Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2011

Text taken from Talk:Israel and Talk:Jerusalem archives

Proposed new lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New lead- consensus building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

Looks like discussion and progress has stalled, in spite of general consensus. What now? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not actually sure. Maybe I should ask an admin to take a look at it? That Ironholds fellow seems to be good at such things. Perhaps he has time in his schedule. Sol (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know him, but sounds good. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is not a propitious time to revive my suggestion that we lead the article with a statement that "Jerusalem is the seat of government of Israel." This statement is undeniably correct, not contentious, clear, and probably, for that reason, completely unacceptable to both sides of the dispute. Ah, me! --Ravpapa (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That wording might work well in the fourth paragraph of the revised lead: "Today Jerusalem is controlled by the state of Israel, and is its seat of government." I still believe that the contentious issue of Jerusalem's current political status should be kept out of the opening paragraph entirely. *** Crotalus *** 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus to have the lead Crotalus wrote. The fact that we don't have it in the article seems to be a result of screwed up ArbCom enforcement or the original ArbCom decision. I would say at the least the the lead should have a POV tag on it, don't you think? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have put the revised lead back in the article. It has been over a week since the lead's main opponents have participated in this discussion in any way, and no one else has showed up to oppose it since. Given the short, single-purpose contribution histories and redlinked user pages of two of the opposing editors, I suspect that they may be sockpuppets of banned editors. Constructive criticism and suggestions for change is, of course, welcome, but simply saying "no" or "we've discussed this before" or "you didn't follow process" is not helpful. (See WP:BURO). I don't believe that neutral editors should allow POV-pushers to use the ArbCom case as a method of intimidation — that's precisely the opposite of what it was intended for. *** Crotalus *** 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks for being brave. I was just complaining about this somewhere else. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, I have participated in the discussion, and I would like to voice my (weak) disagreement with this lead. It seems to me an artificial and circuitous way to solve the problem. Because the truth is that the most notable things about Jerusalem today are (a) that it is the seat of Israel's government, and (b) it is the focus of an intense dispute between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors. The fact that we Wikipedians can't decide exactly how to say that doesn't make it any less important, and doesn't render it unworthy of inclusion in the lead sentence of the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in the lead, but not the lead sentence. We don't bias things toward their current as opposed to overall significance. Its religious significance is far greater than its political significance. The passing current state of the city per international arguments certainly belongs in the lead, but Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and in this case the religious and historical significance is far outweighed by current bickering. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem shouldn't be treated any differently than how Wikipedia treats the capitals of other nations like London, Paris, Moscow or Washington D.C., for example. By deliberately omitting the status of the city as Israel's proclaimed capital, you're adopting a non-neutral POV. You are singling out Israel for special treatment and this is entirely not acceptable. If there are issues with the status as capital, those can be addressed in the body text.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

London, Paris, Washington D.C., and Moscow are not in the least bit comparable to Jerusalem in regards to their legal status. Under international law, Jerusalem is supposed to be an international city, and the annexation of it by Israel is technically illegal. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not the same as WP:NPOV. It is not the de jure capital, it is the de facto capital. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No country in the world recognizes Taiwan as an independent country and the UN took it's seat away and gave it to the Mainland. Yet in Wikipedia articles, Taipei is still recognized as Taiwan's capital. I'm going to AGF but the recent edit, which is contrary to the long standing consensus version, smells like a massive POV push given the disparate treatment Israel receives.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No city in the world is valid for comparison to Jerusalem in terms of legal status. One can only compare politically unrecognised independent entities such as Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh to this. Both of those articles make it abundantly clear that these de facto states are not de jure recognised. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How about Nicosia? I see you tried to change that one without success as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being mature and assuming good faith on my edits there. Speaks highly of you as a person.

Nicosia is not unilaterally declared in the article to be the capital of only one state, so your point is moot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you're reading an assumption of bad faith in what I said, but never mind. For the record, I could not possibly care less what your opinion about me as a person is. Anyway, the northern part of Nicosia is under military occupation, right? Nobody recognizes it as the capital of Northern Cyprus, right? Yet it is stated at fact that it is the capital. You tried to change it but were reverted, so it's not like the solution you want for this article is being accepted for that article either. What difference does it make how many states declare it as their capital? The point is that it's not recognized (like Jerusalem), part of it is under occupation (like Jerusalem) yet it is stated as fact that it is the capital just based on the fact that a country almost nobody recognizes said it is. Declaring the point "moot" because you don't like the comparison just won't work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not commenting, I've been extremely busy. As noted several times above, in this encyclopedia capital cities (per deceleration of the country that controls the city, even if the country itself is not recognized) are listed as such in the first sentence of the lead, regardless of whether the city is recognized as capital or if it is occupied or not. See List of capital cities. Claiming Jerusalem is somehow unique just doesn't fly. The alleged consensus you guys keep citing to push this into the article (for the 4th time now) also doesn't fly. This also goes for misrepresenting what I and other editors said, accusing me of being a sockpuppet, an SPI, or generally a disruptive editor (I've noted all these things for future reference, as I doubt this is going to end here). Bottom line, we have yet to agree on how the city's political status should be described. Moving the political status from where it normally appears in wikipedia articles just makes it worse, not better. There is obviously no consensus for this change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I voice my concurrence with No More Mr Nice Guy--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an invalid argument to say "we treat it differently in X article (say Taiwan), thus we should do it the same way here." That may be an argument that the other article has the same problem as this one, but it is not an argument that we do not have a problem here. Arguments about what should happen at this article must be drawn from first principles of Wikipedia policy, not from precedent. Therefore, let us put such arguments entirely aside, or else find a place in policy that says the precedent of one article is valid on another, despite questions of NPOV. We can talk about moving the description of its status as a capital higher up, which would be a possible compromise. I've tagged the lead as having a POV problem. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Posted at NPOV/N [1]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can say that all the other articles are broken too, or you can realize that there is a certain consistency within this encyclopedia and this is the only article you are arguing should deviate from that consistency. How many other occupied and/or non-recognized capitals do we have to show you until you realize that you're trying to make an exception where there is none? We are not discussing moving the description higher up, as it is already in the first line like every other similar article. It is you who needs to provide policy based arguments to move it. How does it violate NPOV to put the political status in the first line of the lead? I hope you're not going to use NOTNEWS again, since status as capital is not a one time event with no enduring notability. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia is based on sources, not its own conventions. You seem to be making the claim that, unequivocally, RS state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That, however, is not the case (I believe the regulars here agree on that). Thus, per WP:V and WP:NOR, stating unequivocally that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not allowed. Please stop making the argument that we should do it your way because that's the way other articles do it, unless you can quote policy which supports that position. Since I agree with your position, personally, I would love it if you could make a valid argument that we can unequivocally state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I have not heard such an argument, however. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was talking mainly about where we place it in the lead. As for the description, we've been over it above, I really see no reason to repeat myself with someone I've already discussed this with.

By the way, please spare me the "I agree with you but the system doesn't allow it" shtick. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You say there isn't a consensus in support of the new lead. Can you give me a list of editors who do not support it please? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In this section we have Ravpapa, Jiujitsuguy and myself. In the previous section talking specifically about this suggested lead we also have Someone65, Why Me Why U, and Noon. We have several others who objected to changing the wording but did not specifically comment on the new lead which both changes the wording and moves the placement of the political status. For example, Tomobe03, brewcrewer, RM and GGdowney. Also looks like there are a couple of people at RS/N who support the current wording. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this being taken to Arbcom, because its clear that neither side will ever be happy otherwise and will just keep arguing over it, trying to "one up" the other side. Each time an RfC or like discussion fails to achieve one side's "objective", editors return with slightly different arguments. Wikipedia is not the place for wars, nor is it a place to "keep trying until I achieve my preconceived outcome"...which unfortunately has been the case in regards to Jerusalem. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 02:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not in my case. I had no opinion coming to the article, and really I could care less. It's just that it seems pretty obvious under our rules, if the sources have been explained to me properly. What I mean is, I took it as agree here that RS say that Jerusalem is and is not the capital of Israel. I also looked it up in Britannica, and saw that they only say Israel claims it as its capital. So it then seemed to me that there was no call to decide the issue in WP as is now the case. I would certainly support solving the issue in any way possible, so let me know- let's work together on this okay? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Both "sides" share fault in this issue, just to make myself clear. I still support this going to Arbcom for the reasons stated previously and in the interest of some sort of long-lasting stability. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 03:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I suppose by having an opinion here I've become "involved." I'm not sure I want to be subjected to arbitration though... Still, I doubt they could find fault with me legitimately. So let me know what your plan is. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I also like the idea of taking it to Arbcom. Regardless of how any debate turns out the issue will just be raised again. There's got to be some neutral solution we can adopt and neither side seems to be persuading the other. Sol (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean try to do something under the current sanctions, or open a new case? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously useless trying to talk to some people/puppets, Arbcom is definitely required here to fix the intro. Passionless -Talk 05:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

All it needs, in fact, is for those who just don't like Israel very much to be put in their place. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as a matter of simple empirically verifiable fact. Britannica doesn't like this fact, or William Hague, or Obama? That is simply irrelevant to an encyclopaedia entry. The height of Mt Ruwenzori is x metres, whether or not the UN likes this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.71.134 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"By deliberately omitting the status of the city as Israel's proclaimed capital, you're adopting a non-neutral POV. You are singling out Israel for special treatment and this is entirely not acceptable" - hear, hear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Under international law, Jerusalem is supposed to be an international city, and the annexation of it by Israel is technically illegal" - that is factually wrong. UNGA recommendations are not 'international law'. Under post WWI-treaties, Jerusalem is part of the Jewish homeland. That legal situation has not changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Capital City

Whats up with that? Why is Jerusalem listed as the capital since Tel Aviv is? True, UN doesn't recognize that fact, but we can't look at what UN says. Plus Wiki info in all the other languages lists Tel Aviv as the capital, not Jerusalem. This should be fixed. Norum 19:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem is listed as the capital because, well, it is the capital of Israel. Read the note next to it for further information, and search the Talk page archives for the zillion times this has come up in the past.

By the way, what other language Wikipedias do isn't our concern. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What led you to say "Plus Wiki info in all the other languages lists Tel Aviv as the capital, not Jerusalem" ? Which languages did you look at ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see..Romanian and Polish to start with. How can Jerusalem be even listed as the capital, since Israel doesn't have the control over the whole city and its international leegal status has never been clearly determined? Norum 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel has physical control over the whole city and has for decades. Regardless of whether they had control over the entire city, governing functions such as the Knesset meet in Jerusalem. I would point out that State of Palestine lists their capital as "Jerusalem" even though they have physical control over none of the capital. It does also list Ramallah as the administrative capital, but in the case of Israel the administration is physically located in Jerusalem. Details of international recognition are discussed in the Israel article and noted in the infobox. This has all been discussed to death. Please read the archived discussions and notice that all of your points have been raised before. Just quickly looking down the other language versions, I can find a lot more than two examples that list Jerusalem as the capital, in fact I hadn't found any that didn't in my quick search. The German, Danish, Afrikaans, Dutch, Scot, and Turkish versions all list Jerusalem. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Romanian article says Jerusalem is the capital and the Polish article has Tel Aviv is in error since it's inconsistent with the lead section of the article and the footnote cited in the infobox both of which say that Jerusalem is the capital but that it's not recognized. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem's status, as discussed in the lead paragraph.

I will preface my statements here by highlighting what is probably already obvious by my lack of an account here on Wikipedia. I cannot quote WK: whatever in defence of my statements, simply because I do not understand them well enough, I am not an editor of Wikipedia pages - in fact I have made but one post on any Wikipedia page at all. As a result I would ask not to be attacked for what I am about to outline; that which I believe to be nothing but a common sense view on the matter of Jersualem's status and it's treatment as such in this article.

The opening sentence of this article states the following, 'Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel, though it is not internationally recognised as such'. I cannot be the only one who recognises the internal inconsistency of such a statement? If Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as such, then it is tantamount to false information to state in the same sentence that Jeresulem 'IS' the capital of Israel. Clearly, seeing as Jerusalem is not recognised as the capital by the UN or any of its member states - all of which maintain embassies in cities such as Tel Aviv, including the US, and refuse to recognise the Jerusalem Law - the statement that it is the capital is true only to the Israeli's. I agree that Israel's stance on the matter must be represented, to neglect mentioning it's status as the capital at all would constitute a rather glaring omission, one that would open the article up to accusations of bias. However, it seems beyond ridiculous not to point out the qualifications of its status with a statement of greater quality and clarity than the mere generality of 'though it is not internationally recognised as such'.

I realise that such qualifications, constituting a greater and more detailed illustration of Jerusalem's status may well be discussed at length in further sections of the article, however, this does not seem an exhaustive encyclopedic explanation to me. I bring forth a rather common scenario as my evidence for this. The average internet user wishes to find out the answer to a query, here the capital of Israel; they bring up google to type in their query and are directed straight to this page, they read the lead paragraph/s. What follows is one of a few scenarios; they read on after the lead to discover exactly what these international disputes are, they simply accept that Jerusalem is the capital period (the article says it 'is'), or they give up and cease looking. Now I personally would read on, and I would encourage anyone else to do so, in fact if you are going to use resources like Wikipedia, and neglect to read them in their entirety you are clearly misusing them. However, in this day and age it is not likely that many will read an entire article of such size, and if either the second or third scenario come to fruition, people leave misinformed. Not the fault of hard working editors here at Wiki I know, but still easily fixable by such people.

As such I suggest it is appropriate and necessary to extend and qualify the existing statements on record in this particular lead. By representing the fact that Jerusalem is not considered the de jure capital of Israel by the international community (in clear and stated terms) but is however the seat of the Israeli parliament and considered to be the capital of the country by both the Israeli government and its citizenry the facts would been fully fleshed out in terms easily digested by all readers of this article. It would then be up to the reader as to whether they, like the Israeli's, accept Jerusalem as the capital, or take the opinion of the international community at large, whereby they default to Tel Aviv or other large cities as the base of diplomatic operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.253.194 (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The short answer to your question is that no, indeed you're not the only person to realize the statement isn't correct. You might do well to have a look in the archives of this talkpage (accessible from the top) which contain past discussions on this very subject. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A slightly longer answer is that countries determine their own capitals, and the "international community" has no say in the matter. For plausibility, the seat of government must be there—as it is in this case. The volumes of discussion about the wording of the lead in this article have repeatedly come up against these irreducible basics. The current wording results from a series of compromises crafted through seemingly endless discussions. To say that the statement "isn't correct" or is "false information" or biased is to do a disservice to those who took part in those earnest discussions, and especially to the underlying principles that emerge again and again. Your question is nothing new. Reading the archived discussions will help inform you on the background. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That countries determine their own capitals and the "international community" has no say in the matter is a point of view, an argument used by Israel which is clearly not accepted by the "international community" in the case of Jerusalem. Using a point of view argument to justify presenting a point of view as a fact isn't neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   15:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me towards the archived discussions, I will certainly make sure to use them. I don't know why I didn't automatically assume there must be an archive of old discussion posts, it would be rather ridiculous to delete old posts over a matter of time passage, thanks again. However, I must point out that I never said the statement as is, displayed any particular bias, in fact I said that to pass over its status as 'capital' would display a bias. While it maybe true that the international community at large has no say in the matter of the capital cities of other countries, it is ridiculous to suggest that the international feeling on the matter is inconsequential. You will of course hit back that you no where suggested that the matter is inconsequential, and that volumes of archived discussions convey its particular consequence. While this may indeed be the matter, the current wording of the first sentence of this article, still suggests that Jerusalem is the capital and the international disagreement is of little to no consequence. I point out that if a similar matter held sway in Britain or the US, so Birmingham or Philadelphia were held to be capitals but not recognised as such internationally, the matter would recieve words of far more consequence in the lead sentences of the appropriate articles!

It is not really a matter of logic but of sourcing. Certain reliable sources do state that Jerusalem is not the capital. Thus, we have a difference of opinion in our sources. However, instead of describing this dispute, the current article takes sides in the matter, and thus we have a simple instance of breaching Wikipedia's core policy, NPOV. Being clear on the fact that Wikipedia does not take sides in debates will guide you in your perusal of the former discussions (some of which I moved back here since they're still current). The only way the current lead should stand is if the sources disputing that Jerusalem is the capital are not reliable, or if it can be stated that there is a contrary consensus among reliable sources. Otherwise, it's a simple matter of NPOV and our own thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The only reliable source in this matter is Israel itself, through its elected parliament. That is the only body with the authority to decide where Israel's capital is located. Attributing any reliability whatsoever to Britannica, the FCO, uncle Tom Cobley and all is simply begging the question. Britannica and Tom Cobley are merely expressing an opinion. The primary source is the Knesset, and it has decided this matter definitively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.74.169 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment shows confusion about what reliable sources and primary sources are. It also shows confusion about Wikipedia's neutrality rules. That there are different points of view is acknowledged, but it goes on to insist that only one point of view is the correct one.     ←   ZScarpia   16:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The confusion is entirely yours. This is a question of fact, not of 'points of view'. Whether Kilimanjaro is or isn't the tallest peak in Africa is a matter of empirical fact, not of opinion. The same applies to Jerusalem's status. Only Israel can decide whether the capital is Jerusalem, Tiberias or Binyamina, because only countries make this decision. Israel has made the decision, the decision is to have the capital in Jerusalem, and that is a verifiable empirical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.37.29 (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC) "That countries determine their own capitals and the "international community" has no say in the matter is a point of view" - nonsense. It is an empirical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.37.29 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"That countries determine their own capitals and the "international community" has no say in the matter is a point of view ..." - nonsense. It is an empirical fact.

" ... an argument used by Israel which is clearly not accepted by the "international community" in the case of Jerusalem" - irrelevant and tendentious (and a circular argument). The "international community" (aka bigoted Jew-haters) has no say in the matter, therefore whether or not it 'accepts' it has no bearing on the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.37.29 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Jerusalem is a city in the Middle-East" is an empirical fact. Saying that it's the capital of Palestine, a corpus separatum or Israeli territory then again are contentious points that cannot be presented as facts without embracing a point-of-view at the expense of the others. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The name given to trying to argue that one point of view is correct and that others have no validity is POV-pushing. The "international community" (aka bigoted Jew-haters) has no say in the matter, therefore whether or not it 'accepts' it has no bearing on the fact. I'm sure that "the international community" would beg to disagree.     ←   ZScarpia   18:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so if the international community are all anti-Semites, there's no possible discussion that can be had. As a result, I'm going to comment under the idea that we believe in open conversation here rather than leveling an accusation of anti-Semitism that is designed solely to silence legitimate debate. You should be ashamed of yourself for using such an argument. I'm sure that there are plenty of anti-Semites out there, but I'm also certain that criticizing Israeli conduct, including their assertion (which may be true or false) that Jerusalem is their capital, is not akin to anti-Semitism, and that sort of ad hominem attack is neither true nor helpful. At any rate, on the topic of Jerusalem, it should say something to the effect of "Jerusalem is a city currently in territory controlled by Israel, but with international recognition unclear. Israel claims the city as its capital, and bases much of its national government offices there; international embassies and declarations of the recognized Israeli capital are nearly entirely in Tel Aviv rather than in Jerusalem. The Palestinians and Palestinian Authority claim Jerusalem as their capital as well using the Arabic-derived name al-Quds for the city; Palestinians have similarly unclear international recognition of their claim to the land, and similarly nonexistent recognition of the city as their capital while it remains in dispute." Just my thoughts. 69.203.83.41 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Misleading bit about Jerusalem in the lede

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]". This is misleading, it makes it sound like all of Jerusalem is considered occupied rather than just East Jerusalem. The area referred to as West Jerusalem is in areas recognised as belonging to the State of Israel by most of the world. It should say "partially located in occupied territories." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact no country except Israel considers West Jerusalem to be part of Israel. East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation, West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation. That leaves both halves under occupation. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Who has claims in West Jerusalem except for Israel, and where can I read more about these claims? I'm just trying to understand the source of the claim that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation." Thanks in advance. Dorian in the skies (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You can have a look at the articles Positions on Jerusalem, Corpus Separatum and sources therein. --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the two sources you cite mention that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation." On the contrary (and just for example), the first source says that a "broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem." I'll have to ask again: What is the source of the claim that "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation?" Thanks in advance. Dorian in the skies (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The case for Palestine: an international law perspective by John B. Quigley discusses this issue. See page 225 for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. To summarize, if I understand Quigley correctly, the claim "West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation" follows from the fact that the partition plan "called for an internationalized Jerusalem."

• If this is a valid implication, then at the very least Quigley should be added as a reference to the article in order to support the claim that "Jerusalem is ... located in occupied territories," a claim which with regards to West Jerusalem is currently not supported in the article. Also, in case Quigley is added as a reference to the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it should be noted in the article that it is the opinion of one scholar and does not represent an official position (in particular, it's not hard to imagine that one can find other scholars that argue the opposite); of course, if there is an official statement that supports the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it should be given as a reference instead of Quigley.
• If the article is to use Quigley's argument to support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, then since the partition plan designated Jaffa, Beer Sheba and other places in Israel to be Palestinian cities, the article should mention that these cities are located in occupied territories as well. In other words, if the article uses Quigley's argument to support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied but does not use it to claim that Jaffa, for example, is occupied (surely an important issue with regards to Israel if true, if only for the reason that it hosts at least one foreign embassy), then it is being inconsistent.

Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The article Dailycare cited Positions on Jerusalem includes some books that discuss the various opinions in some depth e.g. Whither Jerusalem?: proposals and positions concerning the future of Jerusalem Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above ("On the contrary..."), the article Positions on Jerusalem does not support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, it does the opposite. The source you provided in your first response do support the claim that West Jerusalem is occupied, in the sense that it gives the reasoning of one scholar for this claim. My two bullets, however, remain unanswered. Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not arguing a point. I simply meant that if you are looking for a variety of views you will find them in the book I cited, Whither Jerusalem?, that is used as a source in the Positions on Jerusalem article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My point was to make it clear that the two bullets I made in the comment you replied to remained unanswered. As you said below with regards to the issue at hand, "[t]here are a number of different views on this issue and they are discussed at length by academic sources. We should stick to those." Consequently, I would expect the article to reflect those different views, and not present just one of them, without even giving a reference to a scholarly work arguing in favor of that one particular view. That expectation of mine is basically the source of the above two bullets. Now, if someone else can address them, I would be grateful. Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact no country except Israel considers West Jerusalem to be part of Israel. East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation, West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation. That leaves both halves under occupation.

• This is a gross distortion of history. Israel already controlled a part of Jerusalem prior to the Six Day War. Israel acquired the other end of Jerusalem (an end not formally defined btw) from Jordan, not the Palestinians - who were Jordanian citizens during this period. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and a sovereign state can declare any city as a capital. Israel controls all of Jerusalem - socially, militarily, financially, and politically. "Palestine" made no claims to any part Jerusalem until well after it was conquered. Whether or not the internationally community recognizes it is totally irrelevant. Republic of China is only recognized by less than 20 sovereign states and its status as a sovereign country is not simply disputed but ignored - officially. This includes any territorial claims, such as capitals. And yet, ROC has no "not recognized by the "international community" in their info box. Nations who specifically deny Israel's claim to Jerusalem should be mentioned in Jerusalem but "international community" is rather ambiguous and somewhat of a weasily buzzword. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Soapboxing is not an ideal way to start post-topic ban. There are a number of different views on this issue and they are discussed at length by academic sources. We should stick to those. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not soap-boxing. See Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan and Six Day War. Daily is making edits under a false premise that is not supported by reliable sources. There is no such thing as "Western Jerusalem" and East Jerusalem was simply a result of Jordan's invasion in 1948. Israel conquered Jerusalem in a war with Jordan, not Palestinians. Palestinians made no claims to Jerusalem or the West Bank 4 years prior to the 67 war. Article 24. Resolution 242 makes no mention of "belligerent occupation" of Palestinian land. No binding law has declared an inch of Jerusalem as a part of an historic or past Palestine. Jordan didn't even recognize Palestinian claims until the mid-80s. Everything is up for a negotiated settlement. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure you are. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" = soapboxing, there is no such thing as "Western Jerusalem" is the product of green-line-blind One-ChinaJerusalem socialization. I could go on but my point is that it's better to base discussion on what sources actually say and cite those sources in the discussion or else this page will rapidly turn into the normal steaming pile of forum-ish poop so popular in this topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily's claims are simply not supported by the facts and history. What claims do you specifically challenge? That Israel didn't conquer Jerusalem from Jordan? That the Palestinians made no claims to Jerusalem until after the 67 war - and the UN never considered the land to be "Palestinian" in UN242? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This isn't my opinion, it is reality. How can you see that as soap-boxing? No international body has disputed Israel's capital, a lack of recognition is not the same thing as a binding charge. Now, one could argue what constitutes a "capital" and if "international" recognition is necessary to legitimize it. Positions on Jerusalem is where all support/opposition should go. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made IIRC only one claim in this thread, namely that West Jerusalem is occupied territory. See e.g. the UK position on Jerusalem for an example of a country that doesn't recognize Israel's sovereignty in that territory. It makes absolutely no difference who Israel captured the area from in 1948. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: what if we change the wording from "in the occupied territories" to "(...) since Israeli sovereignty isn't recognized there"? A downside in this suggestion would be that it's more complex than the current wording. --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the wording is complex or not is not the most important issue. What's more important is that the wording is accurate and that it is backed up by the references given. Right now this isn't the case with regards to West Jerusalem. As my discussion with Sean.holyland suggests (and in particular by the book Whither Jerusalem? that was suggested by Sean.holyland), one can find scholarly work that suggests that West Jerusalem is occupied, and one can find such work that suggests that West Jerusalem is not occupied. The wording in the article should reflect these works, which in turn should be given as reference. Maybe the sentence in question should be rewritten as something like this: "Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, East Jerusalem is located in Palestinian Occupied Territory [reference UN definition of Palestinian Occupied Territory], and West Jerusalem is a disputed territory [reference scholarly work that argue in both directions]." (Note: the wording can be simplified, but as I noted above, that's not the main issue. Also, there may by official legal positions with regards to West Jerusalem being occupied or not, it's just that I didn't find any.) Best regards. Dorian in the skies (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that suggestion. --Dailycare (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro statement on status of Jerusalem

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories". If I'm correct, the definition of "occupied territories" includes only land that was not under Israeli control before 1967. Since West Jerusalem has been controlled by the State of Israel since 1948, is it really "occupied territories" any more than places such as Tel Aviv or Eilat? I'd be bold and add "partially" before "located" in the sentence that I quoted above, but I'm wary of someone becoming angry on such a hot topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See the comment above, timestamped 20:01. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely your "no country" statement is wrong; see this map for an example. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That map doesn't change or reflect official US policy, which doesn't recognize West Jerusalem as part of any sovereignty. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your source? Where is it stated that the US policy doesn't recognize West Jerusalem as part of any sovereignty? The thought that they for some reason lost sovereignty over West Jerusalem sounds silly, for it was theirs in the first place, was never captured, and so on and so forth. Are you certain of your findings?--Zamoonda (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a recent source which says the US doesn't recognize Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem. For another source, see source 33 in Positions on Jerusalem --Dailycare (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem - Israel capital

did the Christian world really aware of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and it's jewish people ? . Why Jerusalem have not any embassy of any country ? . i want to know please. פארוק (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but aware about en:2011 Israeli housing protests . What zydowie blizni mean chanting "Mubarak, Assad, Bibi Netanyahu" [2].

Hi! why you polskie blizni dont have article about the protests? Isreal half a million strong protest.

this protest is from COMMUNIST STUDENT FROM TEL AVIV !!!! they don't represet the all people of israel. and the RT CHANNEL (RUSSIA TODAY) who was interview STAV SHAFIR are russian anti-semitic communist channel . thank you. פארוק (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

after GHDAFI & MUBARAK you will geo AL KAIDA with BIN LADEN. פארוק (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel by the UN. Apparently the original intent for the city on the exit of the British was to be an Internationally Administered City, and not part of any state. --70.145.76.243 (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN authority to designate capitals coming from what, exactly? I'd remind you that while Gaddafi was still alive, the Libya article listed Sirte as one of the capitals because of his declaration, despite world recognition still placing only one capital, in Tripoli. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a country picks it own capital, not a foreign power. Regardless of who recognises Israel's hold on the area, it is both Israel's declared capital and centre of government. The world could (and should really) recognise New York as our capital, but that still wouldn't change the fact that Washington D.C. is the nation's capital. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 16:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN doesn't have authority to designate capitals, but the UN all the countries of the world are under an obligation to not recognize illegal acts such as Israel's designation of Jerusalem as its capital city. Therefore, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital. Under Israel's own laws however, Jerusalem is the capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Arab Capitals template

I think the template Arab Capitals can be added because it shows Ramallah (de facto) and Jerusalem (proclaimed) for Palestine. What do you think ? --Helmoony (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's presumptuous. Ramallah is entirely off topic for this article. Neither city is a capital of an Arab country. There's a big difference between proclaimed and functional. We shouldn't play make-believe. The template shows them because you added them to it. That should be swiftly reverted. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

jerusalem never was a capital of arab country or muslim country. פארוק (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The State of Palestine has been recognized by more than 130 contries, I think, so the notion of its existence and proclaimed capital isn't something to the dismissed that lightly, IMO. --Dailycare (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

jews was allways pray for jerusalem and crying every moment the jerusalem temple is not exists, so jerusalem it will stay as a jewish capital forever with or without the state of israel. פארוק (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Hertz1888, except that it is preemptive as much as presumptuous.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the template is due, but there should be an asterisk stating Palestine's limited recognition. Also, I am pretty sure the proclaimed capital of Palestine is East Jerusalem, not the whole of Jerusalem that would link to this article. -asad (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably East jerusalem would be better. --Helmoony (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Hertz1888, I haven't changed I just reverted those information to an old version [3]. --Helmoony (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see that, and am wondering whether you plan to change it back. Either way, though, the template takes liberties. (I hope we can avoid turning this into an interminable discussion of what constitutes a country.) Why would the template be appropriate for this article? No part of Jerusalem is the capital of an Arab country. We're talking about the would-be capital of a would-be country. I think "preemptive as well as presumptuous" is a very good description. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be no different then how the State of Palestine article describes the capital. With Ramallah as its administrative, and Jerusalem as its proclaimed. Like I said before, there should also be a note explaining this countries limited recognition. As for this article, I agree with Hertz, I don't really think it has any place for mentioning the capitals, be it Israel or Palestine. I think the East Jerusalem article would suit the template, as it was what the PLO submitted to the UNSC as their capital when requesting for statehood. -asad (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there question here is simpler than "is it the capital of Palestine". The template just says that it's the proclaimed capital of Palestine. I think that's verifiable and a significant aspect that relates to Jerusalem, so I don't see a problem with including. No-one here is suggesting that we remove Israel's claim to the city from the article. --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the PNA is pressing for East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem, as its prospective capital. Of course Israel proclaims all of Jerusalem is its capital. Both positions put us, as editors, into a very difficult situation. The former because it is not a reality, the latter because there can be no recognized supranational legality for having part of one's capital in what is technically belligerently occupied foreign soil. I think it wise to lay off this, and if one side won't compromise, there's no reason why the other side should mirror a perceived intransigence. Which, translated means, wait for history to decide, and leave aside templates on 'Jerusalem' as Palestine's capital. It's far better to work on what is incontrovertible and productive, like refining the history of the article. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am really sorry that I complicate you. the Jews will never leave Jerusalem. the Western Wall is the world's most important place for all the Jews. also !!! .... JERUSALEM is the place where the 3 temple will built. sorry that i am destroy your party. פארוק (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose so that the best place for that template is East Jerusalem ? Any opposition ? --Helmoony (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No opposition from me, in fact putting it in East Jerusalem sounds like a good idea to me. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This question at IPCOLL may be relevant/of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-floating an old idea

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

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

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

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