)" is a very sad thing to see. Can't really see the synth because I am on the phone, but it really doubt this entire part about national claims is properly sourced.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 02:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no synth, particularly since the Quigley source has been added. Monochrome's comment does not appear to have considered that new source. There are many other sources available explaining the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem. Anyone who wants to amend the paragraph should start by bringing additional sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I take it back, the opening section of the "History" section shouldn't be re-written, it should be removed completely. Just as I speculated, it has some statements that are poorly sourced (broken links, links to blogs etc. and indeed what seems like a big pile of SYNTH). The place where this section needs to be re-written, is from the article History of Jerusalem, from which the paragraph was copied. Just delete the first paragraph and start the History section with the Age sub-section.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, removed sounds good to me. The Quigley source in fact confirms what I said about the different palestinian origin stories. While the others use the "we're descended from everyone who ever lived here" argument, the Jerusalem one uses the Canaanite lie. It also confirms my earlier formula- that their primary claims to jerusalem are based on a long residence/arab character/imagined canaanite descent. The rest is religious. Anyway its best to remove it. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The 'purported claims' to or in Jerusalem are based on the fact that Jerusalem has been a city under Islamic authority for 1,300 years, and inhabited by Eastern Christians (Christian Palestinians) continuously for 2,000 years, with a Muslim majority for 900 years. The overwhelming majority of the traditional architecture of the old City is Christian-Islamic. The Jebusite etc. claims are no more validating or disinvalidating that the Jewish claim: It had Jewish sovereignty for 200 odd years over 3,000. The 'purported' claim of Palestinians to descend from Canaanites is exactly the same as the 'purported' claim made about all Jews descending from Canaanites.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Jews just happen to be the largest group in the city since the 19th century. The Jewish quarter? City of David? Kidron Valley? Olive's Mount? Zion Mount? Neh, just Zionist BS. Nishidani, I am not a religious person, but your comment was a bit outrageous.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not outrageous. All of the houses in the Jewish quarter were Arab-owned, and rented out to Jews. It was Arab property, like nearly all the city, until 1948. Olive's Mount sounds like an allusion to Popeye's sexual function,by the way. I've never denied an abiding attachment in Jewish lore and religion to Jerusalem, but historically for almost 2,000 years, most of the city was either Christian or Muslim. There are dozens of books and articles on the way this is being thorouhly repressed from Israeli consciousness. Christians have as deep an attachment to that city as Jews, or Muslims. You'd never guess that listening to the conversation or editing here. God, I'm glad I was genetically engineered to be a pagan. I've read hundreds of books on these things from an explicit 'Jewish perspective', I can see no evidence in the I/P area that editors editing articles covering topics that involve three faiths, have ever read even one Christian or Muslim account of the area, except when a link cites it and one is constrained to peruse the stuff. Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Bolter, the paragraph you are referring to is perhaps the single most neutral and balanced paragraph in the IP arena in Wikipedia. We need much more of these kind of level headed health warnings for your average non-expert reader. Sure let's continue to discuss the drafting and sourcing, but we must preserve this if we are ever to achieve real NPOV writing in these kind of articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess it is hard to understand from a non-Zionist point of view, that this section, is telling you that the Jewish connection to Jerusalem is a "Zionist" thing. Only one sentence in this section is alright: "Both sides claim the history of the city has been politicized by the other in order to strengthen their relative claims to the city,[67][73][74] and that this is borne out by the different focuses the different writers place on the various events and eras in the city's history.", the rest is not only poorly sourced, but also poorly written.
Nishidani, my great grandmother from Kos claims that her great uncle owned the windmills of Rhodes. If it was true, does it mean the windmills of Rhodes are Jewish? An Israeli soldier is officially considered "IDF property", so during my service, will I identify as "Israeli Army-ian"? Qira and Qamun were two Palestinian villages in the Jezreel Valley. Since the late 19th century, they were sharecroppers of a Christian Maronite families from Lebanon who owned the land, does it make them "Lebanese villages"? When Yehosua Hankin bought the lands and the sharecroppers refused to leave, were they now "Jewish villages"? The Jewish quarter, was Jewish. Full stop.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I have read this paragraph many times and have never considered that it suggests "that the Jewish connection to Jerusalem is a "Zionist" thing", which would clearly be false. I doubt many other readers have reached that conclusion either, otherwise it wouldn't have been stable for so long on such a popular article. Anyway, I am sure we can find a way to fix this sensitivity without undermining the point of the paragraph. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I concur with everything Bolter said. I think he mistranslated the Mount of Olives into English though. Jerusalem is a Jewish concern, not just a Zionist one, and framing it in terms of modern nationalism akin to palestinian nationalism is deeply anachronistic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I know, most Palestinians care about Jerusalem not because they believe they are Jebusites, but becuase most of them are Muslim, just like how most Israeli atheists call the wailing wall a "circus", regardless of how nationalist they are. The section turned Jerusalem into historical city, but the avarage Israeli and Palestinian know nothing about Jerusalem, other than the fact it is "holy".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Bolter, your generalization about most Palestinian views being driven by Islam is wrong. It illustrates a mistaken instinct that Palestinians are inherently different to Israelis. Most participants on both sides of this conflict are driven by concepts like nationalism/identity/heritage, with religion playing the role of a facilitator. Israeli Jews, whether religious or not, believe Jerusalem to be part of their "heritage". In exactly the same way, Palestinians, whether religious or not, believe Jerusalem to be part of their "heritage". Oncenawhile (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Most participants on both sides are driven by a quite natural desire to get a decent education, marry, have a home, raise kids and find a good job without having to battle the world every step. No people are driven by ideas: people are far more complex, and far simpler, than the ideas that circulate inside their heads and outside of them.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
'from a Zionist point of view'. I think by now everybody from Antartica to the nearest asteroid has heard or read a few thousand times the 'Zionist point of view'. Most of them are not students of history, but occasional readers of tabloids. That's not the problem. The problem is getting people saturated with a point of view to grasp that (a) other points of view, Christian and Muslim, in this case, exist; (b) getting beyond the sectarian spin and looking at the factual record (which means not writing off the top of one's head:'Jews just happen to be the largest group in the city since the 19th century', see the absolutely self-contradictory data splashed into Demographic history of Jerusalem, where several thousands of Jewsd enter and exist Jerusalem depending on the viewpoint of the writer from year to year) and not how it is spun. Sectarianism is the curse of history, as it is a curse on wiki articles, hence WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize how absurd you sound? This section is supposed to be about sectarian views of Jerusalem's history. What Bolter is saying is that the characterization of the Israeli claim to Jerusalem as nationalist is inaccurate- and you are telling him he is wrong? Jerusalem is not Alsace-Lorraine- a territorial dispute elevated to national significance for patriotic reasons. The claims do not rest on who ruled when, certainly the Jewish ones don't, since Israel was for the most part dominated by foreign powers. This faulty paradigm is a barely obscured attempt to provide "background" for the other SYNTH mess Template:Graphical Overview of Jerusalem's Historical Periods.

Not only are the voices of Israeli Jews stifled as "sectarian", the voices of the Palestinians are entirely ignored! On the recent UNESCO travesty:

"The Palestinian Foreign Ministry welcomed the resolution, with Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, saying: This is an important message to Israel that it must end its occupation and recognize the Palestinian state and Jerusalem as its capital with its sacred Muslim and Christian sites..... safeguard the Palestinian cultural heritage and the distinctive character of East Jerusalem"

"A statement from Said Abu Ali, deputy secretary general of the pan-Arab organisation for Palestinian affairs, said the resolutions 'invalidate Israeli allegations and inventions concerning Jerusalem and Islamic holy sites.'"

That is essentially exactly what I said. I said that the city's "arab character" (real and imagined) is emphasized, that they believe they are protecting Christian and Muslim holy sites (no mention of the Palestinians proud Jewish and Jebusite history), and that most significantly jewish history is denied. This paragraph should be deleted. Note that neither of you have actually defended its accuracy.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your outdenting makes it impossible to understand who you are responding to. Also your text makes it impossible to understand who you are talking to. Noone has made the statements you claim. I, for one, stated above that "I have read this paragraph many times and have never considered that it suggests "that the Jewish connection to Jerusalem is a "Zionist" thing", which would clearly be false." Oncenawhile (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It was an address to those who want to keep this paragraph. Outdenting is where it's at, Nooney!--Monochrome_Monitor 00:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Enlarging the template: "Overview of Jerusalem's historical periods"?

My first time looking at this article. Can anyone here enlarge this template? I looked through Talk archives and have not found this discussed and spent about 30-minutes trying to figure out how to enlarge it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I figured it out and enlarged it, looks good Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why Jerusalem light rail info is in future tense?

"According to plans, the first rail line will be capable of transporting an estimated 200,000 people daily". The first line has been working for more than 5 years. Why the use of "will" in this sentence: "the first rail line will be capable of...."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.164.229 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

History section - introductory paragraph

11 days after the meandering discussion above, fizzled out, MM removed the paragraph unilaterally. The paragraph, which has been in the article for about five years, is well sourced and is perhaps the most balanced part of the entire history section. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Claims as capital

Somebody reverted a recent edit,[4] IMHO for no reason. Opinions? Debresser (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Top of the page: a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. Editors editing the lead without consensus from an RfC are subject to sanctions such as page or topic bans or being blocked from editing. Reverts of blatant and obvious vandalism or edits made in violation of this sanction are exempt from this restriction. I dont have a problem with the edit, I dont know if Id restore it as I dont know if the lead needs that detail, but the requirements for changes to the lead are clear. nableezy - 19:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Added here as a result of this. nableezy - 19:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Earliest habitation of Jerusalem predates 5,000 years

Under the History section, this Wiki page says that the earliest habitation of Jerusalem goes back 5,000 years, but a recent discovery was made in 2016 that actually found settlements in Jerusalem going back 7,000 years. You can read about it here -- http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Archaeologists-discover-7000-year-old-Jerusalem-settlement-from-Chalcolithic-period-445206 --- it was confirmed by the Israel Antiquities Authority, so we should definitely add it in as new findings in archaeology do not add themselves into Wikipedia pages. Any thoughts or should I go ahead with the edit?Korvex (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It is already in the Prehistory section. Zerotalk 05:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
To editor Zero0000: Alright, that's good, but the Wikipedia page still says earlier that Jerusalem has been inhabited for 5,000 years, although we now know this to be 7,000 years. So that's technically an error now that hasn't been updated since that find. I'm just going to change that 5 to a 7, very simple.Korvex (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Wait up, Zero. I do not have 500 contributions yet in Wikipedia, and so I'm not allowed to edit this page yet. Can you change that 5 into a 7 for me?Korvex (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that this discovery was not in Jerusalem but in Shuafat, which matters because Jerusalem used to be far smaller than it is now. That's why your newspaper source says "Jerusalem area". There isn't a simple way to deal with this, except by some more expansive text. Zerotalk 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Zero, you do realize that Shuafat is part of Jerusalem, right? Shuafat is just as much part of Jerusalem as Japan is a part of Asia. The discovery was obviously made in Jerusalem, just read the source I gave or any of the many reports that came about it. So I don't know what you're saying when you claim that it's not in Jerusalem, rather it's just in Shuafat, which is a part of Jerusalem (????). By the way, I do not yet have the 500 necessary total contributions in order to edit this Jerusalem page and change the 5 to a 7, so you're going to have to do that for me bud.Korvex (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Shuafat is part of the modern municipality of Jerusalem, but Shuafat is a place of its own. It has not been part of Jerusalem already in the 16th century when the Ottomans conquered the land and Jerusalem got out of the walls only in 1860. The British municipality of Jerusalem did not include Shafat and so was the Jordanian. Shuafat was only first connected to Jerusalem in the 70s when the French Hill neighborhood was buit and even in 1984 a satelite photo shows that it was still an outskirt. I don't think Shuafat's history should get a large focus in this article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying that Shuafat was not part of ancient Jerusalem? I'd like some sources if you are saying this. Also -- even if it only joined to Jerusalem in the 70's as you say, that would in fact imply that the current Jerusalem does in fact go back 7,000 years. If Shuafat was not Jerusalem in ancient times, then what was it? Korvex (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Shuafat was definitely not part of ancient Jerusalem. There were no cities even a fraction that large in ancient Palestine. If you want to see the relationship between the two in the 19th century, go here. Shuafat (Shafat) might not appear on your screen; look north. The article already has a mention of 7,000 year old finds in Shuafat. A better case needs to be made for more mention of it. Zerotalk 01:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of maps of ancient Jerusalem in the Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem by Dan Bahat. None extend the boundaries of Jerusalem anywhere near Shuafat until the modern era. Zerotalk 01:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course we should say area or near ancient Jerusalem. We'd be misleading our readers if we suggested otherwise. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
To editor Korvex: If Shuafat was not Jerusalem in ancient times, then what was it? it was Shuafat. You do realize there are hundreds of sites within Jerusalem's modern boundaries (if not thousands) of ancient human settlements right? Jerusalem was from the dawn of human settlement to 1860 a one square kilometer city overlapping most of modern day Old Jerusalem. It never extended to Shuafat. The first time there was a connection between they city of Jerusalem and Shuafat was in the 70s, roughbly 7,000 years after the first settlement in Shuafat. The history of Bavaria isn't part of the history of Prussia, although Prussia extended to Bavaria at some point.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Much better put. It was Shuafat. It wasn't Jerusalem. This sort of attempt to make a city look older than it is isn't unique to Jerusalem, I've seen the same claims made for other cities. And "going back"? What does that mean? That there was a place called Jerusalem 7000 years ago? Obviously not. That there's been continuous habitation since then? No again, that's not been shown by the archaeology. Cities are created by the gradual growth of small settlements - looking at the area of most big cities a thousand years ago you'll find (maybe) a small area you might call urban surrounded by villages. Would you say that London goes back to the earliest sign of habitation you could find the that huge area? No, London goes back to the Roman settlement there, no further. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I doubt the place was called Shuafat then. A settlement in the area which is now called Shuafat, sounds more like it. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I've got another problem. Do we actually have any sources for continuous habitation for 5000 years? The earliest evidence of habitation isn't necessarily the date of the commencement of continuance habitation. It may of course be accurate, I just don't see the sources. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, so Shuafat wasn't part of ancient Jerusalem. I agree. But it's part of modern Jerusalem. Does that not technically make modern Jerusalem a location that has habitation extending back 7,000 years? What's wrong with noting that?Korvex (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that as long as you are very clear about which Jerusalem you are talking, that should also be okay. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, that sounds fair. I currently have under 500 edits, so I'm going to spend the new few days ramping up my activity to make the edit on this Jerusalem page.Korvex (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No, "extending back" is unacceptable. "The oldest signs of human habitation found" would be acceptable. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
How about "The oldest found human habitations"? Saying the oldest "signs" of habitation puts uncertainty on it, whereas there is no uncertainty as to the discovery confirmed by the IAA.Korvex (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Not in archaeology-speak, but looking at the source again it doesn't convey what was found. A much better sources is this one. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

a 7,000-year-old settlement from the early Chalcolithic period in Shuafat.[76] The archaeologists describe the discovery as the oldest of its kind in the region.[65] The Israel Antiquities Authority asserts that the stone houses and artifacts confirm "the existence of a well-established settlement in the Jerusalem area as long ago as the fifth millennium BCE."[77] Ceramic evidence indicates occupation of the City of David, an area considered to be the initial nucleus of historical Jerusalem, as far back as the Copper Age (c. 4th millennium BCE).[7][78] I'd just like to mention that chalcolithic and copper age are the same thing. PiCo (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Source for Marseilles as partner city

Is here: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.marseille.fr/sitevdm/document?id=14621&id_attribute=48 |title=Accords de coopération |website=Site Officiel de la Ville de Marseille |language=fr |format=PDF |access-date=2017-03-12}}</ref> I just can't edit it myself because of the protected status of the article. Feel free to use it. --Krokodilgemüse (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

Remove comma following parentheses in first sentence. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done ProgrammingGeek talktome 22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ZackTheCardshark (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Request to add the Czech Republic Parliament recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4967031,00.html

Also a request to add this to the Positions on Jerusalem wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this information should only be on that article. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
And why's that? Russia recognizing Jerusalem is on this article as well. It's relevant information for both. Knightmare72589
Can be mentioned shortly on both articles. I don't mind adding it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Be my guest. Knightmare72589
This belongs in the Positions on Jerusalem article, not in this main Jerusalem article. Seriously, Jerusalem have thousands of years of history, to cherry pick one tiny fact (in the greater view of things), is way, way WP:UNDUE, Huldra (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2017

Please add field "Population as of" to infobox saying "2015(City) 2014(Metro)" to save every user having to open the 2 references to find these dates. MWchat (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC) MWchat (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: The infobox sections "population_metro" and "population_total" won't allow numbers in the year format. I tried to add 2014 and 2015 but it turns out as 2,014 and 2,015. - TheMagnificentist 15:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Definition of the term: International Community

The term International Community is so vague. Which countries are we talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.189.64.173 (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect statement that misleads - The subsection of Jerusalem "From 1967 - Israeli rule"

This needs to be re-written to be factually correct and not be written in a biased way, as it is now.

"In 1967, despite Israeli pleas that Jordan remain neutral during the Six-Day War, Jordan, which had concluded a defense agreement with Egypt on May 30, 1967, attacked Israeli-held West Jerusalem on the war's second day."


The facts are that Israel started the 1967 war by conducting a surprise attack against both Egypt and Jordan. You cannot claim Israel pleaded with Jordan to remain neutral when Israel was attacking Jordan, including an attack on the office of the King of Jordan at the royal palace. Clearly an attempt of assassination and an act of war.

Israel was aware that the Arab states had a defense agreement, but decided to attack and start the war anyway. Israel was and is the illegal aggressor and Jordan had every right to respond in defense of itself.

This section is written in a biaed way to lead the reader to believe that the actions of the state of Israel in 1967 were not wrong or illegal and are justifiable and that the continued occupation of the west bank and Jerusalem is legal and correct.

[1][2]

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

47.140.177.57 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Larry R. Erickson47.140.177.57 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jack O'Connell (2011) Kings Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage and Diplomacy in the Middle East. W.W.Norton & Company Inc. ISBN:978-0-393-06334-9
  2. ^ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

People and things in the Quran

As far as i cam remember, Jerusalem wasn't written even once in the Quran. So why this category shows up in the article? looks like a big mistake between Bayt al-Muqaddas (or in his other name: Al-Aqsa Mosque) and the city itself. I suggests to delete it, and stick to the historical facts. FireSky (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_25&oldid=1092040448"