Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 15

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

So, I tried adding that to the lead that East Jerusalem is in Palestine, because although we all know that EJ is in Palestine, that that fact is not mentioned may make the readers, who are less educated on the matter, assume that EJ is also in Israel. It hs since been deleted so can someone please re-add this fact to clear out this systemic bias. Passionless -Talk 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's already in there. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified, that it needs to be noted within this sentence- "If the area and population of East Jerusalem *,Palestine* is included, it is Israel's largest city[1] in both population and area,[2] with a population of 763,800 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[3][4][iv]" because without that note, one would think that east jerusalem was also a city within israel. Passionless -Talk 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Which it currently is.

The old city and the Shiloah (which you call EJ) where The Jewish capital till 70AC. Captured by Romans and passed on to Byzantine (Christians) till circa 638. Captured by Muslims until World War I (under various rulers with a short period under the crusaders. Under British rule since 1914. Captured by Jordan in 1948. Annexed by Israel since the

Six Day War in 1967, and according to Israeli law, part of the state of Israel. All prime ministers and presidents claimed they "would not part Jerusalem", including Yitzhak Rabin (who was the commander in chief of the IDF during the 6 day war). פשוט pashute ♫ (talk

) 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Holy Land was from time to time a Jewish state that always had non-Jewish minorities in it. In other times it was an area in a large empire (e.g. Rome, The Arabic Khalif Empire, Turkey, Britain) that had either a Jewish majority or a Jewish minority. The Holy Land was never absolutely Jewish but was never also a state of another nation. Now we just have to think about the way to put itEddau (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We 'know' no such thing. There isn't such an entity as 'Palestine'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.71.134 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As the infobox image, there used to be a simple image of the temple mount. Instead, now there's an image cut up into many sections, not displaying much. I propose that we either restore the image of the temple mount, or that create a new image cut up into (maximum) 3 sections.VR _talk 04:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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,

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.

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,

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

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. ~~

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

I voice my concurrence with

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)

I suppose that's referring to the dispute on the wording of this article... :-( פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I do feel that the lede is a bit bloated, 3 para would be more concise and readable following

WP:FOOTNOTE style could be used more for political clarifications and the rest could be integrated in the article body. AgadaUrbanit (talk

) 08:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't contest the removal [2] of the tag at this point, but the dispute was never resolved. At the time I wasn't willing to risk taking the dispute to DR, but at this point I feel I understand the atmosphere better and would be willing to do so. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to DR. Before you do, I wanted to make sure that you are aware that of your few past supporters, one has been [BANNED] from this site, for being an abusive sock puppeteer, and another has been topic banned for battleground editing in this area. I am not sure that's going to look too good at DR. Two for the show (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, is that how it's going to be spun? That people were supporting me, as if I were leading a charge? Well, anyway, I'm not just "taking it to DR," but would be willing to now in consultation with others. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that block logs are hardly relevant to discussing an edit, and even if they were there is a long list of "Zionist" editors and their sockpuppets that have been banned. What's relevant in DR are arguments and the relative quality of the arguments. --Dailycare (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

The graphic, "Overview of Jerusalem's historical periods," does not include a key to the color codes which it uses. I would like to see one added so we know what the colors are meant to represent. Thanks. Akenderes (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be "according to the

Right Ho! Done. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

The lead, and the infobox, contains a secondary Arabic name, أورشليم. The lead contains a note that says that this is the word used in Arabic Bibles and that "official Arabic in Israel" combines this Arabic transliteration of the Hebrew name with the common Arabic name to form another word أورشليم القدس. Now, there is no "official Arabic in Israel", there is an Arabic name used by the state, those are two different things. I myself do not have an Arabic Bible, so I cannot tell if the first part of the note is true, so if somebody who does have such a Bible could say or if a source could be provided that backs up that statement then great. But I question including a little used name in the lead and the infobox given that the common Arabic name, and if I am not mistaken nobody disputes this fact, is القدس. I propose to at least remove this other Arabic name from the infobox, and, though less important, from the lead. nableezy - 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you - the lead should focus on the commonly used Arabic name, not on the direct translation. The commonly used name of Al-Quds seems pretty uncontroverial - see e.g.

talk

) 16:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

About the Arabic version of the Bible, it does use Erushalim. In the colloquial everyday Arabic however, and if writing about the city in contemporary times, Arab Christians, like all other Arabs, generally use al-Quds to refer to Jerusalem. Tiamut^talk 18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That discussion has been already discussed [3]. I don't know who has added the second name أورشليم without arguments. it s enough to mention that in Jerusalem#Etymology --Helmoony (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is no opposition, I m going to delete أورشليم from the lead sentence and the infobox. --Helmoony (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The article states that the city has been considered holy by Christians 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." The reference to St. Helena and the True Cross should be eliminated. First of all, there is the question of whether St. Helena actually did find the True Cross when she went on her tour of the Holy Land c. 326-328, or whether such a discovery was subsequently attributed to her. Also, whether she did or whether she didn't, it seems to me strange and arbitrary to date Christian reverence for the city to her visit there. The mere fact that such a visit was made indicates that the city was already revered by early Christians and had been for a long time, though its true that Christian reverence for the city probably declined during the Great Persecution, and was revived as a result of the patronage of Constantine I and his mother. I think the article should just say that it has been considered holy by Christians since the Crucifixion. I am going to change it if nobody objects. Ocyril (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. St Helena belongs somewhere, but not in the main article on Jerusalem. Zero^talk 01:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a different view here. Before Helena, there were no major Christian shrines in the city. Afterwards, the city became a place of pilgrimage for Christians, of which there is no record beforehand to my knowledge. Christianity was transformed in many respects after the

talk

) 01:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine if you have a good source that summarizes it. Zero^talk 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you make a good point Once. I also know of no evidence that Jerusalem was a site for mass Christian pilgrimage before Helena's visit. On the other hand I am not convinced, first of all, that the fact that it was not a place of large scale pilgrimage necessarily means that it was not considered holy by Christians. The book of Acts and Pauline epistles make clear, in descriptions of the city as the home base of the Christian Church led by James the Just, and especially in the description of the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50 A.D.), that Jerusalem had a special place for Christians since apostolic times. And canon 7 of the Council of Nicaea, which you mention, and which predates Helena's visit, officially sanctions the primacy of the bishop of Jerusalem as recognized "by custom and ancient tradition.", and the ancient epitome of the canon recognizes the "Holy City Jerusalem holding a very exalted position among the sees of Christendom." ^[1] I think it is clear that the city was considered holy by Christians before it was a site for pilgrimage, and, I hesitate to point out the obvious, but the fact of its reverence by Christians is the reason that it Helena visited, and the basis for its establishment as a pilgrimage site.

But also i think, Once, that you miss the main point of my objection to the article, which is that the mention of Helena and the True Cross is completely out of place here. The story of Helen and the true cross is not mentioned by Eusebius in his Life of Constantine, though her trip to the holy land in 326 is mentioned, and the later Ecclesiastical historians seem to have picked up the story from Gelasius of Caesarea, who wrote about the story 30 years after the fact (see Cambridge History of Christianity, ed. Frances Young et. al. 4). I don't think Helena actually found any cross at all on her trip, true or not, I think the story is merely legendary. But more importantly, it doesn't matter, because that argument is besides the point in this context. Whether she found the true cross there or not, there is no doubt that she visited there, so the mention of her finding the true cross is out of place. I think it would be preferable if she were not mentioned at all, because that would be an easy fix. If you want to include a reference to Helena's visit to the Holy Land as playing a significant role in Christian establishment of churches in the city, or in establishing the city as a major pilgrimage site, that seems reasonable, but to say that Christians have revered the 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." is not justifiable. Ocyril (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The last edit looks good. This issue is resolved as far as I am concerned. Ocyril (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Great and thanks - ciao for now.

talk

) 20:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The airport nearest to Jerusalem is

77.124.71.60 (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk

) 15:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

With three runways and an estimated 12.1 million passengers a year, Ben Gurion International Airport is hub to Israel's main carrier El Al, and to Israir and Arkia Israel, and is served by numerous international airlines offering direct and connecting flights to all points of the globe. [4] [5]. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I see a few problems with the list as it is now.

1) It seems to be way too long

2) There is no attribution given to these residents as to why the would be considered notable

3) Some of the residents are dead.

4) Most of the wikilinked articles do not even mention where these people live, and thus inclusion would need a citation

5) Some of the residents listed live in settlements, and therefore should be addressed as "settlers" rather than residents

6) For a city with such a large Palestinian population, not a single Palestinian is included in the list.

-asad (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Agreed. I looked at some other articles for somewhat similar cities like Athens and Rome and they don't even have such a list. Not sure it's a good idea to include this. The article is pretty long already.
2. Not sure that's required, but some of them are just low level politicians which really don't belong in such a list.
3. Yup.
4. Again, not sure that's required.
5. That's ridiculous.
6. If it's decided to keep the list, feel free to add some.

I think this list should be removed. But if it's kept I think it would be more interesting if it didn't just include 20th century figures or so many politicians. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The other stuff could be worked out, length and whatnot. Though not required, I think it would be more beneficial to attribution. That is my may concern besides the list being too long. -asad (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How about we start be removing all the 3rd tier politicians, generals nobody has ever heard of, etc? I think if we keep this list it should only contain residents who are known because of their links to Jerusalem, not just somewhat famous people who happened to live there. Then it should be easier to source if necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This sort of lists can enhance articles on small locations, but for a large place like Jerusalem I don't see how it can ever be manageable and balanced. A large fraction of all the notable people who lived in Israel+Palestine over the centuries lived in Jerusalem at some point. So I support deletion of the section. Zero^talk 04:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How about a separate article for now, similar to these articles:

• List of residents of Póvoa de Varzim
• List of people from San Jose, California
• List of people from Belgrade

talk

) 09:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Such an article will be as long and as meaningful as the telephone book. Jerusalem was a very important town for 3000 years. It is not San Jose, California. such a list might be longer than List of people from California Eddau (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Once's suggestion is the right one. We should create a separate list (refer to it here, in addition to the list we have here). We have such lists (tens of thousands, it appears) not only for most major cities, but for most if not all major countries (even a larger pool). We don't, with all respect to Eddau, across the project take the view that "country x is large, so let's not have a list of notables". What is important is that in the creation of such an additional, separate page list we adhere to

WP:LISTPEOPLE, and not include any names that lack both a wp article and appropriate refs -- one or the other is required.--Epeefleche (talk

) 21:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A notable residents list?! Half of the biblical figures will be on the list, almost every Israeli politician of the last 65 years, and so on and on. The list will be much longer than the entire article. Eddau (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like there is a consensus to delete the list. Are there any objections? -asad (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Having done a good deal of work on notable residents lists across the project, I think the commenting editor might benefit from taking a look at them. Comments such as those about "some are dead" suggest a lack of familiarity with such lists.

At the same time, I do think that in addition to mention in the article, a lengthier list (referred to at this article) created as a "List of notable residents ..." is in order, and in keeping with how such lists are dealt with across the project. But that should be an addition.

The overwhelming majority of all major cities and states have either: a) an embedded list of notable persons, where the list is shorter (see, e.g., Venice#Notable people; or b) a link to a page with a stand-alone list (see, e.g., New Jersey#Notable people) -- in which case it often has both. And we have all sorts of guidances/MOS to tell us how those should read.

The same with nearly all major universities. See Harvard University#Notable people -- which is a good format of presentation. The same with all dab pages, such as name dab pages. See Sherman (name). There are 11,000 notable people lists and 7,000 notable residents lists and 12,000 notable alumni lists (the numbers here may be over-stating it slightly, but I believe are generally in the ballpark), both embedded and stand-alone. We have oodles of of people by nationality, as well. Consensus across the project, as reflected by wide-spread practice, is in favor of such lists.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer has reinstated a number of unexplained edits from Gilabrand, suggesting that the reversion of those edits was OR. Brewcrewer, please explain what you mean - edits summaries like that should not be used without reason.

In absence of a reply, this has been reverted to the

talk

) 21:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you reinstated, or retained, all subsequent changes by other editors? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hertz, good question and yes I did so.

Reenem removed the categories Category:Cities in the Palestinian territories and Category:Cities in the West Bank, arguing that EJ is not treated as part of either by the international community. That is simply false. See for example this report from OCHA, or this report on the wall. Notice that they both include East Jerusalem as within the West Bank. I am restoring those two categories. nableezy - 21:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that all these arguments over categories are misguided. The purpose of a category is to help readers find information. It is not to make a factual determination about the topic in question. Thus, the question we must ask ourselves in the case of the category "Cities in the Palestinian territories" is not whether, in fact, Jerusalem is or is not in the Palestinian territories, but rather whether it is likely that someone searching for information which might be found in this article would look in that category.

Here is another, perhaps more clearcut, example: Should Jerusalem be included in a category "Templar villages in Palestine"? There was a Templar neighborhood in Jerusalem at one time, but it would be wrong to call Jerusalem a Templar village (as was Sarona, Waldheim, and Wilhelma). But we would not be wrong to include Jerusalem in the category, because it might be helpful to someone researching the subject.

So we don't have to take a position on whether or not Jerusalem is included in the Palestinian territories to include it in that category. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The category has been removed yet again, despite the removal being objected to and this section on the talk page. Reenem, please explain why you are ignoring the above sources. nableezy - 20:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not in the Palestinian territories. Full stop. 'though not internationally recognized as such' is a stupid statement. It is factually the capital of Israel. Full stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.251.158 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you plan on making any more comments on talk pages please read

WP:TALK. As it says at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk

15:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

BBC - Israel and the Palestinians: Key terms: "The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Between 1949 and 1967, the city was divided into Israeli controlled West Jerusalem, and Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem. Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war. That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory."

Arutz Sheva - BBC Rejects Jerusalem as Capital of Israel: "The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) issued an apology this week for having referred to Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel in one of its broadcasts. ... "We, of course, accept that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that the BBC should not describe it as such."

    ←   ZScarpia   21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is a mouth-foaming antisemitic disgrace. It's none of the "international community" 's (in reality, a collection of mainly fascist hellholes) effing business, nor is it the BBC's effing business, where ISRAEL decides to place its capital. Sean: don't be so effing pompous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If Israel wanted other countries to accept the city it declared its capital as its capital, it should have chosen one which is internationally accepted as being in its sovereign territory. But it didn't. Therefore, as far as the international community is concerned, its declared capital is not its capital. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is supposed to neutrally reflect all the points of view presented in reliable sources, of which the BBC is generally accepted as one.     ←   ZScarpia   16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Oxfordshire IP's characterization of the BBC, and the international community, is completely out of place and inappropriate. It's in fact the kind of mouth-foaming you'd expect in a "hellhole", which is ironic. --Dailycare (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There are over 306 notable residents. Need we list them all?! I suggest only listing residents whose notability is linked to the city's history itself. Chesdovi (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be, however, no clear criterion for selecting people there. Personally I think the most sensible, conflict-free, way to reorganize this is to use the New York model, which has a separate page, linked,

List of people from New York. Note that many cities of comparable status, compare Rome for antiquity and religious status, have no such page. As it stands it clearly is inadequate. I put in Nawi only because I saw how many elite politicians were mentioned, and I tend to react when I see a city's culture appropriated (as it is often in Italy) by politicians, or even film actors (like the actress in there. This will require a good deal of tact, and commonsense.Nishidani (talk

) 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree (mostly) with Nishidani. As mentioned 2 strings above, per the typical wp approach for countries, let alone most major cities and universities, a link to a separate page should be used for the bulk of them. It is also appropriate to least a few of the most notable at the city page itself, along with the link to the other page -- Harvard University#Notable people does an especially nice job of it, but whether the list page is in tabular form or not, having such a page would be in line with wp practice. That list page should, as with the New York and Harvard and other pages, be split up into sections, grouping people by common occupation, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There already was a decision to delete this entire section. Eddau (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than delete, I think that decision should be revised to delete from this page, and copy and past to a new page, as Epeefleche advises.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. A possible model is to be found here—minimalist section in basic article, well-categorized list in linked ("main") article. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the point if we already have a category? Chesdovi (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Hertz, etc. As to Chesdovi's question -- that is really a meta question. We have tens (hundreds?) of thousands of lists on wp, where we also have categories. There is a good discussion of the synergistic aspects of them at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And, in Category:People from Jerusalem, as in the present list at Jerusalem, everyone from the ancient to the contemporary is lumped together. Here, for example, they are sorted according to areas of accomplishment, periods of history, etc. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Average Wikipedia reader knows nothing about categories or how to approach them, while list article is more reader-friendly, isn't it? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree - another benefit is that we can arrange them in to historical periods to make it more readable.

talk

) 11:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the consensus, including the section above, is from both sides that it should be removed to its own page, leaving a link? Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes from my perspective. One question i have is should it be "residents" or "people from". The list of people who have lived in Jerusalem at any point in their lives will be much longer but will be less controversial. Trying to define if someone is "from" the city will keep it shorter but willl be hard to define.

talk

) 20:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It definitely should not be 'residents' otherwise one checks the phone directory against anyone in Jerusalem with a wiki profile and throws in any match-up, technically since phone directories were invented. I can think off hand of a dozen scholars, writers and journalists in Jerusalem with wiki profiles far more distinguished than a dozen already there. I don't add them because it would react a farcical chain-reaction. Like the one that would occur if one put Jesus there, though he eminently qualifies, whether he existed or not. Do that and you get a chain-reaction with St Peter, James the Just, St Helena, Titus, that emperor whose name means public toilet in Italian, ah, yes Vespasian...Pontius Pilate. I'll keep out of this. Far too messy.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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 [6]. --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)

"Hadrian renamed the entire Iudaea Province Syria Palaestina, after the biblical Philistines, in an attempt to de-Judaize the country". No wehere in cotemporary literature does it say Hadrian renamed Judea to Palestine to spite the Jews. Cassius Dio is the source usually listed, or ultimately credited with the facts surrounding Hadrian and the Bar Kohkba revolt. Dio does not give a reason for the renaming in fact he overlooks it entirely! The fact is the area was already known as Palestine. In about 40 CE (before the birth of Hadrian) Philo, a Jewish scholar living in Egypt writes "Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits." (Every Good Man Is Free XII.75 ) Since it can not be proven that Hadrian renamed Judea to Palestine in order spite Jews with the name of their ancient enemy, the reference should be removed, it is inaccurate. In fact the evidence is Judea was also known as Palestine before Hadrian and commonly called such even amongst Jews. Hadrian probably did not what Philistines even were- they were wiped out eight centuries previous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.99.240 (talk • contribs)

The name existed before Hadrian, that's for sure. But there remains the question of why Hadrian chose to use that name. You are quite correct that nobody seems able to provide a primary reference for the common story. I have been looking unsuccessfully for years. Zero^talk 02:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Me too - i've searched high and low, and although there are hundreds of "political historians" who have stated this motive as if it were certain over the years, there does not appear to be any evidence at all. Would be interesting to know what the earliest reference you have seen mentioning his motive is? I cannot find anything in the 19th century, and based on other similar unproven snippets on such topics that have entered common history, would imagine it began in e.g. the 1940s. I have found a couple of WP:RS who agree with us that this is spurious:

• Here the "suppression of the name Judea" is said to be a fourth century phenomenon, not a first century one
• Here the view is taken that Philo's use of the term disproves the theory

talk

) 23:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

small request... but could someone fix the missing articles? For example "According to Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics" should read: "According to *the* Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics"... "occupation of City of David" should read "occupation of the City of David." I know some Semitic languages don't use articles the same way English does, maybe that's why it reads like this... minor edit I know, just a bit irritating to a native-speaker. Would fix it myself but not sure I can when the page is semi-protected.

 Done Hertz1888 (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

there is a real jerusalem , also a new jerusalem Solomon built...the ancient maps ..say that one is at one end of the kingdom..and the other is at the other end..David streched out and made israel bigger..and so did Solomon ..so the truth is it is not in the middle east...period...van buren,mo is the site of old Jerusalem...and look out mountain , Tenn is the new Jerusalem...rock city is the house Solomon lived in..we have established all the details ...period even found where David lived for seven yrs before taking jerusalem ..that is coffee county , Tenn...if you would like to see the evidence ..then goggle me Troy T. Dickerson ..and follow the trail to the forum..that shows the details , as well as the youtube site ...: ancient cartography channel....no theory in a map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.112.24 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Or in verse:

Jerusalem of the Mind
by Troy Dickerson (Ravpapa editing)

there is a real jerusalem, also a new.
Solomon built... ancient maps drew:
Real one end of the kingdom... the other new.
David stretched and Israel grew
and Solomon, he, too.

So the truth: is it not in the Middle East? I see
Van Buren, Missouri, Lookout Mountain, Tennessee:
The old to wind, the new alee.
Rock City the house of Solomon,
And David for seven years in Coffee County.

No theory in a map.

--Ravpapa (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

the real jerusalem is the " city of david " that located south-east from the walls of today. jewish cities are built in a shape of a human foot. פארוק (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove "according to the New Testament" from "In Christianity, Jerusalem has been a holy city since, according to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified in c. 30 CE...," since Christ's crucifixion is attested by outside sources, i.e., Josephus and Tacitus.

According to John Dominic Crossan, "Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litteratusnovus (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Hadrian renamed the entire Iudaea Province Syria Palaestina, after the biblical Philistines, in an attempt to de-Judaize the country" There is no evidence that this took place. The source provided does not confirm that Iudaea province was renamed after the Philistines or to "de-Judaize" The view could be taken that this was an attempt to consolidate smaller provinces in one larger one. It wasn't just a simple "renaming". In fact Cassius Dio as the ultimate source for the Bar Kokhba revolt, not only does not mention why the renaming took place, but even that it took place in Hadrians time at all. Writers such as Philo of Alexandria (Jewish scholar) referred to Palestine before Hadrian was born.

This is an open question that came up a couple of months ago here Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_15#Hadrian_renaming_of_Judea. I agree there does not appear to be any evidence to support the supposed "motive". It is difficult to prove a negative though, particularly one which is repeated often by those who have a point to prove.

talk

) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is no evidence for the imputed motive, then the phrase 'in an attempt to de-Judaize the country' can be removed. One doesn't have to prove a negative. One should write with a source at hand or in mind, and if one cannot justify edits of this kind, anyone should feel free to remove such material as WP:OR. It is, in any case, not historical. Hadrian technically restored an ancient name for the province, since Herodotus uses 'Syria Palaestrina'. Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources that say Hadrian did it as an anti-Jewish act. The only OR here is disputing sources by academics on the basis of the claim that contemporary sources don't mention it. I'll add a source shortly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a disputed theory, appropriate wording has been added to caveat it. Most sources do not mention the supposed motive.

talk

) 23:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Those weasel words are appropriate only if you show that there is an academic dispute, not a dispute on a wikipedia talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy. Actually, my position isn't that far from yours, only I think 'de-Judaize', 'anti-Jewish act' are words that tend to insinuate this was motivated by anti-semitism, and not by (a) Hadrian's attempt to destroy Judean messiah nationalism as part of his geopolitical reorganizing of the area (b) his Hellenic restoration ideology, as evinced by the way he repopulated Jerusalem and reintroduced the old Greek term for the area. He no doubt thought Jewish religious practices were both barbaric and politically insidious for Rome's imperialism. But he banned Jews from Jerusalem, except for one day, not from Palestine. History articles just need to ensure we don't reread the past in terms of the pathologies and obsessions of the modern world.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-Jewish act" is not something I came up with. It's what the source says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Once you get into history, esp.ancient history, you get into conflicts of interpretation on almost anything and every datum is surrounded by a can of worms. You'll find excellent sources using 'anti-Jewish', you'll find sources that stress that Hadrian developed an eirenic policy towards the various ethnoi of the Roman empire. So, to avoid a sentence expanding into a survey of disagreements among historians on any issue, one choses the phrasing all would probably underwrite. A fundamental of encyclopedic writing lies precisely in the exercise of discretion, the choice of language, that reduces to a minimum challenges from all parties. 'Abode of peace' can be well sourced for 'Jerusalem': it happens to be a well-established error based on the widespread diffusion as a fact of what were folk etymologies. Anyone with a mission can justify it. But it happens not to be true, as a large number of RS tell us. What do you do? You avoid using tendentious sources, even if they are good, and find a solution that does not mislead the reader.

The word 'anti-Jewish' misleads the reader for the simple fact that a notable part of 'anti-Jewish persecution' involved massacres of Christians, something which 'anti-Jewish' tends to blur for contemporary browsers not familiar with the subject, etc. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference being that the disagreement over the 'Abode of Peace' is discussed in the references themselves. You've yet to prove that a genuine scholarly debate exists over Hadrian's motives, to provide references that deny anti-Jewish hostility played a part in his decisions. You'll notice I'm not claiming exclusivity, he undoubtedly had more than mere hatred in mind, but you do have to show that there are scholars that dismiss the notion that Hadrian's act was anti-Jewish. Also, where does the mention of the "massacres of Christians" come from? You speak of 'persecution', yet fail to provide specifics. This is a discussion of the history of Hadrian and Jerusalem, not the persecution of Jews and Christians in late antiquity. Dismissal of the "Anti-Jewish" label because it might obscure anti-christian motives as well requires more substance. Poliocretes (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're asking for arguments over the obvious. Good grief, the literature on this is huge and full of dispute, see Schaefer's edited book in one of the links below. I presume people actually are familiar with the general scholarship, and didn't provide specifics for that reason. Get back to me after reading these (reading each time the whole section), and if they are not sufficient I'll supply another dozen, on controversies, differences of interpretation, Christian-Jewish confusions etc. here here here here here here here here here etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all your sources don't support your claim. Most of them don't even mention the issue, and those that do seem to support what Poliocretes and I have been saying (see for example this from your 6th example). Second, you have now removed sourced material from the article, while discussion was ongoing. Third, you violated 1RR. I strongly suggest you self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't make a claim. I made several commonplace remarks. ::Actually, I didn't make a claim. I made several commonplace remarks. I'm quite aware that some passages in those numerous diffs support what you and Poliocretes maintain (see diff 4 p.ix, for another example). If you read everything, esp the 4th diff you will see that Schaefer for one, on the critical issue re Hadrian and the war, which is the context for determining if he was 'anti-Jewish' (an ontological habit of mind, like antisemitism), cites a number of scholars who disagree on how to evaluate the evidence. I have absolutely no watertight personal view on any issue in ancient history, since I was trained to think anything we might say is provisory, and all interpretations to be bracketed as just-so stories or probabilities, nothing more. If I was POVing this I wouldn't have supplied diffs which support your views. I gave them, alongside others which contradict them. I've left a lot out. Go read the Egyptian-Jewish author of Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles, and the secondary literature on that curious work, and it's hard to see how read Hadrian down to 132, 15 years into his reign, as animated by anti-Jewish bias.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you're having a discussion with someone else since I was talking about a specific anti-Jewish act, and you keep going back to whether he was only anti-Jewish or anti other people as well, or if he had a general anti-Jewish bias from the before the revolt. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly revert if I violated IR. All I know is, I added two RS after discussing a few points on the talk page, and they were reverted automatically, as if the opinion of scholars were my POV. I made one revert, or is age getting to me? Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You removed the text referring to the renaming of the province. Twice. Since this material was edited a few hours before you changed it, it's considered a revert. The fact that it was sourced and you have yet to provide a source disputing it (your list of sources not actually discussing the renaming of the province notwithstanding) just makes it worse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So, in these oversights, which cannot be intentional, because there is absolutely no point or POV advantage in eliding an obvious historical truism, (how could I dispute an historical fact I mention above in noting Herodotus uses the term Syria Palaistina?) you want me to revert and remove the material I added? I'd have no problem in reverting, if what you say is correct. Bewilders me that I did that. But, do you think I should remove the useful RS and material I added as well? To cut things short (sincerely), whatever damage I may have done to the text, feel free to fix, if I may delegate to you (without it counting as your revert, of course) the edit. (Context, 6 metres of chimney collapsed in my house, and I have a huge amount of movement and noise about me today).Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should remove the material you added, I think you should restore the sourced material you removed, including the sourced claim that renaming the province was an anti-Jewish act. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That was done immediately on your notifying me yesterday evening, unless I've missed something.Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted 'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David.[37] "Zion", ' because it is nonsensical for several reasons. The ref used for this must support that sentence, not 'City of David'. The sentence said that tradition called 'the city of David Zion'. The identical sentence has been restored with a page ref to a text which no where supports this statement, but simply mentions City of David. Apart from the weirdness of calling an original settlement a 'neighbourhood' (neighbouring what, if it was the first settlement? This is an overflow from recent usage re Jerusalem settlements and very unfortunate).Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David.[37] "Zion". See the dot before the ref num? The first sentence indicates the oldest settled parts were called the "City of David". The part beginning with "Zion" is a new and unrelated sentence. Poliocretes (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the dot, old man's eyes, but if thus, then (a) the comma after 'the old settled neighbourhood' misled me, since I find it unnecessary.

(b) Tradition at first sight would require 'Biblical' or 'Jewish'. But that too is problematical since even in the Bible, Jewish tradition, as opposed to modern scholarship, also retains 'Jebus/Jebusite' (1 Chr.11,4;Josh.15:8 etc.) as the name for, let us say, 'the oldest settled site in Jerusalem'.

(c) The source cited does not have on that page anything justifying Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David'.

(d) 'Zion' which is not to be identified with the City of David, follows as though it were a synonym. Sorry to niggle, but I always think one should write paraphrasing sources, saying neither more not less.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The name "City of David" appears in both the books of the Maccabees and the works of Josephus, all extra-biblical and written hundreds of years appart. I think 'tradition' is a farely safe word to use. 'Jebus' is problematic since all we've got is the Bible, but if you can think of a way to put it in there, I wouldn't mind. same goes for the Zion bit. Poliocretes (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you provided a ref for a dubious statement. I've asked twice where on that reference page is the statement supported. One writes to sources. Please explain the relevance of that source to the statement.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I presumed "people actually are familiar with the general scholarship". You'll notice pages 445-447 of my ref discuss the name "city of david" at length, and quite clearly place it on Jerusalem's south-eastern hill. Sources indicating that the the southeastern hill is the original site of Jerusalem abound, you don't need me to find them. As for the tradition part; I quote from page 447: "It is hard to imagine that, like Josephus, the author of I Maccabees used the term 'City of David' improperly ... he was certainly well aware of the topographical denotation of the name ... Its location on the eastern hill is clearly indicated in numerous biblical verses ... That hill continued to be popularly known as City of David in Nehemiah time ... The actual and formal use of the name at the time of the Hasmonaean Revolt is indeed shown in an official document of Simeon's era..." Read the whole thing, there's more, and Josephus postdates the Hasmonaeans by a further 250 years. I understand that all this doesn't explicitly say T-R-A-D-I-T-I-O-N, but that's just nitpicking. If you insist, allow me to suggest the following:

• Decoster, Koen (1989). "Flavius Josephus and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem". ZDPV. Weisbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 105: 70–84. ISSN 0012-1169.
• Dequeker, Luc (1985). "The City of David and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem" in Yigael Yadin; Chaïm Perelman; Edward Lipinski (eds.). The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civilizations. Louvain, Belgium: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta.
  ISBN 90-6831-031-3
  .
• Y. Tsafrir, The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem, Revue Biblique, tome LXXXII, n° 4, october 1975, pp. 501-521.

I.e., without an adequate citation to back that statement, the sentence is an egregious example of

WP:OR. To repeat, I read the pages I cite, and there is nothing there which would permit an editor to make the synthesis you have made, or the silly use of the word 'neighbourhood' for the first settled site on the hill. By the way there are two points on the hill which can claim early settlement, one is the City of David. Whether that is the same place as the pre-Israelitic 'Zion' is very much moot. And that is why saying that 'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem' is dubious. Archeologists cannot excavate under all areas, perhaps once inhabited, contiguous to the City of David. Nishidani (talk

) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've provided you with four different refs, yet you accuse me of

WP:SYNTH. Here's Ronny Reich, an authority on the archaeology of Jerusalem, saying the exact same thing. That's scholarship. Removing a name that was in use for hundreds of years is not. You do what you have to do, Nishidani, I won't revert. I don't edit war and wikiwarriors bore me. Poliocretes (talk

) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, your first reference says nothing related to Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David.'

Of the other three references, no specific page is given for two, and the third lacks any pagination whatsoever. It is standard in wikipedia for controversial statements, that editors ask those who support the statement and its phrasing to cite the specific wording used in sources. This is not editwarring. I am not a wikiwarrior. What I ask of you, has been asked of me repeatedly in the past, and I responded by typing out the sentences in my references which justified my edit. It is called courtesy, apart from considerations of ensuring absolute conformity of the text to what RS say.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The ref I provided is quite clear about the traditional use of the name. It clearly states the name was in use during the composition of the bible, after the babylonian exile, during the Hasmonaean period and then at the time of Josephus. That's at least 600 years (and I'm being generous with dating the bible). Now I've also provided you with an archaeological authority, linking said name to the oldest inhabited parts of Jerusalem. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the recognition of the City of David with the south-eastern hill. It's accepted, well established and practically indisputable archaeological fact. I would also point out that when quoting academic articles (as opposed to books), one is not obliged to provide neither exact pages nor quotations. It's a courtesy, yes, but not an obligation.

Nevertheless, here's a quotation from Mazar, Eilat (2002). The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations. Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication. p. 1

ISBN 9659029918

:

"For the first two thousand years the city was located on the southern part of the hill referred to as the Eastern Hill. The hill has an elongated shape divided into three topographical components: the northern component is Mount Moriah, the central is the Ophel, and the southern is where the most ancient settlement was, subsequently called the City of David".

So what is this debate about, the use of the word "neighborhood"? As I said earlier, if it's a matter of wording, feel free to suggest alternatives. Otherwise, I've been quite forthcoming with the references. If you have any issues with them, provide your own. Poliocretes (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by this. "Tradition" or not, how can the oldest part of the city be the "City of David", when the city was in existence at least 1,000 years before David even existed (if he ever existed)? Whatever we leave in there, this needs to be clear.

talk

) 20:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No one - neither I, nor the bible, nor any other ancient source, nor the references I provided - is claiming it was called the City of David from the start; merely that the name "City of David" denotes the oldest section of the city. To put it another way, the original site of Jerusalem is to be found in the section of the city known as the "City of David". Poliocretes (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but that is not clear in the text, and an average reader would likely be mislead to jumping to that conclusion without clarification. On a separate point, do you have any sources which suggest that it was locally known as the City of David in Ottoman times?

talk

) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(ed conflict)

"For the first two thousand years the city was located on the southern part of the hill referred to as the Eastern Hill. The hill has an elongated shape divided into three topographical components: the northern component is Mount Moriah, the central is the Ophel, and the southern is where the most ancient settlement was, subsequently called the City of David".

That is precisely the kind of quote I asked for. You seem to think I don't believe in the high antiquity of City of David. That was never in dispute. I dispute, as a native speaker of English, the phrasing employed. The quote from Eilat Mazar, despite her often criticized biblical fideistic approach to archeological interpretation, is fine by me.

I would suggest that the best way to translate your quote is along these lines:-'the most ancient settlement came to be/was subsequently/ known in Biblical tradition as the City of David.'

The ugly POV and meaningless anachronism, 'settled neighbourhood' is avoided. Tradition is not the subject, which is impossible, and being indefinite, occludes clarity that the tradition is biblical. But you will have your own version no doubt.

I don't know why this laborious interchange was necessary. In English, at a glance, Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem/(,) the City of David was patently question-beginning. I may be a nut for nuance. But the restoration of the sentence I elided because it had a 'citation needed' tag for 13 months, with a citation that did not bear out anything about some 'tradition' naming the oldest settlement the City of David, was improper in my view. I don't edit-war, or niggle to make people uncomfortable). My principles are: write closely paraphrasing quality sources, and write to avoid either question-begging vagaries or ambiguities, with a strict eye on NPOV. Thanks, therefore, for the cite, and I look forward to seeing Mazar replacing the old source, along the lines sketched above.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I amended the sentence, though I opted for "antiquity" rather than "Biblical tradition" as that could be construed to imply a far shorter time span than the references provide. Accordingly, I added Mazar but did not replace the old source, I don't think there's actually anything wrong with it. For that matter, why is "settled neighborhood" an "ugly POV"? Idiosyncratic perhaps, but where's the POV? just interested ... Poliocretes (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It just drags over, here and at City of David, into a section on ancient Jerusalem a term that is current for Jewish settlements in Jerusalem east of the Green Line. There is also the fact, quaint to my ear, of using the word 'neighbourhood' which implies in English vicinity to another inhabited site (neighbour) to denote the first settled area. When the first settled area was established, there were no neighbours or neighbourhoods which neighboured on the settlement. In correct English usage, one cannot have a 'neighbourhood' of one. It is a solecism, imprecise, conjuring up a misleading and self-contradictory image therefore, and anachronistic. Thanks in the meantime for the edit. I don't agree with retaining the older ref., as it contains nothing other than remarks on the City of David. I contested the phrasing of the sentence, not the existence of City of David. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why an encyclopedia article should present the minority view that Jerusalem is "in Israel" as opposed to having much of it in the Palestinian territories? Is there a reason why a map of Israel should be used instead of, oh, this one? And finally, is there a reason why you are so insistent on not discussing article content at, you know, the article's talk page? nableezy - 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is a very good reason. Because the map isn't about minority or majority views. It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. So a map of a country's capital goes by the country currently presiding over the city. When that changes and we reach an agreement about Jerusalem, we'll change the map. A map is a location, not a political statement. I'm also not insistent on discussing this here but I think that we'd need to also move most of the previous discussion there if we don't want to repeat ourselves. If we're all willing to agree about what parts of this discussion to move, a little better than we're able to agree about other things, that would be nice. But I don't see Sean complaining. Yet. I wouldn't. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense, of course maps are political statements. The boundaries they create are political, and the names they use are political, and the location of both is political. That is why a majority of Israeli teenagers are unable to identify the Green Line, because the makers of their text books have made the conscious political decision to remove it from the map. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some states recognize no Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, and nearly the entire world recognizes no such sovereignty over East Jerusalem. These blanket statements like is in Israel or is Israel's capital in which you present a POV, a minority one at that, as though it were a fact is part of the problem here. You think that Jerusalem is in Israel, the end. And so you think that the map in the Jerusalem article should be one of Israel. However, the view that Jerusalem is in Israel is not a fact, it isnt even a majority POV. Hell, unless you define what is "Jerusalem" it doesn't even mean anything. What "Jerusalem" is in Israel? The area west of the Green Line? Because the United Kingdom still considers that to be part of the corpus seperatum. The Temple Mount? The rest of East Jerusalem? Why is it that you do not see that you are in fact making a political statement by placing a map of Israel in an article on a place where much of what it discusses is not in Israel? East Jerusalem is not in Israel, that is what the overwhelming majority of sources say. Western Jerusalem may be, or it may not be, depending on the source. But claiming that "Jerusalem is in Israel", through text or through the use of a map, is a political statement, and I cannot believe that anybody can honestly claim otherwise. nableezy - 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish you'd be nice and not say things like "what nonsense" and then try to educate me and go off into things that have nothing to do with the map except for being forced into it to make a political statement. I think I'm trying not to do that with you and just talking about the relevance of the map. A map of Ramallah puts it into Palestinian territory because that's the jurisdiction it's under. It's not about how many people agree with that or how many don't. It's the current situation of the city and that's all. Period. This isn't about your beliefs against mine, because frankly, and believe me, I know what I think about it and I know how you feel, and neither one of us is going to change the other, so why bother? The only purpose you serve is to let off steam for yourself. Which is alright with me. But if it interferes with our being able to work together here, and it makes a mess of Wikipedia, then maybe you and I should meet somewhere and settle all this over a beer or cup of coffee on a beach somewhere, and we can then come back here without all the extra baggage. I'm here because I like this project and like what it stands for, even though I sometimes have opinions that don't always mesh with it. I'll respect that and I let the project be what it is because it's not about what I think. With you, I feel that your politics are the end all of everything you do here and you make little effort to understand that the project is a lot more collective. So, whatever. I wont't argue politics with you. It's not what I'm here for. And you know, Nab. I think you'd get a lot more done if you let things go and think about the whole package beyond your angst on the situation. I think you'll feel better and won't need to bring the loaded emotions into every edit. And I think we'd all be able to work together and maybe even serve as a model for being able to solve conflicts. Maybe it's too much to ask, but dammit, I know there's a person in you that understands what I'm saying. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My use of the word "nonsense" was limited to the claim that a map is not a political statement. I dont see a response to my comment on that point. If you would like to discuss my supposed angst or what you think you know about my feelings there is a place for that. It isnt here. Using a map of Israel for a place that is largely not in Israel is a political statement. It pushes a minority POV as though it were a fact. That is a violation of

WP:NPOV, a core, non-negotiable, policy of this website. Ill respond to one claim you made here, that [my] politics are the end all of everything [I] do here and [I] make little effort to understand that the project is a lot more collective. I dont think I have placed a map of Palestine with alt text that says Jerusalem is in Palestine in the article. I dont think I have attempted to make [my] politics be displayed as though they were facts in the article. It is you who placed a map of Israel with alt text that Jerusalem is in Israel in an article on a place that is largely not in Israel. Kindly look in the mirror when you start pontificating about others attempting to force their politics into articles. Any further comments about me personally here will not be responded to, I have a user talk page that you are welcome to use. This is an article talk page, please remember that. nableezy

- 21:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See, that's what I mean. If you would have said "Look Mike, I understand what you're saying about the fact that Jerusalem is currently under Israeli jurisdiction and so that places it currently in Israel for purposes of the map, but a lot of RS sources and myself don't acknowledge Israel's sovereignty over it so we don't want to say that Jerusalem is in Israel, even if it currently is, and certainly not even in a map", then I'd say, "well, at least he understands me". But instead you're not even considering what I'm saying and rather turning it into a POV issue when I'm not stating an opinion. You want me to respond to you and I always do, but you rarely give the impression you even thought about anything I said. Now, if you remember above, I didn't do that with you. I said clearly that I understood what you're saying but the placement in the map isn't about who recognizes Israel and who doesn't. All I'm hoping for here is the same type of understanding in return and not pointed accusations as if you hold some greater fact or truth than I do because you're armed with millions of sources. And for all the RS out there, Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel. Go to East Jerusalem and ask everyone what country their ID cards say they live in and where they get their electricity and water and they'll tell you. Neither my opinion nor yours counts here as much as a reality on the ground. Based on what you're saying none of the maps of Israel are acceptable in Wikipedia anyway, which you must agree is stretching things a little. Take a look at other encyclopedias and notice they leave the issue of sovereignty for the text and use proper maps of the current boundaries on the ground to show places. It's not a POV issue at all. It only serves a purpose for recognizable placement. There's a limit to how much we should be splitting hairs like this and making articles look unprofessional. Having a street map of Jerusalem in that spot looking so silly should be a concern for everyone and shouldn't be turned into a political match. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I rarely give the impression that I have thought about what you said? I give that impression when I quote what you say and respond to the points? What does Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel mean? What does in Israel mean? Does it mean in the territory that Israel holds under occupation? Or does it mean the territory recognized as Israeli territory be nearly every country on the planet? This isnt about who recognizes Israel and who doesn't, and the fact that you take my comments as being in any way related makes me, well, that you havent even thought about anything I said. What does it mean for a place to be in Israel? Because much of what this article covers is a place that is outside of the boundary that separates what is in Israel and what is in the Israel-occupied territories. Like it or not, that boundary is real, and this tactic of repeating the same POV as though it were a fact that Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel does not change that. East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories. It is held under occupation by Israel. It is not in Israel, no matter how many times you repeat the line. Unless you define Israel to include the Israeli-occupied territories then East Jerusalem is not in Israel. If you cant understand why it is a political statement, a rather fringe sized one comparatively speaking, to say that Jerusalem is in Israel then I dont know what else to say. nableezy - 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You quote me and then go on to add irrelevant baggage from your political crusade to what I said. Jerusalem is effectively in Israel because it is administered by Israel and it is not yet divided, the way you want the map to show. East Jerusalem is not administered by the PA or a Palestinian government. The geographic placement of Jerusalem in Israel is appropriately relative to its administration because that's how geographic locations of cities are defined, by areas of administration. They are not defined by disputes over borders nor by the excess political explanations you add to what I said. All you say is political information that is already covered in the body of the article itself extensively. You are contaminating Wikipedia with your irrelevant political crusades, as you do in this article. You go around Wikipedia and contaminate it with excessive disparaging of Israel, armed with countless sources who disagree with its position, and now you've come to contaminate the page on Jerusalem with your comments above, which have nothing to do with the geographical location of Jerusalem relative to its administration, that the map is about.

Your irrelevant political crusade is so extremely one sided that it should cast doubt on your ability to remain neutral. You don't consider that the reason Jerusalem is divided is because the Palestinians refuse to end the conflict even though Israel concedes all the territories it captured in 1967, with mutually agreed upon adjustments, as the UN Quartet and most of the world agree to being a fair solution. You don't consider that the official reason East Jerusalem is not yet administered by the Palestinians within an independent state, is the nearly racist Palestinian demand of removing Jews from their homes because there are places in the world where Jews should not be allowed to live. You don't consider the inhumane Palesinian demands for restrictions on, and dismantlement of settlements. You don't consider their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, when they have no problem with Arab countries being recognized as Arab Muslim states by the entire world, is the reason they give for refusing to end the conflict. You don't consider that it is the violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world, prominent everywhere, that is aggravating inevitable Palestinian independence. You never openly considered that Israel is doing everything it can to overcome and correct this self-destructive violent nature in the Arab world and forge a Palestinian state. You never once noted that it is mainly to Israel's credit that the Palestinians are flourishing in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and that they may soon be able to administer an independent state there altogether.

You don't consider any of this and yet you dare come here to contaminate Wikepedia and the page on Jerusalem with your extremely one-sided political crusade against Israel, that's irrelevant to specific encyclopedia content and irrelevant to this map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant baggage? Really? Where did I say that EJ is "administered" by the PNA? And how does it being "administered" by Israel make it in Israel? How do you still not understand this? EJ is not in Israel, it is in the occupied Palestinian territories. Your imagination on Israel doing everything it can to overcome and correct this self-destructive violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world is not what interests me, but I do find it stunningly hilarious that you make that statement and at the same time say that I am on a political crusade, when it is you claiming occupied territory as being in Israel and demanding that the language of the occupier be imposed upon the land of the occupied. The use of the word crusade is also quite charming, as its original use was that of European invaders slaughtering Arab Muslims in Jerusalem. That you then call a demand for the dismantlement of illegal Jewish only colonies in occupied territory nearly racist and inhumane is likewise extremely charming. That you then invent that Israel has agreed to withdraw from the occupied territories with "mutually agreed upon adjustments" is not so much charming as it is a complete fabrication. You have to understand something; I am not interested in the absurd claims of a settler. I am interested in what the sources say, and they say that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory and that it is not in Israel. Kindly leave your ranting for your blog, I have no intention of letting you draw me into an argument over whatever nonsense comes out of your fingers. I dont care what you think about the violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world, or the almost racist and inhumane Palestinian demands, or what you think is a political crusade. Kindly refrain from such comments in the future. This is not a forum or your personal blog, this is a talk page for an encyclopedia article. I thank you in advance. As far as the one thing worth responding to in your comment, the geographical location of Jerusalem is straddling the Green Line, which separates what is in Israel and what is in the Palestinian territories. This really is not that difficult to understand. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What is difficult to understand about a city's geographical location being relative to its administrative area? Why must you wave your select RS sources, crafted to wage a political crusade, on this poor map that has nothing to do with the politics? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, the geographical location is in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. You seem to want to ignore that a large portion of the city is in the occupied Palestinian territories and reduce the issue to it simply being in Israel. That you still cannot understand that this is in fact highly political leaves me baffled. nableezy - 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the word 'political crusade' several times to describe an insistence that the legal situation as delineated in RS be duly represented is a

WP:AGF violation, and a form of attack. Editors are neutral in so far as they cleave honesty to what the best RS say of any situation, which is that the status of Jerusalem in international law is as Nableezy says it is. So, lay off the attack language please.Nishidani (talk

) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not attack language. It is a proper statement on an edit revert and the reasons an editor gives for it. A million RS's are irrelevant to the revert on the map. In this case, and many others, they are merely weapons for a political crusade. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is, especially given the meaning of the word crusade and how that word is viewed among Arabs, despite our violent culture. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. I drew Batman comics for nearly two decades and had the words "Caped Crusader" in them countless times. I don't ever remember anyone complaining about the term, including Arabs. I use it here in the context of the word itself, not the "Crusades". It is you who insists on twisting everything in these discussions to wage political battles specifically intended to disparage Israel. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. One cannot use that word in these contexts without conjuring up the use of the word endorsed by George Bush in early 2003. This is a matter of linguistic and cultural tact. Words innocent in our youth take on colour as history alters them. You cannot use 'a final solution' for a detective novel of Conan Doyle's without conjuring up Die Endlösung. And, for the nth time, please stop, by your use of provocative caricature of your interlocutors' views, trying to turn arguments you disagree with into badfaith innuendoes about those who make them, which is what your gross, and indeed reportable, negative characterizations of 'Arabs' and 'Palestinians' amount to. It does not work on wikipedia, except if those who read these remarks turn them inside out to look at the attitude projected, as through a glass, darkly.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have thought of all that before you brought "'colonizers', 'thieves', 'under belligerent occupation'. These are the Palestinian POV-equivalents of 'Judea and Samaria'" into the fray. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

under belligerent occupation is not a Palestinian POV. nableezy - 02:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really now, Nableezy. No need to cast aspersions on Nishidani's perceptive judgement based on "reliable source". If he believes that "Judea and Samaria" means 'colonizers' and 'thieves', then what's a pinch of 'under belligerent occupation' between friends? Maybe we should let that one slide. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy is right, and I was wrong. 'Under belligerent occupation' is the technical term in international law. Again, could I ask you to desist from violently distorting what other people say, apparently to create an image of ideological fixation that is not there. I used the terms 'colonizers', 'thieves' to describe the attitudes frequently found among Palestinians, and their supporters. Noting this does not mean I believe. My beliefs have nothing intrinsically to do with the description of one POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You can ask all you want but I will not stop telling the truth about what Nableezy and yourself are doing here. And please don't try to pretend to be. Your lopsided arguments register an extreme bias with every word you write. If you can't be honest with us about how you brought that statement into the conversation, then you're also not being honest with yourself and the credibility of everything you say becomes even more suspect. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And would you like the favor of telling the truth about what you are doing here? The words propaganda, hasbara, distort, and more than a few others come to mind. nableezy - 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats quite enough. Your persistence in engaging in such histrionics as calling a wish for an encyclopedia article to be something other than a propaganda piece by using reliable sources that make clear that EJ is not in Israel and is in the occupied Palestinian territories to be a political crusade is becoming more and more tiring by the minute. This is a talk page for an encyclopedia article, an article that will follow reliable sources. You are not free to disregard those sources in an attempt to wage the political crusade of claiming occupied territory as being in Israel. The sources are clear on this point, and so to will the article. Of the two of us, only one has pushed into the article their personal political view. Of the two of us, only one of us is disregarding the sources. Of the two of us, only one of us is continuing in a political crusade. Ill let you guess which one, but with a hint. It isnt me. nableezy - 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your sources and their purpose are an irrelevant political tool. Their political nature has nothing to do with the geographical location of a city relative to the administrative area it's governed under for purposes of a map. And please do me a favor by not being so presumptuous that you believe I need education from you on encyclopedia content. I'll not get into the cleanups I've had to make after you lately. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You say my sources are a political tool, an irrelevant one even, and then say that geographical location of a city relative to the administrative area it's governed under for purposes of a map as though that sentence is not itself political. You still have not understood the actual issue. Saying that Jerusalem is in Israel and having a map that shows Jerusalem as being in Israel, if Jerusalem includes East Jerusalem, is a political statement. Nearly every competent party on the planet agrees that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. A thousand sources can be brought that says that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. Yet you feel somehow qualified to be so presumptuous as to completely disregard all those sources as an irrelevant political tool when you are performing an overtly political act, an act that reduces an encyclopedia article into a propaganda piece, that aligns this encyclopedia with claims that have been widely condemned as violations of international law. This encyclopedia is not a production of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and you do not get to shove aside sources because they contradict the position you would like the encyclopedia to take. All this effort to twist the language by saying things like relative to the administrative area it's governed under as though that phrase means something betrays the fact that you are unable to respond to the well-established fact that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. It is held under military occupation by Israel. Israel has applied its civil law to that territory, in an act ruled null and void by the UN Security Council and held to be a violation of international law, but it remains occupied Palestinian territory. East Jerusalem is not in Israel, it is in the Israeli-occupied territories. Those are not the same thing, and Wikipedia will not be portraying extreme minority claims as though they were fact in its articles. Yes, Israel controls, or administers East Jerusalem. That does not mean East Jerusalem is in Israel. You can continue to feel free to claim that the sources that make this point crystal clear are irrelevant, but on Wikipedia that claim is what is irrelevant. The sources are what counts, not your personal wish to see this article take your personal political opinions and portray them as fact. nableezy - 02:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do I keep hearing a haughtiness in your excuses? "On Wikipedia that claim is what is irrelevant." Oh dear. Did someone make you the spokesman for Wikipedia and forgot to tell everyone? You've never heard of an RS source that doesn't apply to some cases? And with this you claim to be spokesman for the project? Can we please have a vote on that before you rewrite the whole encyclopedia? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing with your ignoring of the issue. It is really quite charming. I say something backed by thousands of sources, you say it is irrelevant political baggage. And then you make the expansionist claim that Jerusalem is in Israel, and then make the encyclopedia endorse your unsupported claim. My claim to be spokesman for the project? If you want to argue to the wider community that every source that makes clear that your expansionist views that you have attempted to force in to this article have equal footing with countless scholarly sources you can try that. Id very much enjoy seeing how the wider community acts when your extreme minority POV-pushing campaign is contrasted with countless sources. nableezy - 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sort of at a loss as to where to respond, but I mostly agree with what Nableezy said with regards to the reasoning as to why the map as you reverted it to wouldn't work. Here is what I think are the problems with the map you are proposing:

-It shows all the administrative districts of Israel, thus implying we are looking at a map of Israel, not the Occupied Territories.

-It gives a different shade of color to Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem than that of the West Bank. Keep in mind, no country recognizes Israel's annexation of land east of the "green" line.

-It denotes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights with the same color although the West Bank and Gaza Strip are internationally recognized as being an occupied territory different than that of occupied, sovereign, Syrian territory.

-Though without real relation to the subject at hand here, there is no solid-lined border between Israel and the Golan Heights. One could interpret the map as if the Golan Heights do not belong to any country, although it is, nearly without exception, considered to be Occupied-Syrian Territory.

Given the disputed nature of the different political implications of West Jerusalem vs East Jerusalem, I think the map is fine showing the entire region of Israel or historic Palestine. Though I think it would be better if more of the Levant region itself could be displayed. -asad (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That map is the only reasonable map for this use because for all intents and purposes, Jerusalem's physical location is in Israeli jurisdiction. Everything you say above is addressed in the text of the article and doesn't have to be slapped on this map. But I'm not holding out for some common sense anymore. I'm trying to solve the problem with a terrain map File:Dead Sea terrain location map.jpg that I copied from another one and changed the name so it doesn't have Israel in it, for crying out loud. Then everyone will be happy as WP enters a yet higher level of buffoonery. The map isn't yet working with the infobox template. I left a message with the user who created it and hope to get some help soon. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does Jerusalem's physical location is in Israeli jurisdiction mean? Does it mean that Israel controls all of Jerusalem? Because that doesnt mean that it is in Israel. There are any number of solutions for this, the most obvious being one that shows the Green Line and the map alt text and caption say that Jerusalem is in Israel and Palestinian territories. nableezy - 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It means just what it says. It does not need your excessive interpretations that are irrelevant to what I said. It does not need your political crusade to explain it, because it explains itself perfectly by itself. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that wasnt an answer. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people just love to play "Uh no, not in Israel" game, by Jupiter's cock. I think this is not important, Jerusalem is somewhere there between the Dead Sea and Mediterranean Sea in Southern Levant. We have coordinates up there on the article page. Click and use your favorite map provider. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We do have coordinates and of course they say Jerusalem is in Israel via the ISO 3166-2 region code being set to IL. Funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it would make sense either: (a) to use both "IL" and "PS" ISO 3166-2 region codes or (b) to use none, if other editors do not object. If anyone could craft IL/PS common map, it would be also welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So do everyone agree about Michael's map? I guess that now Nableezy and asad won't have any excuses left against making this article better...-- Someone35  15:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You would be well-advised to refrain from making such mendacious attacks on others. nableezy - 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It is silly that we have to resort to the "my way or the highway" bit. No compelling arguments have been made to my suggestions for map. We are talking about Jerusalem, the political entity, not the geographic entity. What we need is something like this, but with the colors changed to reflect both Israel and the West Bank as being highlighted. -asad (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote for no ISO region code. I wonder if there is a large scale map of the ME we could use that would just show roughly where it is on this planet. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A map with of Israel and the Palestinian territories with the Green Line prominently displayed and Jerusalem shown as straddling that boundary would be, in my opinion, the best option. I can work on creating such a map if I cant find one (probably modeled on this). Who would object to that and why? nableezy - 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you planning on including with it? The wall route? The Palestinian Authority controlled areas? -asad (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither, a map of Israel and oPt with the Green Line, and just the Green Line. nableezy - 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe closer to this with the Golan removed and much of the map wiped. nableezy - 17:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with this one? Or the borderless one? You don't need to create new maps, there are already existing maps that are OK.-- Someone35  17:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is too much unnecessary detail in that map for our purposes here, and for somebody not aware of all the issues here it may be difficult to locate Jerusalem, which is the point of the map. nableezy - 17:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you can circle it in red color so it will be notable or paint the name "Jerusalem" in red or another prominent color, I guess you have better things to do than making maps of the Middle East-- Someone35  18:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think an obvious problem with that map is that bits of the West Bank are coloured the same colour as Israel, which is misleading. --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot put any map we agree on into that infobox because we specifically need a "location map" with the proper coordinate data that will allow it to place the word "Jerusalem" with red dot in the exact place. That's how this template works, it only accepts "location maps". I'm in a discussion with the editor who creates some of them and hope to have a solution from him soon. We also need to separate some issues. The coordinates ISO are a function of the template but have nothing to do with the map. It's an issue that needs to be taken care of separately. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

That isnt true. We can use whatever image we want for a map, it does not need to be a pushpin map. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I saw that afterwards. But not all images work there. The map maker said some sizes don't work. I don't know about that but not all maps I tried showed up without errors. I'm suggesting the one I've just placed. I think the page looks good like this and avoids the problem altogether. If someone want to know about borders, they can take the coordinates to any other map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You took a unilateral decision to put the map you thought was best despite fierce objection and current discussion here with no consensus. You sure are not making friends here with your bull-headed approach to editing and your political ranting and raving. -asad (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fierce objection to this map? Look Asad. I'm not here to rant but I'll try to stop the politicization being pushed here. What's your problem with the map? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[7] -asad (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was in relation to this map. But alright. In less than 20 minutes I'll replace it with a version of the one you like after modifications based on your request. I'm easy when you get to know me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a version of that map that I modified by your comments and for a little nicer aesthetics, the first one seemed too loud: File:Central-IL WB Gaza map.png

Because you're the only one who objected to the other one and wanted this one, I'll wait for you to approve it before replacing what's there. If there's anything you want changed, let me know. I'll do it immediately and upload another version. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine, except there is a weird black line close to where it says "Tul Karem". There are a lot of Israeli costal cities that are missing. Is there a reason for that? -asad (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the cities but that's how the other map was. I can add them in and remove the black line that was also there. Hang on. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why use a map with so much information that's not relevant to this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ive said what I think should be the map, Just a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories with Jerusalem shown straddling the Green Line. I havent seen a real objection to that. Ill not count the but, but, but it is in Israel as a real objection. nableezy - 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You are purposely misrepresenting and lying about what I said, which was only in context of administration that a city is defined by. If you had another idea, then go work it out with Asad who said he agrees with you and now you say you don't agree with the map he wanted. It would be nice if you guys could get your story together considering you're never the ones to improve anything here. All you do is remove, destroy, disparage and cause commotion. And now you say my comments are hypocritical and asinine. I see you want to escalate an already impossible chaos that you are causing. I don't think that's what we're here for but if these are the terms of your participation in this project, then I think WP has ways to deal with editors like you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt true, and any person can examine this talk page and see for themselves. You said above that It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. And I am escalating? I am the one filling the talk page with irrelevant ranting about the self-destructive violent nature of the Arabs, I am the one calling all those that oppose the POV push of claiming occupied territory as Israel's disrupting Wikipedia with their political battles, I am the one who could care less about the encyclopedia? Because I am the one who, shock and horror, actually wishes to have an encyclopedia article reflect reliable sources and not the expansionist goals of a few editors? Yes, hypocritical and asinine. And if you keep it up you may well see how Wikipedia deals with editors like you. nableezy - 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of hell freezing over, I agree with Nableezy. Use one of those yellowish maps that shows Jerusalem straddling the green line without all the unnecessary information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I figured you would agree with me. Not sure if that is more surprising than you actually doing so. nableezy - 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Maps of locations of municipalities refer to administrative area not territorial claims or disputes. This is not intended to be a map about the territory, rather a map showing the location of the city of Jerusalem as an administered municipality, which is what cities are. It shouldn't look like it's divided into two parts to suggest E Jerusalem is administered by an entity in the West Bank. There are no reliable sources to support such a map that Nableezy wants. The map that's there now is wrong. We had a good one but Nableezy and friends are all in a huff about the territory. That's not what this map is about. If he wants to add a special map in the body of the article that tells the territorial division, fine. But it shouldn't be in the infobox. There are no such maps anyway, btw, because most maps for such use rely on administrative areas. You can find a special map about the 49 armistice line, and can add it into the body of the article to tell the story, but it's not appropriate for this infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and no. nableezy - 22:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So, does anyone have an objection to this map? --MichaelNetzer (talk 23:42, 1 December 2011‎ (UTC)

A dot or star or something on the left map would be good I think, but otherwise this looks like the correct map to use for this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I object. There are several problems with that map. For one, it places a border between Israel and Gaza and between Israel and Jordan, but no border between Israel and Syria (red is a border in that map) and instead places a border between Syria and the Golan. It also separates Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. nableezy - 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How does it separate Jerusalem from WB? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The most prominent boundary on the map in the area of Jerusalem is the barrier route, not the Green Line, and with the coloring and the inclusion of the barrier route it appears that all of Jerusalem, in fact Greater Jerusalem is within Israel. I'll try to work on a map tonight, it will be relatively close to the one had been in the article but with most of the rest of the map blanked. Maybe keep a few cities for reference, Im thinking Nablus, Hebron, Bethlehem, Tel Aviv and maybe Beersheba. But could you please stop unilaterally changing the map? I have restrained myself from reverting you, but you dont have any consensus for your change. Stop doing this. nableezy - 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the map on the page helps everyone understand the visualization. And it's only a map that's easily changed. I don't think it should bother anyone and if it does they can revert, it's not a big deal. I'll try to refrain if it bothers you, but really... --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No it doesnt, you can link to a map here. In fact, that is what everybody except for you has been doing. So, please self-revert until we can establish a consensus on what map to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 December 2011

It's not just about seeing the map in its image file. In this case the infobox is so loaded with detail that seeing the map in it helps discern its suitability. Two other editors have approved it and your objection is not based on anything relevant to the map. This map is supported by the best RSs regarding the administrative areas it represents. Your demand for old borders, regardless of how many RSs you wave on it, is misplaced with regards to what this map needs to show. Unless you make a more relevant case for changing it, we will not allow you to continue strong-arming the map to push a political view that doesn't belong on it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You dont get to force your own views into the article. Since you refuse to revert I will, since I dont accept your attempt to strong-arm in your views into this article. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to self-revert. The new map is an improvement. More concise, without unneeded details. Thank you for investing your time into it, Mike. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then Ill revert. Thank you Agada for providing us, once again, with your usual quality of commentary. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead reads:-

Israel captured East Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it. Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital". The international community has rejected the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation

Any map should reflect the fact that a line runs through the city, reflecting distinct legal POVs concerning its disputed status to the East. The box is an info box, not a disinfo box. That map-making cannot avoid the politicisation of the way a territory is perceived is an acquired truism of the speciialized discipline of cartography. See generally Denis Wood, with John Fels, John and John Krygier, Rethinking the power of maps, Guilford Press, 2010. There's a considerable literature on precisely this, which anyone unbowed by the weight of prejudice can google and access. There shouldn't be any fuss over this. It is obvious that maps are not 'neutral'. This is true the world over. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Golan territory is identified by the yellow color as not being the same as the white. The red border is the effective present border. It doesn't mean it's legal or recognized. It's just the present border. When someone tours the area, they don't find a border between Israel and the Golan but they come to the border between Golan and Syria. The line around Jerusalem is an administrative demarcation. The city is under civilian admin while WB is under a military one. This is the relevant information of the reality on the ground and that's what the map shows. I understand what you're saying but I don't see how you can deny this information. It's more important for the sake of the map than the territorial dispute which is a separate issue, and covered extensively in the article. There are no RS sources that would say this map shows something incorrect. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. The Purple Line is not the "effective present border", it is what separates Syrian controlled territory and Israeli-occupied Syrian territory. Im not getting into this with you here, it isnt relevant and I dont feel like pounding my head against a wall for the next few hours. And as a matter of fact several sources will say that display is incorrect. Among them the United Nations, the United States and any number of other sources. nableezy - 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's compromise and call it "the border that separates Syrian controlled territory from Israeli-occupied Syrian territory". But there is no reliable source on Earth that will say what this map represents is incorrect. It might not represent something else, but what it represents is correct. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Purple Line is not a border, and the issue remains that what appears to be an international border is placed within Syrian territory but not between Syria and Israel. The "border" between Israel and Syria is the 1923 border agreed to by Britain and France. The map you are using shows Syrian territory as being Israeli territory. That isnt much better than showing Palestinian territory as being Israeli territory, and I cant believe I have to repeat this but for a different occupied territory. nableezy - 04:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion is irrelevant to the article in that some editors want to turn this map into a referendum on the entire IP conflict. But saying the political issues are covered in body of the article and don't need to be in the map, goes in one ear and out the other. They are not listening to anyone and they certainly don't seem interested in collaboration. They're here to fight a war on the pages of Wikipedia and this map is a perfect example of it. Asad thought it was more important to load the map with irrelevant politics than it is to just show where it is on the terrain. This is the problem with editors coming for the expressed purpose of disrupting Wikipedia with their political battles. They don't listen, they don't discuss with any concern, and they could care less about the encyclopedia. They never build or improve anything, all they do is disrupt everyone's work by removing it and causing large irrelevant disputes. They come armed with the magic "RS" word as if the project has been taken hostage by their select sources. That's why we're using a map with so much irrelevant information. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Says the person claiming occupied Palestinian territory is in Israel, and doing so in an article no less. Political battles may ass, look in the mirror. Ill put my record, or Nishidani's, up against your any day and we can see who is building and who is disrupting. But once again, this is an article talk page. Kindly stop making these hypocritical and truly asinine comments. nableezy - 13:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said any territory is in Israel, if you didn't notice. Of course, you wouldn't notice that I only talked about the administration of a city, because you're too busy fighting a war for Palestine instead of improving the encyclopedia. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. You used a map that placed the city in Israel, that had alt text that said Jerusalem is located in Israel, and said on this talk page that It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. You really should reconsider your proclivity for making things up, especially if you are going to contradict yourself in the future. It is much wiser to ensure that you are being truthful to begin with, that way it is not as hard to keep your story straight. nableezy - 13:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A municipality is defined by its area of administration. Jerusalem is a municipality, a city. Thus Jerusalem's placement on the map reflects its area of administration, not a border dispute that has no consequence on the administration of the city. Israel takes responsibility for all of the residents of Jerusalem and administers their needs. When that changes and the municipality is divided into two administrative areas, then we can discuss a suitable geographical representation of Jerusalem. You never once responded to my saying this as if nothing I say counts except your passionate war filter about occupied territories. This is not what collaboration is about. It's not what discussion and exchange of ideas are about. You are expected to be considerate of another editors argument, but you know no such thing. You should try to learn from me what it is to be considerate and attentive. I'm the one who spent hours making that map look presentable in order to appease Asad's political hunger that you also crave. When the day comes that you start showing some respect and collaborative spirit, then we can put these disputes behind us. Until then, if you choose war, then you'll have it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You still do not get it. You made an encyclopedia article say that occupied Palestinian territory is in Israel. The geographic location of Jerusalem is in Israel and the Palestinian territories. If you would like me to be considerate, you might want to reconsider the ridiculous rants you have filled this talk page with. I am not the one discussing an Israeli compulsion for dominance over the natives and their land, a colonial enterprise that seeks to subjugate and control, or any other POV that I may or may not hold. You are the one doing this. I have responded to you several times, and each times you brush aside that response and say something like RSs are an irrelevant political tool or the geographic location is in Israel without once considering that your overtly political campaign compromises the integrity of the article by allowing minority claims to be presented as objective truth and trampling over well-established facts. Again, this is an article talk page. I dont want to discuss your personal views, they dont interest me. I dont edit Wikipedia to read the views of some settler, if I wanted to do that I would ask you to start a blog. This is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. And those sources say, very clearly, that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. That Israel controls (occupies is the correct word) East Jerusalem does not make East Jerusalem in Israel. You are the one performing overtly political actions in article space, and then you accuse those of us who call you on your expansionist hasbara campaign to be engaged in a political battle. Yeah, right. Kindly desist with these charges. If you do not I will do what I have to to ensure that we no longer have to read such hypocrisy. nableezy - 14:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again you accuse me falsely. Its placement in Israel is not one of territorial dispute. The map I used is with Israel's administration is the best one because the administration of a city is what defines it. Not disputes over its territory. That is a majority RS view about municipalities. The territorial disputes are covered in the article. Your sources about territory are irrelevant to the map. Your distorting what I say, as if to mean that I don't recognize the territorial dispute is disingenuous and misleading, and insidious. You can keep talking as if you only know how to talk to yourself. I will take every opportunity to show how you're misrepresenting my statements to mean something they don't intend, in order to continue waging your war here armed with irrelevant sources to this map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your own words are clear, and these attempts to change those clear words into something else is a familiar tactic but not an effective one. I dont care about what you recognize, and I have made no comment on what you recognize, only what you have put into an encyclopedia article. You still dont get the point. No matter who controls or occupies East Jerusalem, its location is in the oPt, and claiming that it is in Israel because Israel administers the city is about a rank a POV push as I have seen in some time. nableezy - 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just like in the 30s people said that Jerusalem was in Great Britain and in the 19th century people said it was in the Ottoman Empire because they ruled it, it is now in Israel since the Israeli taxpayer's money goes to social security for Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem as well as to Jews in Western Jerusalem and since all the residents of Eastern Jerusalem have Israeli passports-- Someone35  19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that Jerusalem was in Great Britain, and Jerusalem was in the Ottoman Empire. It was not "Ottoman-occupied" or whatever term you want to claim would be equivalent to the current status. And no, residents of East Jerusalem do not have Israeli passports, they have the status of permanent resident, not citizens. But that is irrelevant, East Jerusalem is considered to be, by nearly the entire world, in the occupied Palestinian territories, not in Israel. Your belief does not trump the sources, and the sources are clear on this point. nableezy - 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say the Ottoman Empire wasn't an occupier of Jerusalem? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The term belligerent occupation has a specific meaning, and the transformation from the idea of a right of conquest to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force as a principle of international law took place around WW I. If you are actually interested in this, I suggest a reading of The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by Susan Korman. nableezy - 04:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No one said Belligerent occupation or attempted to draw a distinction. All that was said was: "it was in the Ottoman Empire because they ruled it" and you extrapolated a distinction between types of conquest (by right or by belligerence) automatically to isolate Israel's "belligerence", when Jerusalem was for all intents and purposes occupied by the Ottoman Empire. The terms don't change the reality. This is the concern I've raised about every dispute with you being dragged into this area when it's not relevant to specific issues. BTW, The Ottoman conquest would have been considered belligerent had it occurred after WW1. The only reason for inventing the distinction was to diminish from the severity of Arab conquest of another Arab country. Hardly a good case for the distinction you make. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about now? I said that it was in the Ottoman Empire too, but there isnt an equivalence between being in the Ottoman Empire and being in Israel, because sources say that Palestine was in the Ottoman Empire. And the Turks arent exactly Arab, so your rather silly attempt at inventing a reason for this distinction fails. The occupation has a specific meaning, dont blame me if you dont understand that. It doesnt apply to the Ottomans, sorry to burst your bubble. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nableezy do you like your pizza with olives or with mushrooms?-- Someone35  06:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? nableezy - 06:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Map options

Does anybody object to this map and if so why? The base for that map is the CIA World Factbook map of Israel. I made some modifications, namely removing a number of cities, modifying the color of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and added Nablus and Hebron. I also changed the color of the dot for Jerusalem from black to red. nableezy - 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like giving Israel a white color and the West Bank more of a color similar to Jordan and Egypt seems to imply it is a map of Israel. I think Israel and the PTs should be more of a similar color that differs from that of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. -asad (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What colors did you have in mind? Personally I think this scheme is pretty good, it shows Israel as one, the oPt as another, and the surrounding states as another, with that one being duller. nableezy - 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If Israel is white, I think it might be better if the PTs are a greyish color, therefore to associate the lighter colors with content at hand (the location of Jerusalem), and the yellowish colors being foreign countries. -asad (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with this one is that you erased Tel Aviv and kept Ashkelon on the map, yet Tel Aviv is a much bigger and more important city than Ashkelon so if you can replace Ashkelon's location with Tel Aviv's location that'll be good, but I still prefer this one because it shows Jerusalem's location near important places such as Ben Gurion airport and the expansion of the settlements in the west bank and the route of the separation barrier which can be useful for readers-- Someone35  17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please dont modify your comment after it has been responded to. As far as what you wrote here, most of that is not relevant to this article. We dont need to include all the settlements, or the wall, or most anything else. nableezy - 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, Ill do that. nableezy - 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Gaza City would be good to add as well, considering how big it is. -asad (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this map is fine. I liked that the other map had a blowup of the city and nearby area though. Tel Aviv rather than Ashkelon makes sense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I uploaded a new version of the map. Tel Aviv has replaced Ashkelon, I also remove Eilat and added Gaza. I also lightened the color for the Palestinian territories to give it more of a contrast with the other countries on the map. Objections to the new one? For reference, the first version is this and the new one (for now this link will work) this nableezy - 05:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The urge to nitpick is strong, but frankly I don't care enough. Looks fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The latest one looks great. Thanks for doing that Nableezy. No objections here. -asad (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel now looks like other countries, maybe you can highlight it as well? I mean make it in light blue or something so there will be contrast between it and the west bank-- Someone35  07:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean, the color of Israel did not change in the new map. nableezy - 17:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean that it now looks like the west bank is highlighted and Israel looks more like the countries around it, so if you painted the west bank with yellow and you want to make a contrast between the two maps then paint Israel with the opposite color which is blue-- Someone35  18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so. The difference between Israel and the surronding countries is about the same as the difference between Palestinian territories and the surrounding countries. Making Israel a shade of blue will look bad in my opinion. nableezy - 18:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with Nableezy's latest map version. --Dailycare (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to this map:

• This is not a location map for Jerusalem. It's a map of Israel and vicinity, which is an overkill for what's needed here.
• Its a vertical map which means it will take up a major portion of the infobox and push important information further down. Horizontal location maps, such as the one that was there before Nableezy removed it, are devised to solve this problem on these infoboxes.
• The map is loaded with political innuendo. It's alright to use a map like this to clarify a territorial political dispute but general location maps are not meant to serve such a purpose. The map does not represent the reality on the ground in the region relative to continuous administrative areas. The coloring of the Golan Heights makes it appear there is a border between them and Israel (the small text explaining "Israeli occupation" is lost in the first impression it makes). There is no representation of all of Jerusalem being currently in one administrative area.

It's not proper to use this map to push a political statement. It is meant to be a location map for a municipality and it should serve that purpose alone. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is general agreement that this map is fine. You are now edit-warring over the map. If you continue doing so I will ask that you be restricted from continuing your disruptive actions. As there is an apparent consensus for this new map I am replacing the one in the article with this one. As far as your last comment, the map you reverted to in the article is pushing a political statement, namely that the Golan and that EJ is in Israel. They arent, and your repeated attempts to push this fringe POV as fact in the article violates several policies, most notably

WP:NPOV. nableezy

- 20:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This location map should not be the biggest object on the info box. There is no reason for such a large map of Israel to show Jerusalem's location, which disrupts the information in the box. That's why horizontal maps were made. This is not an issue of consensus, it's a matter of encyclopedic style. If anyone is being disruptive here it's yourself, who's trying to push a political statement into the map and disrupting the information. These location maps are used extensively in Wikipedia. They do not make a political statement but rather denote administrative areas on the ground, which are not fringe POVs. Your map belongs somewhere else, maybe. Like in a section about land disputes. But it is not a location map and it's unsuitable for use in the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is one unsupported assertion after another. You are in fact trying to push a political statement into the infobox, the problem with that is that the political statement you wish to push in is a fringe minority one. But to satisfy the one concern of your that might have some merit, I have uploaded a new version of the map. This map is cropped to alleviate your concern about the map being to large. The new one is this (the old one this). A byproduct of this is that the cities of Nazareth and Haifa no longer appear, nor do the Golan Heights or the border with Lebanon. I think that should do it. Unless of course you want to continue arguing that claiming occupied Palestinian or Syrian territory is Israeli territory is not a political statement. But you are not the final arbiter of what map should be used. There is general agreement that the map should show Jerusalem straddling the Green Line, and there is general agreement that this map is fine for the infobox. You can continue arguing to your hearts content, but you cannot filibuster any progress and you cannot continue edit-warring over the map. nableezy - 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A few editors agreement over the weekend cannot override a misrepresentation of the location of Jerusalem as an administrative municipality. Your map is wrong because it gives the impression that a border cuts through Jerusalem and that E Jerusalem is under West Bank administration. This is not the case and there are no reliable sources to support it. It is also still too large for the infobox and carries too much irrelevant information. It introduces an irrelevant a political statement that is already covered in the text and should be stated elsewhere, not in a location map. This map remains the best map for the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense. There is no misrepresentation, Jerusalem is in fact cut in half by a boundary, and that boundary is what separates Israel and the Palestinian territories. Thousands of reliable sources support that, and you cannot continue claiming that your fringe POV that Jerusalem is "in Israel" override those sources. And yes, consensus does override your fringe POV. Yjere is no irrelevant information in the map, none at all. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, what's the problem with this map? IMO it is the best map possible. Also notice that the current map looks like Jerusalem is in the West Bank (yellow is more prominent than white) and it's not. -- Someone35  14:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A number of people agree that this map has too much unnecessary detail. The map you removed did not show that Jerusalem is in the West Bank, it showed it split, right down the middle in both the dot and the word Jerusalem, between Israel and the West Bank by the Green Line. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That map is a little better as far as clarifying the municipal administrative location, but it's too large and carries too much unnecessary information for what this infobox needs. This map remains the best map for this use. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on what is best remains unsupported. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are 5 people that have agreed that this map should be used in the infobox. Two apparently disagree, with one of those making absurd claims that a map that shows Jerusalem and the Golan as being in Israel is not a political statement and the other claiming that the map shows Jerusalem as being in the West Bank, which it does not do. Can somebody explain to me why two editors are allowed to disregard that there is in fact a general agreement on using this map in the infobox? nableezy - 17:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone35, that map has three major issues that I can see at a glance, namely: first, it presents bits of the WB with the same colour as Israel, which creates an impression those areas would be Israeli. Second, it presents the apartheid wall as a border-line entity, and finally it contains too much detail overall. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Then what the problem with Michael's map? It doesn't have any of the problems you mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 December 2011‎ (UTC)

No, it has many more problems, problems that have been discussed rather extensively above. nableezy - 06:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I object. There are several problems with that map. For one, it places a border between Israel and Gaza and between Israel and Jordan, but no border between Israel and Syria (red is a border in that map) and instead places a border between Syria and the Golan. It also separates Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.

— nableezy - 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC) copied by AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC), for clarity

Comment: The main problem with Nableezy's map as I see it is that it doesn't actually show Jerusalem's location, and the location chosen for the dot is arbitrary. In other words, the map is not accurate. In addition, it does not include the borders of Jerusalem which are included in our location maps, and are especially relevant for the city of Jerusalem. The fact that it's a vertical map also doesn't help. Since I made the alternative map being proposed (more or less), if Nableezy can list a series of issues in points, I will try to address them. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand, the position of the dot is arbitrary? It is the same position used in the CIA World Fact Book map. Most pushpin maps used do not include city borders, so I dont see how that is a valid complaint. If you want a list of problems with the maps you made, sure. 1. The Green Line is much less prominent than other boundaries such as the barrier route. 2. There is an international border drawn within Syrian territory but not one between Israel and Syria. 3. Gaza and the West Bank are different colors. 4. An international border is placed between Israel and Gaza but not between Israel and the West Bank. 5. The Golan and the West Bank are the same color where their status is different. 6. The difference in color between Israel and the West Bank is too small. 7. There are areas east of the Green Line with the same color as Israel, presumably because they are west of the barrier route. nableezy - 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been saying this all along. The map maybe represents a political territorial dispute but not the location of the municipality of Jerusalem, nor does it reflect the continuous administrative area it covers. There is no border dividing Jerusalem between two districts as the map shows. It's also painfully large for use in the infobx and has too many unnecessary details. But notice after countless efforts to explain this, Nableezy responds as if nothing of substance was said and continues with his territorial political arguments. There's a serious problem of attitude here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You actually have not been saying that at all. You still have not said what unnecessary details are in the map, besides the rather funny belief that including the fact that EJ is in the Palestinian territories is an unnecessary detail. nableezy - 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not been reading attentively nor listening, and you're still being evasive and disruptive. I've said exactly that throughout the discussion. In file:Jerusalem1map.png, East Jerusalem is marked in Palestinian territory by the line running through the city, your sarcasm about it being funny is more of your evasive and disruptive attitude. Your map shows unnecessary details such as the entire West Bank, Jordan, and other towns which make it a map of central Israel and not a location map of Jerusalem. It is also a map about the territorial political dispute and belongs somewhere else. Not in a map showing the location of a municipality. Until you become a little more collaborative and show that you consider what's being said, so as to make speaking with you worthwhile, I'll not be wasting my time explaining myself again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you really should reconsider your proclivity for making things up. You, nor anybody else, has, prior to Yn's comment, said that the location of the Jerusalem as shown on that map is inaccurate. That is the lone issue that Yn raises that has any validity, and I will be asking others to see if they agree with him. nableezy - 15:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

So far number of maps were considered:

• Where is Jerusalem?
• 
  Dead Sea terrain location map
• 
  Ashdod Israel map
• 
  West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements)
• 
  Central-IL WB Gaza map
• 
  Jerusalem map Green Line
• 
  An improved version of that map
• 
  Jerusalem1map
• 
  Jerusalem terrain location map
• 
  Jerusalem location with amended border and color issues
• 
  Jerusalem location monotone1
• 
  Jerusalem location monotone2
• 
  Jerusalem location monotone3
• 
  Jerusalem location new color

It appears that the hell refuses to freeze over and no new common ground was found. Consensus is not synonymous with unanimous decision and we could start banning editors who disagree, but in meanwhile, I'm going to implement

You didnt revert a bold edit, you reverted an edit that had consensus. Considering your past I would have hoped you would not do that anymore. nableezy - 15:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view the root of the problem was that editing started before consensus was established, with several bold changes, each change objected by some of discussing editors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats so nice for your view. What I see is that you reverted an edit that have 5 people supporting and 2 opposing. nableezy - 15:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're starting from scratch, my unreserved vote goes to File:Jerusalem1map.png. The only map from the gallery that serves the purpose of this infobox appropriately and correctly. The longstanding map is fine for another use but it does not show the location of Jerusalem, which this map should. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, Nicosia. It's easy. The complexity isn't in the infobox. Detailed maps can go in the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia is a barren map with only Nicosia in it. It's also a horizontal thin map suitable for the infobox. It much more resembles File:Jerusalem1map.png than Nableezy's more detailed map that can go in the article, as you suggest. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you not realize how flawed your map is even you want to consider the "reality of the situation?" All the Area "A"'s in the West Bank are administered by the Palestinian Security, both in civil and security affairs. So we ought to draw a line around those areas in the map you are proposing to reflect the "reality" of the situation, right? -asad (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It only looks flawed in the eyes of someone trying to add extraneous political/territorial details that the map doesn't need for a location of Jerusalem's administrative municipality. Look at Nicosia Cyprus location map again. It doesn't even distinguish color between Greek and Turkish administrations. When someone tried such a map here it was refused because it doesn't show territorial disputes. This map is not intended to be about WB administration that it needs all that detail. There are other places to make such a statement. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Asad, then let's use this map, which shows the areas owned by the Palestinian authority... Although Michael's map is the best option if you want a simple map that shows the accurate location of Jerusalem in Israel and the West Bank... I don't get why you oppose to that map-- Someone35  16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you dont get that you simply are not paying attention. The reasons Michael's favored map is unacceptable have been repeated several times. Wikipedia is not in the business of accepting expansionist propaganda as fact in its articles. nableezy - 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to make things more complicated with such a map. The arguments for all that detail are not relevant to what the infobox needs. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you are either being disingenuous or dishonest, I cant figure which, when you claim that your favored map doesn't show territorial disputes. On the contrary, your map takes a position, a minority position at that, in the territorial dispute, claiming occupied Palestinian territory as being in Israel. Your repeated posturing over others supposed political motives when you are the user who is attempting to force a fringe political viewpoint into the article as though it were fact is more than a bit hypocritical and not at all endearing. nableezy - 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're distorting what I say about administrative area again and turning it into an issue of territorial claim. These are two distinct issues and you apparently do not understand the difference between them. I've tried to be more than endearing to you in the face of your repeated antagonism, lording it over everyone and personal insults here (hypocritical), while pushing a political issue into a location map. If you'd like to understand my endearment, then please start showing some of it yourself, and you'll see that I've been very patient and nice with you considering your hostility. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, it must be my self-destructive and violent Arab nature that keeps getting in the way. You, again, miss the point. By claiming occupied Palestinian territory as being in Israel you are pushing a political POV, an extreme minority one. It doesnt magically disappear because you say so, and your repeated attempts to claim all those who reject your blatant POV push are in fact the ones politicizing the issue is, again, incredibly hypocritical. nableezy - 16:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said that about you so don't try to distort my words with inflammatory accusations. No one claimed "Palestinian territory as being in Israel". Jerusalem is administered by Israel which is what a location map of the Jerusalem municipality should convey. But even so, the proper map shows the line dividing the territories, which is apparently not enough for you. I'm not keeping track of your personal insults but try to be more careful because someone else might be. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please have a look at File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg for a reality check, both in terms of the detailed map and the small overview map in the lower right. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean, please don't insinuate that I need a reality check. And I'm not sure what you're saying anymore. First you said everything was simple with the Nicosia map. Now you're introducing a much more complicated map. I don't know why you've changed your position so you might want to help me understand. I've said repeatedly that there's a place for such a map but it doesn't belong in this infobox. Go ahead and insert the CIA map into the article where it talks about the current territorial issues. That's where such a map belongs. This dispute is about what's proper for the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he is talking about the tiny map in the right hand corner of the CIA map as an example. -asad (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what Sean was talking about. But my answer remains that the CIA map is not a location map of the Jerusalem municipality. It's a territorial dispute map. Period. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

reality check in wiki-world=how RS do it, what are the features they regard as important enough to include. Michael, I don't insinuate. If I want to tell you something I will tell you straight and I know you won't cry about it. Let's try to stick to the matter at hand. And yes, I mostly meant the tiny map (because above all else we need a map that shows where the city is) but also to illustrate that of course RS include the green line. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would hesitate to equate reality with RS and I'd like to see where any WP policy makes such "wiki-world" assertion. Even WP:RS doesn't make such a broad claim. Such a map as in the small CIA version denotes Jerusalem's position relative to the territorial dispute. It is not an applicable RS for showing the administrative area of a municipality in its infobox. But the municipal administration map in File:Jerusalem1map.png already shows the green line. Why that's not enough for you is beyond me. So I'm left with feeling that some editors are arguing for removing the appropriate municipality's administrative area in favor of asserting a territorial issue that belongs elsewhere. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I'm sure you don't really think that drawing the "separation fence" as some kind of border between Israel and the WB wouldn't be an extreme claim with regard to a territorial dispute? Not even the Israeli government claims that those areas are in Israel. The Israeli government does claim that the Golan Heights would be in Israel, but that's a minority viewpoint internationally, so again pushing it is an extreme claim with regard to a territorial dispute. Likewise File:Jerusalem1map.png shows no red line between Israel and the WB, and the left-hand side gives the impression that Jerusalem would fall entirely within Israel. Now since I don't believe you think so, why are you pushing this? Do you know that filibustering on a talkpage can get you banned? --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are again speaking about a territorial dispute. Do I have to repeat myself every time about what a municipal administrative area map for an infobox is? If you're going to threaten me with getting banned then I suggest you report me or don't say anything about it altogether. I'm not impressed with hot air. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I see an example of someone getting banned for "filibustering on a talkpage"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, if you want a borderless map that is simple then why did you refuse to this map?-- Someone35  12:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, according to

WP:DE. The latter begins by saying: "This page in a nutshell: Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk

) 12:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare, I'm going to explain this one more time because you seem to have not read the discussions here, or you haven't paid attention. A location map of Jerusalem is a location map of a municipality. A municipality is defined by its administrative area which in this case is one continuous area on the ground in reality. Which means that using a map that only shows Jerusalem straddling the green line is incorrect and misleading because it gives the impression that there is a border dividing Jerusalem's municipality into two administrations, which is not the case. The border of the green line can be there but it should not override the fact that Jerusalem is located in one continuous administrative area. The other thing you didn't pay attention to or read is

WP:DE, because if you had read it or paid attention then you would have realized that it talks about disruptive editing on the article page itself and not discussions in the talk page. Pleas read it again before making inflammatory threats and accusations about banning people you disagree with, which is highly frowned upon in WP. This talk page is intended exactly for this type of discussion and no one is "filibustering". We are trying to clarify the disagreement and come to some consensus on how to solve the problem of the map. That's what this talk page is for. --MichaelNetzer (talk

) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a few points: 1) the location is that of Jerusalem, not a "municipality". Israel's definitions of what's in Jerusalem's "municipality", you will recall, are null and void and have no legal effect. 2) There is very much an administrative border that runs right through Jerusalem, namely the Green Line, and this is present also on the ground. This can be seen in the level of funding to schools, garbage collection, building permits, etc. etc. 3) No-one gives a damn what Israel thinks is it's "administration" of Jerusalem since no-one accepts Israel has any jurisdiction there. Therefore arguing based on it concerning what we draw on maps in the real world doesn't make sense, IMHO. 4) I cite from

WP:DE: "Disruptive editors sometimes attempt to evade disciplinary action (...) Their edits are largely confined to talk-pages". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk

) 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean we should be putting borders around neighborhoods that have complaints to the municipality or neighborhoods that are less affluent than others? I don't think you'll find a reliable source that says "no one" agrees with Israel's position, or that "no one" cares, nor any source that says E Jerusalem is in a separate administrative area from the rest of the city. About

WP:DE, if you read the entire sentence it continues: "such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article." If anything, I seem to be the one trying hardest to help get an agreement here. --MichaelNetzer (talk

) 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I suggest you re-read the post you're replying to here. The aim on talkpages isn't to produce a maximal amount of text, it's to agree on content for the related article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone35, In what way is that map borderless (as there are several borders in it)? For the record, I'm also OK with the "Dead Sea terrain location map", if this is furnished with a red dot at roughly the right place. --Dailycare (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made and uploaded a new map and placed it in the gallery of this section that Agada compiled, File:Jerusalem2map.jpg. It's a borderless terrain map in the style of the small horizontal location maps that are more suitable for these infoboxes, and the Nicosia map that Sean suggested. If there are no objections, we can replace the present map and consider the problem solved. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course I object to that map because it is effectively whitewashing the the POV of the overwhelming majority because a minority POV can't seem to get its way. -asad (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Objecting on the basis of

not assuming good faith, when this proposal is neutral and eliminates POV, might not qualify as a reasonable objection. Our prerogative is to try to compromise and collaborate for the benefit of the encyclopedia. If you have a specific problem with the map then please say so, otherwise the objection is questionable. BTW, there's already a map of Jerusalem in the article which represents the territorial issue and EJ. This map is not for that purpose. Unless there's a specific objection, we should use it. --MichaelNetzer (talk

) 17:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you need specifics, the map is a NPOV violation because it is being used to please those with a particular POV as it is giving a map of a random geographic point in the world with no names of countries or boundaries or anything to help a reader determine where the hell Jerusalem is. -asad (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume why it's being used because you're wrong. All the information on Jerusalem's administrative area and border issues is already covered extensively in the article and maps within it. Anyone can see the information you ask for by clicking through the coordinates link. Every attempt at specifying this information in the map is met with objections. This version is not meant to appease one POV over the other, as you mistakenly say, but rather to neutralize POV completely so the location of Jerusalem can be shown in its vicinity. You're not even agreeing to this neutrality because now you seem to be saying it's either your way or no way. That's no way to work collaboratively. Let's wait and see if there are any more objections. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing to use a geographical relief map of the area to show where Jerusalem is because you don't accept the most commonly shown map of Israel and the oPTs (with Jerusalem straddling the green line) because it doesn't show the boundaries of annexed East Jerusalem (a move not recognized by anyone outside of a country the size of New Jersey). Did I get that right? -asad (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I've been saying. I already suggested a map File:Jerusalem1map.png that showed the boundry of the green line running through the city. The problem is with doing it in a way that implies two separate administration areas. But look below or in the gallery for another suggestion.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I likewise oppose a map that has no borders or names of countries or territories as being essentially useless. nableezy - 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy and asad, you wanted a neutral map, so here it is. Stop objecting to every map Michael proposes, this map is borderless and NPOV, if you really care about the neutrality of the map then you should have no problem with this map... If you want people to know where it is then change its name to "Israel and the West Bank/Palestinian authority/Palestine".-- Someone35  19:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you dont decide what is neutral and what is POV. Your personal views dont concern me much. A number of maps have been proposed, and one has gotten a ranhe of people approving with you and Michael being the lone holdouts. So far we have had to accept your basesless objections. And now you demand that we accede to your favored map? Sorry, but no. nableezy - 19:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded one more revision to try to satisfy everyone based on previous objections, File:Jerusalem3map.jpg, also in the gallery above. There's no more red border on the small section, the Golan is more distinct as not in the white area, and no more border separating EJ from WB. We could use a caption "Jerusalem in Israel and West Bank". Let me know, Nableezy and Asad. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That still has several problems from the original. Off the top of my head, I still see issues with territory east of the Green Line but west of the barrier being the same color as Israel, the Gaza Strip is a different color than the West Bank, and now there is no border between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria, Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon or Syria and Lebanon. Also, the closeup side shows Israeli district borders but not Palestinian governate borders, and includes Beit Shemesh but not Palestinian cities (for example Bethlehem). nableezy - 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we need all that detail on the small part of the map? It seems enough to let us know where everything is that the map refers to. Look at Nicosia that Sean suggested. The color of Gaza is different because it's not in the same administration as WB but I can make them the same if you'd like. Would that be enough or do you insist on everything else? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like the borders with the surrounding counties to remain. I also would like the Palestinian territories to be a uniform color. And I would insist on any territory east of the Green Line to be shown as Palestinian territory, not as part of Israel. Not even Israel claims that the area east of the Green Line but west of the barrier is in Israel. If you would rather not include other Palestinian cities and the boundaries of the governates fine, but in that case remove the Israeli district borders and Beit Shemesh. nableezy - 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess User:Dailycare is correct in Template:Infobox settlement interpretation, this image should be about "location". I'm still on the fence but would not object Jerusalem terrain location map. Are those coordinates correct? Mediterranean and Dead seas provide decent orientations points and match in body text location description. Thinking on improvement, maybe we could add also "World location", in left-top corner, see Location Falkland Islands, right-bottom, corner, for example. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The placement of the red dot on File:Jerusalem2map.jpg is correct. I also think it's a good map but there are too many objections against it. Let's see if the new one below is alright. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this new version would have no objections based on Nab's last comment. File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg, also in the gallery. It's small enough in the info box so the monotone color isn't boringly big, and avoids unnecessary color issues. Are you alright with this Nableezy? Asad? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to assume then that there are no current objections to File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg in the infobox? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I dislike having all the territory be a single color as that also distorts the status, for the same reason that Someone's initial use of the Mandatory Palestine map was inappropriate. The land from the river to the sea is not one state, and representations that it is are inappropriate. nableezy - 17:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The map is monochrome, so all of it is the same color. I do not think it appears as if Egypt , Gaza, WB, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan are the same country. WB status appear exactly as its neighbors color and boundary styling wise. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand what monochrome is, thank you very much. nableezy - 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I probably was not clear, I'll try to clarify. Of cause you understand what monochrome means. Nab you have said: " ... all the territory be a single color as that also distorts the status... The land from the river to the sea is not one state, and representations that it is are inappropriate." If we follow that line of thought, since the map is monochrome, it might appear that the map represents all of the land we see as one state, which includes territories of Egypt, Gaza, WB, Israel, Jordan an so on. I don't understand how The land from the river to the sea follows form the specific representation of File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg map? How that map could be fixed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel and the West Bank areas are given a title with the same size and weight, signifying that they are distinct areas. The monochrome does not denote it is all one state because a border runs through the area and they're labeled, in the same way a line map would also have the same background color and be appropriate. A matter of personal dislike should not override the efforts put into this issue to resolve it with due considerations for all the objections stated until now. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple boundaries (not borders) that are shown between Israel and the West Bank, including the rather irrelevant barrier route, and by keeping everything the same color and not signifying what boundary separates each entity you make, essentially, a useless map. The File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png map still has the most support here, and it should be restored to the article. Given Agada's earlier recommendation to you that your non-consensus map need not be reverted, his revert of what did have consensus appears to be rather self-serving and hypocritical. nableezy - 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand, Nableezy. Is there anything else you're concerned about in this map, File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, stop complaining about any map that Michael makes, we both know that if one of your friends would have made exactly the same map then you would support it so stop complaining. That map has no neutrality issues and contains only the details it should. What else do you want Michael to put in that map?-- Someone35  19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We both know? Really? Let's turn this around to see if you cant notice the issue with your repeated directives to others. Stop complaining about every map I offer. We both know that if one of your friends had made exactly this map you would support it so stop complaining. That map has no neutrality issues and contains only the details it should. What else you you want me to put in the map? nableezy - 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, let's try to agree on something... For my part, I'm OK with, in this order of preference, firstly this, secondly this (but modified so that the line between the Golan and the rest of Syria isn't there, and lastly this if we can't agree on anything else. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already stated concerns about your first choice. Your second choice is the closest one that everyone can agree on. It can be revised to solve outstanding objections, so let's wait for Nableezy's response about whether there's anything else aside from what he's already said. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. I take it that aside from Nableezy's concern for 1) barrier route boundary, and 2) uniform color of Israel and West Bank, there are no other objections to File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg. If there is anything else, please let me know before making a revised version that can have everyone's agreement. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, regarding point (1) I see no "barrier route boundary" on

Jordanian control, which was in turn surrounded by a perimeter of no man's land. AgadaUrbanit (talk

) 07:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the no man's land is a civilian administration area, while the CIA places it within WB, yet retains the buffer zone border. I've used that source for the tone separations between IL and WB on this version, File:JerusalemWBIL1.jpg, that I'd think addresses all voiced concerns. If everyone's agreed, we can change the map soon. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you addressed the issue with the right side of the map but not the left. Make Israel one color, the Palestinian territories another, and the surrounding countries another. I dont know why this is so hard. nableezy - 14:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The left side is not a map in that sense of the word. It's only there to show the relative place of the cutout for the right side. It's the way many location maps are done and it's not reasonable to demand more detail there. It's clear enough because there are borders for everything. Getting into detailed separations there is unnecessary, distracting, and brings into play disputable issues that are not relevant to Jerusalem's location in the region. There are other places to show such details, this need not be one. All details relative to Jerusalem are designated on the right side. I've done everything possible to answer all your issues but what you're asking for now has no bearing on the needs of this map, nor is it necessary in this case. Let's not overextend its function beyond the specific need here. Please. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cmon now, of course it is a map. I have also done everything I can to satisfy the objections to this map and it includes all details relative to Jerusalem and yet you insist it is unusable. It in fact is not clear the Gaza and the West Bank are both Palestinian territory in your map. And it is not clear because Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Israel are all one color in that map. If you dont want to correct that fine, but as it stands the map that still has garnered the most support, from multiple "sides" is File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png. Barring an acceptable alternative that map should be restored to the article. nableezy - 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, didn't you ask before for a uniform color for Israel and the West Bank?-- Someone35  17:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No I did not. nableezy - 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then that means you think there should be a contrast between Israel, the West Bank and other countries. I helped you doing that with my last edit to the map, hope you like it since it helps improving the contrast between Israel and the West Bank.-- Someone35  17:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. nableezy - 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You took it upon yourself to write over another person's work on commons. Kindly dont do that. If you want to upload a different map you are free to do so. But dont overwrite one created by somebody else (me). nableezy - 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It still seems to be true that Nableezy's map has most support. Concerning Michael's map, there is also the concern of mine that there is an extra line between the Golan and the rest of Syria. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an extra line at all, Dailycare. It shows the area under the evil Israeli occupation and oppression. Surely you support showing that, instead of no border which would place it under the benevolent and merciful administration of Syria that's all over the headlines these days. BTW, You're on record for supporting an earlier version of this map which had a similar color demarcation for the area. Also see below that Nableezy's map does not have a majority as he and you seem to believe. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've checked the show of support for maps proposed here and whether this map has majority support as Nab said. After tallying the discussion, here's a list of all the maps offered and support voiced for them. Some editors supported more than one map and the votes reflect it. Also, some maps went through slight variations to try to gain consensus, like Nab's and mine, so they're listed together. They are litsed in the order the first version appeared.

• Template:Location map Israel - MN (Michael Netzer), AU (Agada Urbanit) - 2 votes.
• File:Palestine location map.svg - NAB (Nableezy) 1 vote.
• File:Ashdod Israel Map.png - AS (Assad) 1 vote.
• File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png - NAB, SO (Someone35), - 2 votes.
• File:Israel and occupied territories map.png - NAB, 1vote.
• File:Central-IL WB Gaza map.png (with one revision below) - MN, AS, SO, - 3 votes.

File:Central-IL WB Gaza map 3.png

• File:Israel outline jerusalem.png (with 4 revisions below) - MN, NMMNG, AU, YnHockey, DC (Dailycare) - 5 votes.

File:Jerusalem1map.png

File:Jerusalem3map.jpg

File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg

File:JerusalemWBIL1.jpg

• File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png (revised on same file) - NAB, NMMNG, SeanHolyland, AS, DC - 5 votes
• File:Jerusalem2map.jpg - MN, DC, AU - 3 votes

The result, according to my tally, is that there is no majority consensus yet and that we are deadlocked at 5 votes each for two proposals. Everyone's welcome to double check.

But in an effort to try to solve outstanding issues, here's a new map that addresses Nab's concern about the left side. File:JerusalemWBIL2.jpg, also in the gallery. Based on the concerns raised so far, and Nab's last comment about this, no more objections are expected, but I should know better than to say that. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, I never said I supported using File:Palestine location map.svg, or File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png, or File:Israel and occupied territories map.png. But to the point, youre very close to what I would like to see, but there is still one problem. The Golan is shown in what looks like a shade closer to Israel than Syria. There are two solutions here, 1. make the Golan so that it is the same color as Syria but retain the ceasefire boundary, or alternatively you could avoid the issue by cropping that section out. Either way is fine with me, though if we have gotten to the point were we agree on that Israel should be one color, the Palestinian territories another, the surrounding countries another, why cant we agree on making the sea blue, and everything else something other than a shade of grey? If we have to fine, but right now I dont see the point. nableezy - 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing about cropping out the Golan and re-instating some color (hell's gonna catch pneumonia after freezing over twice in this thread). I'll make changes and post it soon. I appreciate your agreement and happy to have good collaboration. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO we should start another voting, since the voters for most maps haven't seen all the maps and since they voted there were new maps to vote for. Also, here's the map I made, Nableezy, tell me, what is wrong with it? That's exactly what you asked for-- Someone35  06:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that things work that way here, Someone35. Consensus is based on people who are interested in the article and are likely watching it. Everyone interested has had ample time to respond. If they're not watching or responding, then it's not our job to round people up for a voting. Issues with your map have been discussed here. The latest monochrome version was achieved after narrowing down and addressing everyone's concerns, and we're almost there. I've made a new color version of it with the last changes Nableezy suggested: File:Jerusalem WBIL.jpg. I think that should do it but let's wait a bit and see. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is nit picky now, but can the administrative Jerusalem not be colored blue? Kind of looks like a lake. -asad (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait for Nableezy and the others to respond-- Someone35  09:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I've told you twice that I don't support showing the line between the Golan and the rest of Syria. How many repetitions do you believe will be necessary? As you haven't modified the map by removing the line, I don't support it and you shouldn't claim otherwise in your vote tallies. Someone35's map here seems OK to me. Edit: this map of Michael's seems OK. Blue is OK but we could also use pink. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare, I honestly did not mean to misrepresent you. I apologize if I jumped the gun but it seemed safe to say you supported it because I took your concern into consideration and was already working on it. At any rate, I appreciate the your approval since the changes were made. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Red would be more accurate since many people were killed because of this city...-- Someone35  11:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

<- Remember, if this can't be resolved, we always have Heinrich Bünting's fine map as a backup. It's approximately correct. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the color of Jerusalem in File:Jerusalem WBIL.jpg to a grayish tone. From all concerns voiced here, this seems to solve our problem and we can finally have a representative location map for Jerusalem that everyone agrees to. I think this is a good example where editors can work out differences together. Everyone's input is well appreciated. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You should probably either remove "Beit Shemesh" and "Bethlehem" or at least show where they actually are. Now it just has the words there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Both those municipalities would appear rather large on such a close-up and become distracting to the area of Jerusalem if their areas are delineated. I did it this way because Jerusalem is also written over its area, which gives us a good enough location for the others considering they are only there for reference. Do you insist on such a change or is it only a preference? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't care enough to insist on anything. It just looks weird when it has the names of the cities but gives no indication as to where they are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The assumption would be they're right where the name is and placed there for relative location, but I'll look to see if there's a way to clarify it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the map adding the specific location of Bethlehem and Beit Shemesh. Seems that this should do it so I'll make the change on the article. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I dont know if this bit was intended or not, but the word Israel appears to be the same color as what you made for the area of Jerusalem. Could you make all the words a consistent color? nableezy - 02:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't intended to be the same as Jerusalem area, Nableezy. It became that way because of recent changes. I've revised all the words so they're in the same gray tone. Thanks. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Im good with it now, thanks. nableezy - 04:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)