Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 4

This page 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.

Since Jerusalem is not considered part of, or capital of Israel, except by USA and Israel itself, the first paragraph is misleading. I have tried to include this fact in the text several times, but it was deleted. Obviously this article cannot be considered to be written from a NPOV. --Gerash77 22:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, looking at famous Encyclopedia articles on this city, and compare it to the wiki one, makes this POV more clear:

BRITANNICA © :

Jerusalem Hebrew Jerushalayim, Arabic Bayt al-Muqaddas or Al-Quds ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly in the possession of Israel. In 1949 the city was proclaimed its capital by Israel.

Jerusalem plays a central role in the spiritual and emotional perspective of the three major monotheistic religions. For Jews throughout the world, it is the focus of age-old yearnings, a living proof ofancient grandeur and independence and a centre of national renaissance;for Christians, it is the scene of their Saviour's agony and triumph; for Muslims, it is the goal of the Prophet Muhammad's mystic night journey and the site of one ofIslam's most sacred shrines. For all three faiths it is a centre of pilgrimage—the Holy City, the earthly prototype of the heavenly Jerusalem.

ENCARTA © :

Jerusalem (Hebrew Yerushalayim; Arabic Al Quds), city lying at the intersection of Israel and the West Bank, located between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Jerusalem is composed of two distinct sections: West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem, which is inhabited almost entirely by Jews, has been part of Israel since Israel was established in 1948. East Jerusalem, which has a large Palestinian Arab population and recently constructed Jewish areas, was held by Jordan between 1949 and the Six-Day War of 1967. During the war, East Jerusalem was captured by Israel, which has administered it since. Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such. Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy city, and it contains sites sacred to all three religions.

--Gerash77 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We've had this discussion too many times, and it always amounts to this:

1. Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel, by law.
2. Jerusalem serves as capital for the citizens of Israel, holding the parliament, government offices, supreme court, official quarters of the PM and president, etc.

These facts make it capital, and the status of a city as capital has nothing to do with international recognition. okedem 07:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the tag doesn't belong in the top because of one issue like explained in my revert reason. Cheers. Amoruso 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless 2, the Britannica reference is a pretty bad one for your argument because it says : "in 1949 the city was proclaimed its capital by Israel" and doesn't say it's disputed, so I'm not sure what you were getting at. It even says that whole Jerusalem is in possession of Israel (!) if you don't know, possession implies legality in law, it doesn't say occupation. I think this wikipedia article is much more

Possession implies legality in law... Which law are you talking about? FrancescoMazzucotelli 15:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument about how to handle the "capital" issue is one of longest running in all of Wikipedia and it got real boring round about 3 years ago. Anyway, I just want to point out that the Britannica wording shows that they have the same problem and chose their words real carefully to avoid saying either that Jerusalem is sovereign Israel or not, or whether it is the capital or not. Btw, it is true that I possess the things I own, but the word "possession" certainly does not imply ownership. See possession of stolen goods. --Zero^talk 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: the sovereignty of Jerusalem is what's disputed, not Israel's right to establish a capital on its sovereign soil. The legal status of Jerusalem is very complex, but I think the correct way to think of it is that Israel has established its capital in Jerusalem, but the international community does not universally accept Israel's sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem in which governmental offices are established. If the international community disputes Israel's right to determine where its capital should be, we are dealing with discrimination that is probably without parallel in human history. --Leifern 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"...sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem in which governmental offices are established" - The governmental offices, the parliament, the supreme court, etc., are all located in West Jerusalem, which has been under Israel control since 1948/9. That part of Jerusalem is just as Israeli as any other part of the country, in its 1967 borders. So there's no point in arguing over "parts of Jerusalem". okedem 20:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, okedem, you actually edit-conflicted me out from asking that question, because what you say is what I have understood from past discussions. The structures that make Jerusalem the capital have always been in Israel. As I also understand, it is the Israeli declaration that the "complete and undivided Jerusalem" is its capital that the UN and most nations cited in their various protests. So unless one believes that all of Jerusalem was "stolen" by Israel, there is no allegation that Israel's capital is on stolen land. The protest is against Israel's occupation and later annexation of eastern Jerusalem, having nothing to do with where the capital is actually located. It is all symbolic and meaningless. 6SJ7 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Leifern is correct in that the issue is sovereignty. The dispute about the capital would immediately vanish if Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem was confirmed by the international community. The counter-argument about West versus East Jerusalem doesn't work for several reasons. A legal reason is that the UN has never accepted Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem (the SC resolutions denouncing the annexation of West Jerusalem were never repealed). That's why no nations agreed to treat Jerusalem as the capital from 1948 to 1967. A more important reason today is that Israel is adamant that the whole of Jerusalem is the capital. This means that other nations cannot accept the Israeli declaration without in effect acceding to the annexation of East Jerusalem. That's why they don't accept it. If Israel announced tomorrow that only West Jerusalem was the capital, probably lots of nations would accept it. That won't happen though. --Zero^talk 09:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The international recognition is irrelevant. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, whether other nations accept it or not. That's just the fact of the matter. The sovereignty issue is dealt with in the lead itself, and that's why the "neutrality" tag should be removed.

The UN's issue with west Jerusalem stems from the partition plan of 1947, which called for the internationalization of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, that plan was rejected by the Arab leadership, and so was not implemented. Other parts of the country, like some of the Galilee, were supposed to be a part of the Arab state, however, those are internationally recognized as legally as part of Israel. The partition plan is now long defunct, and so is the internationalization idea.

And as a city, it's the largest in Israel - it has the most residents, and is under complete Israeli control. okedem 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest quite NPOV change in the lead: "... is de facto capital of ...". --Magabund 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it now. Thats exactly what it is, all these goyims attacking Israel on their biased media.--Gerash77 04:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Goyims"? You didn't even bother to learn some Hebrew grammar before using a Jewish language to attack the Jews. Beit Or 08:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Largest and most populous city in Israel

Even if we accept the claim over "capital of Israel", the article claims it is the "largest city of Israel", with the population including the occupied territories. Unless there is a consensus on this, the sentence will remain disputed, and any removal of the tag is vandalism and will be reverted.--Gerash77 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"And as a city, it's the largest in Israel - it has the most residents, and is under complete Israeli control. " - Okedem

No, the fact that it is occupied by Israel, doesn't make it the largest city in Israel. Israel also occupies many cities in the west bank, but that doesn't mean they are cities of Israel. You are trying so hard to show that your statement is neutral, but it is not logical anyway you look at it.--Gerash77 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The cities is the west bank aren't under Israeli law, aren't filled with Israeli citizens, and aren't governed by Israeli municipal authorities. I know Jerusalem has a special status, but it's still an Israeli city, even if you (or anyone else) thinks it shouldn't be. okedem 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since, "me and anyone else" including United Nations say otherwise, it is obviously not an statement without dispute. Hence the tag should remain. I understand this is an emotional issue for Jews, which is why I think its better to keep the sentence, and not to go for an edit war. Nevertheless, the least we could say is that it is a disputed statement, (if not totally false).--Gerash77 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The status of Jerusalem is dealt with in the lead. The tag needs to go. okedem 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One more time: The tagged sentence is not neutral.--Gerash77 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer - the "neutrality" tag is a terrible thing to use - it adds no data for the reader, only confuses him:

a. The first part of the sentence states that its Israel's capital. There's no neutrality issue here, it is the capital.

b. The second part says it's the largest. If you think that's not neutral, suggest ways to fix it. Don't use the tag, it doesn't help anyone!

Anyway, sometimes we have to use statements that may seem less than ideal. That's reality. That's also why we can address these issues in another sentence, as the lead does, which solves the NPOV issue. okedem 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You could write "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and its proclaimed capital. It is cosidered the largest city in Israel, though Israel's sovereignty over the city is disputed." This is a pretty accurate description of the current situation in the city. It is worth while to point out that En-Wikipedia uses terms like "Republic of China" rather than "Chinese Taipei" and "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" rather than "Turkish occupation in northern Cyprus", so apparently we do value self-proclamation more than we value international resolutions. drork 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point drork, but the problem is not only in lead. There is quite scarce information about Jerusalem's international status in article. For example "...during which time West Jerusalem was part of Israel and East Jerusalem was part of Jordan" would sound more NPOV when construed like "...during which time West Jerusalem was under the control of Israel and East Jerusalem under Jordanian control". --Magabund 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact the Jerusalem is the seat of government of the state of Israel is not disputed; nor is that fact that it is the proclaimed capital. Only the legitmacy of its sovereignty is disputed. As other have pointed out, why can't we just use language that indiciates such? "The proclaimed capital and seat of government is in Jerusalem; however, Israel's sovereignty over Eastern Jerusalem is not internationally recognized." Anything along those lines should resolve most of the problem, though the exact language will need tweaking.Zalotiye 23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC) And for Gerash77, goyim is already plural. The singular is goy; goyim is plural.

Long ago it was decided not to include the sovereignty issue of Jerusalem into the first paragraph. In fact, now that I've rechecked the history of the article, it seems the capital/largest city issue was unilaterally added to the article by User:Amoruso in early September.

Before:

Jerusalem ([[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם

Positions on Jerusalem

).

After his/her edits, the second sentence in the paragraph became grammatically incorrect, which to this date remains so! Hence, I think a reversion of the first paragraph will solve the issue. --Gerash77 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was better worded and more neutral before. Let's put it back. --Zero^talk 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What does unilaterly added mean  ? the changes were largely accepted by many users at the time Amoruso 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You have managed to do it again. Wait for a consensus before going to an edit war. If you read your edits for late August and early September, you will see that you only succeeded to add the changes after persistent edit war. Even now that you have managed to keep the statement there, you can't accept that there is a dispute regarding to the statement. I will keep an eye on the article from now on, please stop your vandalism.--Gerash77 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse others of bad faith or vandalism when it's essentially the only thing you've contributed to this article. If you wanted to maintain some credibility, you would atleast have contributed to the article in a positive way like I and the other users have done instead of rv'ing and generic tags for your POV purposes. You obviously have no knowledge or interest of Jerusalem and your only motive seems to be to remove any mention of "capital" in Jerusalem article. That's disruptive behaviour and you should leave the article to those people knowledgable or interested about Jerusalem. This article is not a place to politically war edit like you've done. You'd notice that in contrast to you I also made considerable actual non political edits to this article and therefore it's you who is suspiciouslly acting of bad faith. Please refer to articles in your actual interest and expertise. Amoruso 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood 1212 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that user's edits, but that's exactly what I thought when reading the current intro. I am neither Arab nor Muslim, by the way, and I have a lot of sympathy for Israel, compared with for my own country (the US). However, regardless of that, this introduction is ridiculously poor. Not only is it offensively biased in one direction (and I'm not just talking about the capital dispute that is swept under the rug, but the wording of the whole intro). Aside from POV concerns, it has ridiculous facts (if the Old City of Jerusalem's claim to fame is Good Morning America stating it's a wonder of the world, then maybe this really shouldn't be mentioned at all. just silly), lots of over-specific information about land areas, and the citations are even MORE ridiculous- about 10 citations for the claim that Israel has the largest population in Israel. THIS IS NOT WHAT IS DISPUTED. Besides, all the citations basically say the same exact thing, and the ones from fringe news sources such as The Washington Times could certainly be removed in favor of the more credible sources, if a neutrality dispute was the reason for all those citations.

But anyway, whether Israel controls Jerusalem is not disputed. Whether Jerusalem is Israel's own official capital in all senses is not disputed. What is disputed is whether Israel has a right to ALL of Jerusalem as its "eternal capital", because that is the all or nothing choice they have given the international community. I am not trying to argue that Israel does not have this right, but the point is, in this case the vast majority of the world weighs it against the apparent right of others that Israel's right appears to be infringing upon and sides against Israel's determination that Jerusalem is its capital in the sense that Israel means (i.e. ALL of Jerusalem, NOT NEGOTIABLE).

It becomes problematic if a Wikipedia article exists to further the ideological agenda of a particular government or people, even though in many cases, and apparently here, it is naturally those exact people at the center of the issue who are most enthusiastic about contributing to the article and determining its slant. Now, the rest of the article appears great. But when it comes time to summarize it up at the top, the summary only reflects facts that paint the situation in a way favorable to one side, with meager token inclusions for "objectivity", and certain key facts being left out in favor of nebulous assertions and lots of utter trivia. Other even more key general facts about Jerusalem's various religious heritages and status as a holy city are also poorly expressed or shortchanged, out of incompetent editing rather than POV, I assume, while at the same time overly specific information about styles of Jewish and Muslim prayers somehow qualified for inclusion in the intro.

The point is, leaving a claim that Israel is Jerusalem's eternal capital unchallenged until the very end of the intro, is only the beginning. The intro is about as blatantly awful as anything I have seen in such a major wiki article- just compare this to the painstakingly worded God or Jesus or September 11 or whatever huge and contentious article may be out there. I expected this would be one of those, that I wouldn't even think of touching, and I was shocked that I obviously knew more about the subject than some of the people who have been editing this, even though I wouldn't claim to know very much. Oh yes, I did try to change it, but apparently it became too objective (or too long) for some people. But I looked in the history though a bit, and I saw that any changes to the pro-Israel bias in the intro seem to get magically reverted over time, as it seesaws back from accuracy to its natural biased state.

This is simply a POV intro would be immediately laughed off the page if it were submitted to a "proper" encyclopedia (from the US or anywhere, certainly even in Israel). I guess this is one case where the article (intro) will never be able to meet standards due to the emotional feelings involved and people's (mostly pro-Israel in this case it appears) inability to see things outside their own little framework. That is sad, but I suppose it pales in comparison with the sadness of the real life situations that would inspire such an inability to be objective.

It's still very surprising there isn't more dispute over this current intro (basically none for months, it seems) but I guess all the Arabs or Muslims, or Europeans, or basically anyone who isn't either a hardcore settler or an American ignorant of the whole conflict and just sticking up for their little friends who do their dirty work... I guess they must have given up when they realized the pro-Israeli contributors are greater in number on English Wikipedia and will determine the bias of this article. Good job with your little club and consensus, guys. 172.144.0.252 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to comment about everything, but just this one thing - obviously, you haven't been working on Israel related articles for very long, otherwise you'd know - everything is in dispute. The population, for instance, is also problematic - something like half of the populous live in East Jerusalem - so can we include them in Israel's figures?

However, if there are several good sources, we can remove fringe ones. Anyway, please discuss changes before making them, otherwise things can get pretty heated around here... okedem 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond to some of these things.

• First, about the capital; it's potentially problematic for the first sentence of an article. I feel a better wording would be Israel's seat of government as that is certainly undisputed. For someone who does not know the whole story, saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without qualification in the first sentence is confusing. I understand what it means and I'd even be inclined to say it's correct, but it's nevertheless confusing.
• Yes, there are clearly some trivial facts in the intro. The Good Morning America item is one; the number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in certain books is another. Feel free to remove them now, but I'm personally going to work on the rest of the article first before tackling the creation of a spectacular intro. If an intro is supposed to sum up an article, I feel the article should be written first.
• I have no idea why the size of Jerusalem needs so many references either.

Still, I would request that you not attack writers of the article. You raised some very good points in your comment, but there is no need to fling insults at those doing their best to improve it. Those insults – particularly in the last 2.5 paragraphs – doesn't help you one bit. -- tariqabjotu 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, on the capital thing. Find me a definition for capital according to which Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital. I truly tire of this. It's the capital. It doesn't need international recognition, nor does the location of embassies mean anything.

The dispute should be mentioned, certainly, but for all intents and purposes, it is the capital.

Please don't remove references. At most - place them in hidden comments, without changes their location. Saves trouble later on. okedem 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... were you responding to me? If so, let me point out that I said that I agree that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but just think saying that upfront is misleading (whereas instead saying seat of government unqualified is perfectly fine). I'm not really a fan of the we've talked about this before, so don't challenge it approach, especially when that before is nearly three years ago.

About the last part, I have not removed any references from the article, but I don't see why that would be a problem. We do not need eight references for the largest city item. I'm not sure what trouble commenting out the references will save later on. -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, saying it's "the seat of government" sounds like an evasion, and is really incomplete - it's also the seat of parliament, supreme court, presidents quarters, etc. The word for its function is capital, nothing else.

I did not make myself clear, I'm afraid. I'm not saying "don't challenge it", not at all. I'm just saying I tire of it, because this argument repeats itself on a monthly basis (forget the link on the top - go through the archives of this talk page, and Israel's talk page).

Refs - unless it's a really fringe source - we shouldn't delete it. Some sources might be challenged, others might go offline. If someone went to the trouble of finding sources, it's best to keep them. okedem 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a new replacement intro. Tell me if it is not more properly NPOV than what we had.

Jerusalem (

1967

.

Since approximately the

Gospels and the New Testament, Jesus died, rose from the dead and will return again to Jerusalem, giving the city great importance to many denominations of Christianity. Jerusalem is generally regarded as the third holiest site in Islam, and it is narrated in orthodox Muslim sources to be the destination of Muhammad's miraculous journey, as well as the original qibla (direction of prayer) for Muslims. Historically, Crusades have been fought between Christians and Muslims for control of the city and the surrounding "Holy Land", and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is said to commemorate the site of Jesus' crucifixion. Today, Jerusalem's most important and contested landmarks are the Western Wall (Wailing Wall) of the Temple Mount for Jews, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock

for Muslims.

The current

mayor of Jerusalem is Uri Lupolianski, the first Haredi

Jew ever to hold this position.

it's this version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&oldid=102474689

Jerusalem (

km² (47 mi²).^[11] The city is situated southeast of Tel Aviv, south of Ramallah, southwest of Jericho, and north of Bethlehem

.

The current Israeli

mayor of Jerusalem is Uri Lupolianski, the first Haredi

Jew ever to hold this position.

172.144.0.252 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your suggestion. One point - I don't know if most countries base their embassies in Tel Aviv. Many have embassies in other cities, like Herzlia. Unless we can find a source, we'd better just say - "...in other cities, like Tel Aviv." okedem 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out some of the unnecessary wordiness, unsourced, POV, and circumlocutions, as well as political discussions that weren't actually about Jerusalem. By the way, if both the New York Times and Microsoft Encarta can call Jerusalem "Israel's largest city", then so can we. If you don't like my cleanup, we can certainly return to the original consensus introduction instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, was that directed at me? Because I never took out anything about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city, I just put it in the second sentence to focus the first one on it being Israel's capital, and on the religious significance, both of which I think we could all agree are the most important facts about Jerusalem- and having the three religions mentioned in the first sentence, plus calling it "a Middle Eastern city which is Israel's capital", seems like it may help to keep a feeling of objectivity without seeming to privilege one side. Maybe. and then of course the special Jewish significance must be noted first, in the next para that talks about the significance to religions.

No one can deny that it is Israel's capital, as your side keeps pointing out. In the same way no one can deny the West Bank is under Israeli control. Whether you choose to say Jerusalem is "the largest city IN ISRAEL", or that "Palestinian territories are under Israeli OCCUPATION"... those words are slightly inflammatory despite in both cases being quite true on their face, so it's a different story depending on viewpoint. I just found out in researching this that the government of Israel has refused to ever specify the borders of Jerusalem! So there is not even any way for someone to object to the borders. they are also intentionally being ambiguous with the "security barrier"/"apartheid wall" and where they choose to construct that, whether in or out of the "green line".

so to say Jerusalem is "in" Israel in the very first sentence intro==could appear to be pushing a certain idea, that whatever idea anyone has about Jerusalem, the absolute most important thing is that it (by extension, all of it, however the Israeli government chooses to define it, if ever) is "in" Israel. this would certainly be highly POV and unlikely to find agreement by the vast majority of earth's population.

It also seemed slightly like the population stuff, along with the reference to how many times Jerusalem is named in various religions' holy books, had a strong bias with the way whoever wrote the previous version had been presenting it (with the punchline being that Jerusalem is never in the Quran- hmm, so why mention it?). But no, I didn't delete the population thing. The population and the fact that it's the largest city in Israel is still duly noted in the second line. The only sources I deleted were for things that already had 10 OTHER MORE REPUTABLE SOURCES cited saying the same thing. Whoever made these sources was actually very clever. I think they were trying not to find real sources for contentious stuff but to make the intro so unwieldy and unreadable to an editor that they would not be able to figure out how to remove the POV assertions in it, and they succeeded... for a while.

And whatever "consensus" resulted in that atrocity of a former introduction I posted for comparison, was probably the consensus of the few biased people who hadn't given up on the article. If you want to revert it, maybe you should go back much further in time. But I see it's still the same version, so I don't know if your owrk was reverted or what. 172.144.0.252 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a "side", the writing is better in this version, the sources say it's Israel's largest city, this article is about Jerusalem not the status of the West Bank (and people know what the West Bank is anyway), the religious stuff should not be mentioned twice in the same lead, and you messed up the grammar around the quarters. The next time I go back to the consensus version. I'm willing to compromise, but you can't keep POVing this intro. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph could really do better in the Religious significance section, which is really struggling at the moment. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources (January 2007)

I removed three more sources – the ones that were other encyclopedias. They are, for the most part, doing the same thing we are (compiling information) so, although they are correct, it would be better to use other sources, if possible. Three sources still exist so I thought removing the encyclopedia sources was fine; others could also easily be found if there is a dire need for more. In regards to the footnote I added, I simply copied what was stated in the footnote in the Israel article; I assumed that wording got consensus there at some point. Either way, in my opinion, it summarizes the situation well while not dodging the word capital which seems to be a non-negotiable. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove sources; in contentious articles more sources are always required, never fewer. Contrary to the suspicions of the IP editor above, extra sources are always needed for this kind of thing because otherwise people start removing simple facts from articles because they contradict their own political biases. I've allowed a couple of sources to be deleted, but that's the limit. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Articles signed by experts should be regarded as more reliable than unsigned articles. Unsigned articles should not be used to support any controversial or complex points. Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones. So, essentially we're using three tertiary sources to help support a controversial point, even though there are more than enough secondary sources available. If you want six sources, get six good sources; resorting to three encyclopedias suggests we were having trouble finding enough sources to back our point. Please also respond to my comment about the footnote that you removed. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that wording was changed, and not by consensus, less that two weeks ago. Before then it never said anything about unsigned articles not being "used to support any controversial or complex points", and specifically mentioned Encylopedia Brittanica as a reliable source. I've restored the original wording. If you want to add the other footnote, please feel free to, but please don't combine it with a complex edit removing other footnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to say I didn't mean to remove that part, just say that. Don't make it sound as if there was some ulterior motive in making more than one change at a time. And don't make it sound as if it's a federal crime to revert only part of an edit. Sheesh. -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital, "largest city" out of intro

The question of which city is Israel's largest is, imo, spectacularly uninteresting. However, a google search for "largest city Tel-Aviv" (including the quotes) will find a large number of contrary claims, many satisfying the usual criteria for "reliable source". The point is that the number of citations is not the issue. Rather than citing a long list of sources that could easily be countered by an equally long list of disagreeing sources, the footnote should clearly state what definition of "largest" is being used and link to the official statistics that establish it. --Zero^talk 06:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000's comment, though I would add that a claim so obviously questionable and so unessential to the definition and introduction of Jerusalem probably should not be part of the first sentence of the article. Palmiro | Talk 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you find some

reliable, non-partisan sources that say that some other city is actually Israel's largest city? Then we can talk. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Source [1] To Rule Jerusalem by Richard D. Hecht, Roger Friedland , 2000, University of California Press

In 1967, Tel Aviv was the largest city in Israel. By 1987, more Jews lived in Jerusalem than the toral population of Tel Aviv. Jerusalem had become Israel's premier city.

The Arab population of East Jerusalem, which had stagnated under Jordanian rule, doubleed during these first two decades of Israeli administration. Whereas the city's Jewish population is fed by continous streams of immigrants. Arab population growth has depended almost exclusively on natural increase. The Israeli goverment makes it very difficult for Palestinians who live on what most Israelis consider to be "occupied" territories, even if they own property in Jerusalem proper, to migrate into the city. According to Israeli law, a Palestinian from the West Bank is not allowed even to stay overnight in Jerusalem without formal permission. Despite this prohibition, the economic lure of Jerusalem-both jobs and health, insurance, and educational benefits that come with residence - has been such that thousands of West Bank Palestinians maintain an illegal residence in Jerusalem....

128.32.48.91 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the source you've quoted supports the point that Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, and has been so since 1987. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) 128.32.38.119 21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. First, the largest city fact is controversial so we need as many sources as possible. Now, it's completely uncontroversial so there's no need to move it out of the first sentence. Which is it? Would it be too much to reword the first paragraph to something along the lines of:

Jerusalem (

km² (47 mi²), Jerusalem is also Israel's largest city in both population and area.^[18]

(I omitted the information about elevation and proximity to other cities because that seems more relevant in the #Physical geography section). -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You're misstating the issue; it is a simple fact that Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, as attested by many reliable sources. However, that doesn't mean that it still isn't controversial; indeed, even the simplest facts about Israel are contested by partisans on a daily basis. The statement that Jerusalem was Israel's largest city was originally simply in the article; then an IP editor started editing this and other articles solely for the purpose of insisting that Tel Aviv was Israel's largest city, not Jerusalem. This went on for weeks and weeks; thus, in the end, a large number of high-quality sources had to be brought to point out that amongst non-partisan reliable sources this was seen as a simple fact, regardless of the polemical political bias individual editors wished to insert into the subject. As for your intro, it is incorrect; Jerusalem has served as Israel's capital for much longer than that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As for your intro, it is incorrect; Jerusalem has served as Israel's capital for much longer than that. I know it has been the capital for over half a century, but I said the unified Jerusalem. Nevertheless, I have rephrased the sentence...

Jerusalem is Israel's

status as such has been disputed by the United Nations and much of the international community since the annexation of East Jerusalem into Israel

.

...to clarify what I meant (I think it sounds better this way anyway). Now, can you get around to addressing the concept of moving the capital and largest city facts out of the first sentence? -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not irredeemable, but it seems that instead of addressing what are the typically most relevant facts about a city, instead it tries to push some political POV right up front. The article on Shanghai says Shanghai (Chinese: 上海; pinyin: Shànghǎi (help·info); Wu (Long-short): Zånhae; Shanghainese (IPA): [zɑ̃'he]), situated on the banks of the Yangtze River Delta in East China, is the largest city of the People's Republic of China and the eighth largest in the world. The article on Moscow says Moscow (Russian: Москва́, Romanized: Moskva, IPA: [mʌsk'va] (help·info)) is the capital of Russia and the country's principal political, economic, financial, educational, and transportation center, located on the Moskva River in the Central Federal District, in the European part of Russia. The name of the city is usually pronounced "Mos-koh" (rhyming with "toe") in British English and "Mos-kow" (rhyming with "now") in US English. The city's population of 10.4 million permanent inhabitants within the city boundaries [1] constitutes about 7% of the total Russian population. Likewise, it is the most populous city in Europe. New York City says New York City is the most populous city in the United States and one of the major global cities of the world. Jayjg (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

<-(removing indents) Would you accuse Encarta of pushing a political POV because they don't mention that it's the capital of Israel until the sixth sentence and even then, they note that Palestinians and the United Nations dispute the claim? Is Britannica pushing a political point-of-view as well because they neglect to mention the capital fact upfront? Do you also blame Britannica for noting that the annexation of East Jerusalem is what makes Jerusalem the largest city in Israel? I must have missed something in regards to your examples of Shanghai, Moscow, and New York. Has Moscow's status as the capital of Russia been rejected by the United Nations? Or has New York's position as the most populous city in the United States come under fire? We can still mention that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without saying that in the first sentence (like it does in my example) and we call say that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel (as it does in the example). However, we would be doing readers a great disservice if we forced them to look at the footnote or a couple paragraphs later for a fact that is just as important and relevant and very easy to note (that the annexation of East Jerusalem has caused the capital fact to be disputed and resulted in Jerusalem being Israel's largest city). And to be honest, relegating to a footnote or a subsequent paragraph a short mention of the dispute would be itself a push of a political point-of-view. -- tariqabjotu 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Britannica Concise states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel right at the top of its article. Also, none of those encyclopedias seem to push the political controversy into the second sentence. In addition, it wasn't the annexation of East Jerusalem that cause Jerusalem to be the largest Israeli city, but rather the huge growth in the Jewish population there. And, while I recognize that there is a controversy about Jerusalem being Israel's capital, where is the "controversy" about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city, except in the minds of Wikipedia editors? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Britannica Concise states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel right at the top of its article. And that makes perfect sense for an article that's barely a paragraph long. Nevertheless, it says (see below), an obvious allusion to the note about the controversy in the subsequent paragraph. If it weren't for East Jerusalem's population, Tel Aviv would be Israel's most populous city (and perhaps largest in area? unsure). And although Encarta does not mention the controversy in the second sentence, it is mentioned in the sixth – at the same time the capital designation is mentioned. The distance between our mention of the capital and the controversy is large and although it is mentioned in the footnote, it could very easily fit in the text like it was prior to September 2006. [W]here is the "controversy" about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city, except in the minds of Wikipedia editors? My guess comes in the fact that many do not see the annexation as legitimate, but this controversy is not as significant as the one in regards to the capital. -- tariqabjotu 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tariqabjotu. I think your proposed intro there might be considered beyond the pale to most here because it relegates the Israeli-ness of Jerusalem to sounding like a secondary point. But I noticed the article has since been edited again, to remove the changes I made to be more objective, and is blatantly POV at the moment. Take a look at the current editor's efforts to establish the number of times "Jerusalem" and (!) "Zion" are mentioned in different Holy Books and how they're never mentioned in the Quran as a way of, well, de-Arabizing and de-Islamizing Jerusalem. Even the most hardcore pro-Israeli editors should notice this kind of stuff is ridiculous for an intro.

I am done here, it's too contentious and I wouldn't want to do much to articles like this without just an IP without signing-up. I think my intro was much better than what we have now, though, even if it could also have been improved.

I also think the solution to this "political" problem is to mention Jerusalem's "pivotally important" status for three major religions in the very first sentence, along with its status as Israel's capital, and then to put information about it being the largest city in Israel in the NEXT sentence. This dodges the question of West Bank/Palestinians/etc (which some feel is irrelevant, just like they feel the people are irrelevant) but does include Islam right there with Judaism and Xtianity, reducing the possibility of edit wars. It also makes sense for encylopedic grounds regardless of being politically correct, since the religious significance of Jerusalem is probably the MOST important thing about it from a WORLDWIDE VIEW. The fact that it's a capital is a fact that must be mentioned first (and qualified later, perhaps). But the info about the size of the city is not quite as important, unless someone has a certain interest in ramming the Israeli-ness of Jerusalem down people's throats in the first sentence. Not all Jews are Israelis either, so Jerusalem's status as an important city for Jews worldwide (not to mention Christians and Muslims) is also being sold short by not mentioning religion early. imo. The only reason Jerusalem is much of a city today at all is basically for religious reasons! That's why Zionists went there at first, even if they were secular and the importance was just symbolic. I am not a religious person though, it's just it seems that is the main way people view Jerusalem, including a lot of those who live there, and would be appropriate for line #1.

Keep up the watching of this page Tariqa to make sure the NPOV warning stays there until the intro changes please. 172.144.0.252 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A new proposal

I would still like to see the current controversy over the city put closer to the capital fact, but if the RfC consensus appears to go the other way, I'll live with it. In the event (wishful thinking?) this article becomes a featured article and gets set for an appearance on the Main Page, a different one-paragraph summary different from the first paragraph of the article can be used (one, I hope, mentions the current status of the city in some way). But that's for another day. Currently, there are seriously trivial facts that appear in the intro. As a result, here is a suggestion:

Jerusalem (

km² (47 mi²).^[23]

Located in an

Muslims

.

Surrounding the Old City are more modern areas of Jerusalem. The civic and cultural centre of modern Israel in western Jerusalem stretches toward the country's

not widely recognised by the international community, and most countries locate their embassies in Tel Aviv

.

Aside from the capital fact, there really is nothing controversial about this article. The vast majority of the article should be no problem. Once I get the time back, I'll continue adding references and improving the rest of the article. -- tariqabjotu 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes for better wording and accuracy; it doesn't look bad now. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "enclave of the West Bank", the wording implies a relationship with the West Bank that is unjustified. The notion of a "West Bank" is recent, and Jerusalem was never considered part of it; see

Judean Mountains. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "enclave" is actually incorrect for two different reasons. In order for a place to be an "enclave", it must be a part of a larger political unit, and it must be physically separated from that larger unit by territory of another unit. (See Enclave and exclave; the issue of which of those two terms would properly apply here (or both) would be an interesting one, except that neither applies.) As Jay points out, Jerusalem is not part of a larger political entity, the West Bank. (And that is leaving aside the fact that it is really part of Israel, since Israel controls all of it, contains part of it within its "border" and has annexed the remainder of it; but since it is contiguous with Israel, it is not an enclave/exclave of Israel either.) Therefore it does not satisfy the "political" aspect of being an enclave/exclave. As for the "physical" aspect, since Jerusalem borders on the West Bank (wherever exactly that border may be), and therefore there is no physical separation, and therefore cannot be an enclave/exclave for that reason as well. 6SJ7 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, an enclave is a country, or esp., an outlying portion of a country, entirely or mostly surrounded by the territory of another country. The first sentence of the

Judean Mountains to designate the location is sufficient for me as well and no one else has appeared to want to re-insert the enclave piece. -- tariqabjotu

22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

EllenS 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that makes it seem as though the whole "holiest city" thing is only according to biblical sources. The sentence is fine the way it is, and there are enough references for that. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is well documented in non-biblical sources, and the kingdom of Judah has some fine archaeological evidence. If we went by biblical sources alone, we'd say it was something like the 11th century BC (David). okedem 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is in no way fine the way it is. It is clearly POV and needs to be altered. If you have non-biblical sources, fine. But not one of the references used actually qualifies as NPOV. Outside of the Biblical sources, the one and only archeological find that even comes close is the Tel Dan Stele, which itself is controversial. And even for those of us who feel the stele is genuine, it fails to provide evidence that backs the claim that Jerusalem was the spiritual center of Judaism in the 10 century BC.

I would hate to tag an otherwise well done artical with a POV tag. However if the references to this claim are not qualified, I will have no choice. EllenS 01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, I don't believe the large number of references is the appropriate remedy. Fewer supporting references and a note similar to the one under footnote 21 could suffice. -- tariqabjotu 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not the number of references, but their presentation as NPOV sources. They are largely religion based and all are POV. As long as the statements are qualified, I have no problem with the sources. EllenS 01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All sources are POV. The idea that there such a thing as an "NPOV" source isn't consistent with Wikipedia's

reliable source then religious sources. If the question is whether it was the spiritual center of the Bible in the 10th century BCE, this is both a religious and an historical claim. "According to the Bible" could be used to present the religious POV involved. Best, --Shirahadasha

02:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Shirahadasha, for clarifying the point I was trying to express. It is the historical, not the religious aspect that is questionable. Again, with the proper qualification, there is nothing wrong with the references. EllenS 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think the sources in question are "largely religion based"? Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a footnote regarding the Biblical accounts (and I have also moved a few other non-references out of the References section as there was some complex linking that appeared to work better this way). I hope this is sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the changes are not sufficient. The statements which reference the 10th century date need to be qualified as both Shirahadasha and I have suggested.EllenS 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you're asking for; "according to the Bible" was added in the footnote. In the same manner we shouldn't add the lengthy capital footnote to the body of the article, we shouldn't be adding the footnote regarding Biblical sources to the article (as the time period is a generally-accepted historical fact). There's more detail under #History. I also believe the {{POV}} template for this one bit is, at best, an exaggeration. -- tariqabjotu 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Qualified in what way? Can you be explicit, and refer back to the sources in question for any claims you make? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this bit about "not being widely recognized"? What kind of nonsense is that? I don't see any such thing regarding other capitals around the world and it is out of place here.

--Gilabrand 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because Jerusalem is unique in its regard as "not being widely recognized" as the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you all don't mind the changes I made to the infobox. Most notably, I used a different city photo since panoramic photos aren't infobox-friendly (due to their extra-wide proportions). Additionally, I added the flag of Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why there are two of these "infoboxes" on the page. Aesthetically, I think it detracts and leaves large gaps.

--Gilabrand 09:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit made this section completely disappear while it was not yet decided whether its supposed to be in the article or not. If someone cares about this section, decide about its fate. Thanks. – Alensha ^talk 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really a

Why is the Hebrew name for Jerusalem kept in the header, but the Arabic name bumped down to "Notes" [2]?Bless sins 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at how long the first sentence was originally. Additionally, the Hebrew name is more closely related to the most-common name of Jerusalem given the phonetic similarities. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Arabic is one of the two native languages, and an official language of Israel as well as the only language used by the PLO and State of Palestine, and I'm not aware that any other entities claim jurisdiction over Jerusalem. The Arabic clearly belongs in the lead, though I agree that the less common Arabic usages could be relegated to the footnote.

The claim that Al-Quds represents "Muslim Arabic" was incorrect. There is no such thing as Muslim or Christian Arabic in general, and certainly not in Palestine (in Baghdad I think there were formerly dialectical differences between the speech of Muslims and Christians, but that was quite unusual). In both modern standard Arabic and colloquial Palestinian Arabic, Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, universally refer to Jerusalem as "al-Quds". The misapprehension may have arisen from the use of "Urshalim" in the Bible and in Christian liturgical usage, but outside this confined sphere Christians use "al-Quds" just as Muslims do. Palmiro | Talk 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, I must correct you on one count - there is no such entity as the "State of Palestine". There's only the Palestinian Authority. A Palestinian state is planned, for the future, but does not currently exist. okedem 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See State of Palestine. The PNA has no jurisdiction in Jerusalem, which is why I didn't mention it - although it does have a Jerusalem Governorate, which as far as I know is a political fiction similar to the State of Palestine. Palmiro | Talk 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection with the way it is now; it's not taking up two lines anymore (at least at 1280px), so I'm satisfied. Good call on the Muslim / Christian Arabic part... that was a bit... odd. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Everybody in agreement? That can't be right... Ya Tariq, I completely agree with you about the undesirability of beginning articles with lengthy bracketed inclusions that the vast majority of readers can't even read. Unfortunately, there seems to be a considerable consensus in favour of it. Bratislava shows one reasonable way of getting around this, by the way. But here, I suppose having two names is bearable where having four certainly wasn't. Palmiro | Talk 22:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As is probably obvious for those watching this article, I added a to-do list at the top of the page. I encourage everyone to add items to the list for things that need to be done as well encourage everyone to try and take care of some of the items. If you object to some of the points in the to-do list, please do not post your objections in the to-do list itself, but instead on this talk page (perhaps under this section). I will, hopefully, be putting a great deal of effort over the next few weeks into improving the article. -- tariqabjotu 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you are all very touchy about the slightest change in this article, but there are many fluff terms and inaccuracies that need correcting to make it sound like English. For one thing, the term in English is Judean Hills, not mountains. Another issue is the word "storied" as in "Jerusalem has a storied history." That means nothing in English. I presume the meaning is "layered" or "complex" or "convoluted" or some such. I think "intense" might do the trick.

--Gilabrand 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you are making good improvements in copyediting. Thanks for proposing changes to the opening here first though, since it is so shenuy bemahloket (by the way, you should usually post towards bottom of talk page since thats where people check). In regards to your proposals:

• Judean Hills. I did a Google search, which found: 66,600 for "judean hills" [3]; 58,900 results for "judean mountains" [4]; 13,500 results for "hills of judea" [5]; and a much smaller number for "mountains of Judea" [6]. SO it looks like you are right. However, I don't think this is the right venue for this discussion. There was already an edit war and argument over this at
  Talk:Judean Mountains
  .
• "storied". I like this word and think it is appropriate. See [7], which defines it as "having an interesting history : celebrated in story or history <a storied institution>". Sounds like Jerusalem to me. nadav 10:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's necessary. This is not the place for political struggles. —The preceding

Should the facts about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city and capital be moved out of the first sentence of the article and into later on in the first paragraph so that more detail can be added? (see #Capital, "largest city" out of intro) 14:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not! Jerusalem IS mainly Israel's largest city and capital, crisis.

Maybe we'll declare Jerusalem as the capital of the state of palestine, nothing more and nothig less, and put it to an end??

This has become ridicules... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.95 (talk • contribs)

The placement is fine where it is. Blueboar 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To 194.90.167.95 (talk · contribs), no one has suggested calling Jerusalem the capital of Palestine or even saying the facts are wrong. The reasoning behind the suggestion is to add some information currently only present in the footnotes without making the first sentence excessively long. For those of you (understandably) unwilling to look through the entire #Capital, "largest city" out of intro section, the only alternative to the current version put on the table thus far is:

Jerusalem (

km² (47 mi²), Jerusalem is also Israel's largest city in both population and area.^[28]

Nothing about Palestine, and the text says Jerusalem is Israel's national capital. For some arguments already presented for or against this type of rephrasing, see the whole talk page section. -- tariqabjotu 17:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at articles on other capital cities (see:

Washington D.C., Amman, and Cairo just to name a few) a statement that the city in question is the capital of its country seems to always come in the first sentence. Thus, I see no need to change the placement in this article. Blueboar

18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But Jerusalem is unique in that its status as capital is rejected by much of the international community. -- tariqabjotu 19:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To me that does not affect the placement of the sentence. The convention is that such information goes in the first sentence. I suppose if one had to get ultra picky and ultra NPOV, you could say something along the line of: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital city, although that status is questioned by [names of specific countries or groups that question its status]. It is Israel's largest city both in ...." Out of curiosity... What city does this "much of the international community" say IS the capital of Israel? (and what constitues "much"). Blueboar 02:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're saying "much of the international community" as if this is a spurious claim. By much of the international community, it is meant the majority of countries; that [names of specific countries or groups that question its status] piece would get quite long. Nearly every country has complied with

Positions on Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu

03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to fuel the fire, but the UN also calls the entire Middle East "Southwest Asia", which no one uses popularly. I also would venture to say that none of the natives of the region would consider themselves Asian, either. In the same vein, it might be better to encompass all the POVs, popular, official and otherwise, but do it in two sentences, not one. It's clearly Israel's largest city. Set that on its own, and then address the capital issue in the next sentence. MSJapan 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu - I am sure you know the details about Jerusalem's status far better than I... and I don't really want to debate the issue with you. I came here because you posted a RFC. I am sorry that my comments do not fit the answer you obviously wanted to hear.

From your comments, it seems that the real issue here is "Should the article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?" This is a vastly different question, and not what was asked at the RfC. There, the assumption was that the statement was uncontested, and the only question was "Where should we put the statement". I gave you my opinion, and the reasoning behind it. Assuming that the article is going to continue to bluntly state "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", I feel that the statement should go in the first sentence... so that it conforms to other articles on capital cities. That's my opinion... Take it or leave it as you wish. Alternatives are: 1) Say that Jerusalem is the capital according to Israel, but not according to others (you can figure out the wording ... but I would still put that info in the first sentence) 2) DO NOT say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. 3) Delete the RfC and do what you want.

Please do not bother to reply, or to put additional comments on my talk page. I have given you my opinion and now I'm done. Good luck with this article. Blueboar 14:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be very knowledgeable about the status of Jerusalem as the capital (and I really can't say the same), but your admission is precisely why I responded. I'm not trying to beat you into agreeing with me; I clearly said on your talk page that if you understood the question, there was no need to do anything. But you continued the discussion, which is entirely reasonable because RfCs are not just a solicitation of opinions without discussion. From your latest statement to which I replied, it seemed as if you were not aware of the controversy surrounding the city. So, why wouldn't I explain it to you? (It's in the article footnote #3 but, naturally, many people assume they're just references and nothing real important). In fact, you ended your comment with two questions. And so I answered your questions. I feel it is the obligation of anyone involved in this article to ensure that those responding to the RfC have some knowledge of the controversy surrounding the city. With any RfC in fact, it is expected that those responding either have some knowledge of the dispute or at least are willing to look at the appropriate section(s) (which was linked in the original question) to gather the requisite knowledge. If the opposition feels anyone was misinformed, they are free to chime in. And, no the question is not "Should the article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?" as I tried to clarify when I responded to the IP; no one (at least recently) has suggested saying it's not. You say you weren't going to respond any more, but do whatever you please; this is a discussion and not a straw poll. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence absolutely should say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, because it is, and because it is one of the facts about the city that is so significant that it needs to be in the intro. (Or to paraphrase what someone else said, "convention" on Wikipedia is that the fact that a city is a national capital receives prominent mention in the intro.) The controversy over Jerusalem's status and the reaction of the UN and other countries is amply covered (perhaps more than amply covered) in this article and others. 6SJ7 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned earlier on that is not accepted de jure as the capital of Israel by most countries. As it is now, omitting this fact while rambling about stuff like "spiritual homeland of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE." it just looks poor. Of course this stuff deserves a prominent place in the article, but the City's legal status in the eyes of the world is a hard fact and should be there already in the first paragraph. "The status of Jerusalem as capital of Israel is disputed by many countries." pertn 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with 6SJ7 on this point. Lets keep in mind that this formulation is the product of a long-argued discussion, and so we should not be so eager to overturn this consensus. Tewfik^Talk 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Charles H. Miller, who authored the article on the city in the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:

The earliest literary references to "Rushalimum" appear in Egyptian Execration Texts of the twentieth and nineteenth centuries BC The fourteenth-century BC Amarna Letters speak of "Urusalim." "Yerushalem" was probably the original pronunciation in Hebrew, later modified to the dual form "Yerushalayyim." The name seems to mean "Foundation of [the god] Shalem." Shalem and his twin, Shahar, are known from Ugaritic texts as the gods of twilight and dawn respectively. Scholarly opinion is divided over the identification of Melchizedek's "Salem" with Jerusalem. (In The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, revised edition, ed. by Paul J. Achtemeier (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996).

How does this square with the current intro. text? Fishhead64 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For more on this, see Zero0000's excellent discussion of the etymology of Jerusalem in his Temp page, which seems to be no longer updated: [8]. AbcXyz 11:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe on this article or something related to the history of jerusalem, someone should put something to the effect that the pentagram is the original seal of jerusalem(see

AFAIK, it is an image of an ancient coin rather than "the original seal of jerusalem". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving this here from my talk page. I'd like to see input from other editors. If others feel that this ext.link does belong in the article in the ===Culture=== subsection, I won't object. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, A few days ago you deletd a site for art, music and culture in Jerusalem

www.jlm.israel.net

It is not a personal site, but an extensive site with the cultural events in Jerusalem. For four years, up until a few months ago a weekly paper with the weekly cultural events in Jerusalem was distributed in hundreds of copies, and today the site has over 1,000 visitors daily.

It is a much more extensive calendar than "Go Jerusalem", which is in the catergory of cultural external links.

Please put the link back.

Haketem 09:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is from my talk page: (Haketem 07:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

I have nothing against a website entitled "Messy.Boat.Bitch.On.Yacht" that meets a visitor with dog-barking, but it strikes me as unencyclopedic. Please see

WP:EL. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну?

10:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Haketem 00:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the article about it in Wikipedia in Hebrew

Here is the discussion about keeping it as an article in Wikipedia in Hebrew (right now there are 23 votes to keep the article, and 12 against. None of those against it specified why they are against)Haketem 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the link. All of the content seems to be in Hebrew, and there's no point in linking a Hebrew site here (oh, and it looks very silly - a barking dog? Messy.boat.bitch.on.yacht? It doesn't even sound the same as the name in Hebrew). okedem 10:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The platform of the site is in English, it is updated by people, artists and organizations and can update it in any language they please. Most are in Hebrew, but sometimes people update it in Engilsh, Arabic and Russian as well. If you find a better Calendar for Cultural Events in Jerusalem you're invited to add it, but right now it seems there isn't a better one.

The issue of appearing silly to you is not a factor, it's the content of the site that matters.

Haketem 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a website entitled "Messy.boat.bitch.on.yacht" is encyclopedic enough to be linked from this article. Even looking through the content of the website, it does not look like the site is bringing anything new to the table. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a more extensive cultural events calendar maybe you should add it, but since there is one, and probably the only one, why not have it in the article?

Read the previous lines about being encyclopedic, it strikes me odd that wikipedians are dealing with design instead of content. Haketem 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've talked about the content - it's in Hebrew. I don't care whether anyone can update it in other languages - the vast majority of content is in Hebrew, and thus - has no interest for the English speaking public. okedem 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove any references in contentious articles like this. Every claim made here is fought fiercely by partisans and propagandists; thus, if one wants to make a simple claim that Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, it takes two months of edit-warring and arguing, until finally a half-dozen impeccable references are provided, and then the edit-warring finally dies down. To have an editor come along a month later and delete all those references on grounds that are incomprehensible at best is rather disturbing. There is no good reason for removing good references. None. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's how it would work with the shortened footnote regarding Jerusalem being the spiritual center of the Jewish people for three millennia. You removed all the references except the one from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. First someone would come along and insist that, according to NPOV, the statement would have to say "according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs". Next, someone else would come along and insist that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a reliable source, and therefore delete the material altogether. Best not to go down that road at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could be a little less dogmatic in your position; it would go a heck of a long way.

I would like to first take issue that you have a half a dozen impeccable references, since you don't. We cite Encarta for the "largest city" statement, even though the following sentence in their article cites the Jewish Israeli - Palestinian Arab population split as being 73%-24% (when it's really closer to 65%-32%). That same article also mis-states the area of Jerusalem as 123 sq. km (even though it's really 126 sq. km). You cite an article from the Anti-Defamation League even though it clearly has an agenda (the page has a header that says "Advocating for Israel / An Activist's Guide / What You Need to Know to Fight for Israel's Security"). Hardly impeccable.

I'm unsure where you get the impression that the edit-warring has died down due to the flurry of references you have added and now are vehemently defending. The controversy regarding the 'largest city' fact, in so far as I can see, is that Jerusalem cannot be considered the largest city in Israel unless all of Jerusalem is considered part of Israel. With the exception of the Britannica source, none of your sources address this piece of the matter (and we really should shy away from using Britannica as a source). The Central Bureau of Statistics report could easily suffice as a reference so long as it's accompanied by a note saying that statistics refer to the unified Jerusalem; as of right now, that is the case.

As for the other lengthy reference (the one titled "10th century BCE"), I don't understand why this was added. You inexplicably added it last week, even though there had not been an ounce of controversy here regarding this fact. So... it's okay for you to unilaterally change something, but when I make a change contrary to yours, with agreement from another editor, it's suddenly incomprehensible and disturbing. Duly noted. Also, as I said a couple months ago, if you want to make a change, make that change. Don't simply revert good edits (removing a valid reference, re-adding a misquote, and duplicating a reference) because you feel it's too difficult to revert only part of an edit.

I'm not going to touch your "partisans and propagandists" statement with a ten-foot pole; it's so dismissive, it's not even worth a response (oh the irony; now I'm being dismissive). Your hypothetical situation in your secondary response is just that... a hypothetical situation; we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. I think you're exaggerating the controversial nature of this article, thinking that every man in the land has a desire to defame Israel and Jews. As you can plainly see by this talk page, things are relatively quiet. The same even goes for the archives, aside from the occasional (and I mean occasional) question about the status of Jerusalem in Israel (which, as I mentioned earlier, is almost entirely ignored by your flurry of references). -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks - you're both great editors, who mean well. Please don't turn this into a fight. okedem 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is a perfectly good source, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with using it; if anything, we should try to use it wherever possible. Jerusalem is the largest city regardless of whether you include just West Jerusalem, or the united city; that point was made months ago. Also, please don't make straw man arguments; I certainly don't think "every man in the land has a desire to defame Israel and Jews". Regarding the rest of your comments, we're not just talking about any change, and I haven't reverted any of the dozens of other changes you've made to this article recently. However, when it comes to removing references, it is indeed incomprehensible and disturbing; there is no reason I can fathom which would indicate that removing good references makes an article any better. If you make controversial and bizarre edits like that combined with other edits, it's inevitable that you're going to lose them all. And finally, just because there isn't any argument now, it doesn't mean that it won't start up again in a week, as soon as people see that the references are gone. I've seen that before too. Just look at the Talk: pages for this article; the debate about Jerusalem being Israel's capital has been going on for three years. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be using information from a recent edition of another encyclopedia, but that's a trivial point. I did not set up a straw man argument; I actually responded to what you said. If anything, I'm guilty of hyperbole saying that part. But that's another trivial point. Regarding the references themselves: how about we at least start by removing the Encarta and Anti-Defamation League references (per the reasons above) and add to the "largest city" footnote that the city is the largest even if just West Jerusalem is considered part of Israel. Additionally, you'll re-add the information that you inadvertently removed but agree with (which hopefully will be all the things I mentioned above).

Your statement that If you make controversial and bizarre edits like that combined with other edits, it's inevitable that you're going to lose them all. is ridiculous. Please don't make me explain why. -- tariqabjotu 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove any of the references I have added, including the Encarta and ADL ones. I see absolutely no reason why they should be removed, and many reasons why they should be retained. They are considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia, and

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.Jayjg ^(talk)

03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is a guideline, not a suicide pact; there's a reason we have thinking human beings writing articles instead of a dozen robots in a room slavishly adhering to a set of guidelines. The guideline does not say "Don't use a bad source, when you have five or six better sources (and when even that is too many)", but we ought to be able to discern that ourselves. Additionally, as the recent discussion at #A new proposal

demonstrates, simply adding a slew of sources does nothing to placate potential controversy. You have to address the points of conflict, not just shove redundant sources in people's faces and hope they'll be too inundated to question them.

Lastly, you still have not made an attempt to fix the mistake you made. Perhaps you could at least get to that... -- tariqabjotu 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is a fundamental Wikipedia policy, not a "guideline". Adding several references slows people down, at least, and makes them go to the Talk: page. My argument is "the references are good, and the more the better, because otherwise people remove verifiable material and because Wikipedia is not paper". As for the rest, I'm not sure what other changes you want to make to the article, so you should probably make them. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I did make them. Then you removed them. And how about the 10th century BCE item; are you willing to provide a rationale for why you added them? The Encarta and ADL reference are not good, as I said earlier. -- tariqabjotu 04:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You made them in conjunction with removing references; they are complex, and involved changing the names of references, including the ones I returned. I'm not sure exactly what you wanted to do with them, or how they were to be implemented, as they involved text changes, text moves, and references changes. It would be safest if you restored them, as I understand neither their rationale nor their effect. Regarding, the 10th century BCE, the claim was questioned in other articles, and the reference used was not a good one, so I added better ones. As questions have come up regarding the claim, it is obviously yet another contentious piece of information in this article, therefore they make eminent sense. Regarding Encarta and ADL, both sources are considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, so your question does not make any sense to me. I've already referred to the relevant part of

WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't seem to think this is the type of situation where verifiability over truth applies. We already have verifiability through one or two reliable sources. The addition of questionable sources is poor form, not to mention unnecessary. But in the end, I'm not sure if this is worth arguing much further. I can only hope that if more people chime in to this debate contrary to your position (once someone comments on the FAC), you'll be willing to budge. And if it means anything, Hag Sameach. -- tariqabjotu 06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind wishes, and the same to you. Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The population of Jerusalem is not a humanities question, that would be answered by references to prose pieces. It's basically a scientific question; I don't see why we need anything other than the Israeli census. Now, if we also want to make the point that West Jerusalem even by itself would be Israel's largest city, that's fine — surely there would be census figures covering this topic as well.--Pharos 05:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You might not see it, but others are adamant about these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, this is like quoting five different articles from popular science magazines to support the contention that the Earth is round. I think we have to look at this issue outside of the "controversy" context. There is no controversy among reasonable people on the population size of Jerusalem, only an unrelated dispute about who should control the city or this or that part of the city. As long as we note the territorial disputes, and carefully delineate the definition of Jerusalem as used in the Israeli census, the rest is superfluous.--Pharos 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is a dispute about whether Jerusalem is Israel's largest city. In fact, there was a two-month dispute about it, in which an editor was constantly reverting any reference to this simple fact, so I'm not sure how you can claim there is "no dispute" about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. -- tariqabjotu 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is beneficial, however, to retain whatever historical demographic fragments provided in lengthy and poorly-formatted references. We just need to be creative about reintegrating the information, with minimal verbose, merging or splitting the notes, etc. El_C 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Could you rephrase your statement? -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had bad experiences on other contentious articles that saw previously ironed-out POV issues surface again and again because of attempts to clean up the referencing. Tewfik^Talk 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but I have to say I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of "defensive" footnotes, that exist only to ward off possible future editors with unreasonable arguments. Our primary goal should be maximum accuracy and comprehensibility for the ordinary reader, and over-referencing I think detracts from comprehensibility. If these notes are really necessary to iron out possible future arguments, couldn't we just keep them in some special place on the talk page?--Pharos 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because people don't read Talk: pages. Witness the fact that the discussion about whether or not Jerusalem is Israel's capital has been debated for 3 solid years now, on these Talk: pages, each new discussion ignoring all previous discussions. As another example, look at the big pinkish/red box at the top of Talk:Antisemitism. Does that have any impact on people who make edits like this? No, it happens at least once a week. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a better solution: keep the article references clean, revert the bad edits (referring to relevant discussion in edit summary), and keep a special separate page with a massive number of sources. I do this on the Bushism page every time someone adds the "I am the decider" quote (see User:Nadav1/decider for example of sourcing overkill). nadav 09:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but in this case it would probably be better to move it to a subpage of the article, rather than a user's personal subpage. We could do that in addition to leaving a commented-out statement at the relevant point in the article, so that this is obvious to every editor, without cluttering the reference section.--Pharos 12:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Commented out statement, together with my suggestions would probably be even more effective (and aesthetic) than status quo. nadav 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The references are "clean" as they stand, and we shouldn't use non-standard sub-pages for references. References belong in articles, not hived off elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But they're not references, not under any accepted definition of the purpose of references. We all know the appropriate reference for population is the census, and everything else is just some sort of strange "icing on the cake". What this amounts to I think is just defensive footnotes. These quotes do not contribute anything to the article, other than attempting to scare off potential unreasonable editors. One would never see "references" of this sort printed in Britannica. Content for readers goes in the article, and content for editors goes on the talk page, can't we agree on that? That is why I moved the mention of the quotes to a commented-out section (it seems nadav later moved them to an endnote, which I don't really agree with). Look, I realize you probably went to some effort in finding those quotes, and I'm not saying that effort wasn't well-spent, but they just have no place in the article.--Pharos 07:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Obviously, all these "references" base themselves on precisely one source: the census. They are just window-dressing that would never appear in any professional article. However, they do serve a "scaring away" purpose, so they should only appear to people who try to delete the "largest city fact". That's why Pharo's strategically placed hidden comment was good. (I was not the one who put it into an endnote) nadav 10:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you keep thinking that Wikipedia is like other encyclopedias, and therefore continue to try to replace sourced statements with your own

original research discussions about what kind of editorial policy we plan to follow, whether or not Jerusalem really is in Israel, etc. Also, the only non-standard notes in this article are the (i) (ii) (iii) etc. you are inserting, as well-meaning and informative as they are. See Rudolf Vrba notes 1 and 57 for how you should be doing them. I haven't removed your non-standard notes, but please don't remove my standard notes that actually comply with policy. Jayjg ^(talk)

17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken; I have nothing to do with those notes. I am also extremely careful to cite everything I add to the article, so I don't know how you can accuse me of inserting OR. The solution we agreed to did not include a so-called "non-standard" note (check the page history). Now please address Pharos and my points instead of changing the subject. nadav 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

<- (de-indent) Jayjg, I'm not sure where you get the impression footnotes separate from references are against policy. Combining references and footnotes is allowed and possibly easier, but separating them is not wrong (at this point). I have seen it, among other places, on featured articles. Nadav, I'm dismayed that you're pointing fingers here. No, you didn't put the endnotes there, but the "consensus" version (between you and Pharos at least) called for the comment to be put in one of the most useless locations – where no casual reader could see it. I merely made the note visible and copy-edited it. Please don't play the blame game. -- tariqabjotu 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K., to begin with, I think both you and Nadav are good editors, and are editing in good faith. That said, I want to move beyond blame and finger-pointing; my point here is that wherever the "Endnotes" came from, they are non-standard, and often veer into

WP:NOR mean that, unlike other encyclopedias, Wikipedia can't make up special editorial policies or take a particular editorial stance for a given article; instead, it has to quote what reliable sources say on a subject. The listing of multiple sources for a point is quite standard in reference works, and is used to indicate broad support for a particular view; indeed, the more good sources on can find supporting a point, the better. It makes no sense whatsoever to try to hide references in any way, particularly ones supporting points that shouldn't be contentious, but sadly often are, especially when people insist that their own political views trump reality and Wikipedia policy (not you or nadav, but other editors who we have encountered before on this page, but who shall remain nameless). Jayjg ^(talk)

22:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the endnotes currently in the article original research? About the alphabetical order... are you suggesting we have a Notes section and a References section with the same sources? I don't see why that's necessary; it looks like it'll just take up space. -- tariqabjotu 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them are verging on it. The reason one has a Notes and References section is that the Notes tie back to text itself, and may be used multiple times in different ways (e.g. from different pages, different quotes taken) etc. When done properly, the initial note gives a fair bit of information about the source, and subsequent ones merely say something like "Smith and Wesson, op cit, p. 123". By the way, the Vrba article doesn't do this, but probably should - an example of an article that does this better is Radhanite. There are usually far more endnotes than references (Vrba has more than twice as many), and it's convenient to look up a later endnote in the references themselves. Some information is included in an endnote that is not included in a reference, and vice versa. For example, endnotes have page numbers and quote from books, but references never do. References give ISBN numbers, whereas endnotes shouldn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I won't stop you from changing the formatting of the references. -- tariqabjotu 23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be a huge job. When I work on an article from scratch, I add the endnote and the references at the same time, so it's not much work. To get this article in shape now? Well, it would take at least an hour to create a proper references section, and probably at least another hour to fix the endnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that, which is why I did not volunteer to do it. I don't think it's all that important. -- tariqabjotu 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was definitely not trying to point fingers. Sorry if it appeared that way. I was just trying to move beyond this notes issue, which I thought was unrelated tot the issue at hand, and go back to the point that "scaring-away" references--which obviously all rely on the census anyway--should appear only to problem editors who want to make bad changes. nadav 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Obviously all rely on the census" is where we start getting into

original research territory. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't have access to their footnotes, I am going to surrender this argument. They probably received their population figures from a divine vision. This issue doesn't warrant such a long argument. nadav 02:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC) If we are keeping Jajg's footnote, then we should definitely get rid of endnote [iv], which now stacks yet another layer on the pile of footnotes. nadav 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For an interesting use of notes, footnotes, references etc. see today's Featured Article, Charles Darwin. In some ways it agrees with me, in some with you. Its References section is as I described, and it's Endnotes section (it calls them Citations) assumes the existences of the References section. However, for lengthier endnotes that have discussion, it uses notes as you have. I'm not sure how the authors would have dealt with quotations from the sources, which are used extensively in other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Once a small town during Ottoman times with Jews already forming the largest religious group, Jewish immigrants and the economic opportunity that followed has helped make Jerusalem a vibrant metropolitan capital of the State of Israel. [9]

I don't believe this sentence belongs in the introduction. For one thing, it is not relevant to the content in adjacent sentences (Surrounding the Old City are more modern areas of Jerusalem. and The civic and cultural center of modern Israel extends from western Jerusalem toward the country's

So I agree with Tariq that this newly added info from intro should be removed, and can be added with proper citation in the "Demographics", if at all. In my lay eyes, the city did not appear to be small town at all, though! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Can someone tell me what the correct designation is for a citizen of Jerusalem? For someone from Jerusalem? Is it Jerusalite? I just am at a loss for this in my writtings! Any help will be appreciated! Drachenfyre 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's Jerusalemite. I'm 95% confident about that since I've seen that used in The Jerusalem Post, among other places; a Google search confirms that. -- tariqabjotu 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We currently have:

Today, Jerusalem remains central to the

I'm not sure we really need to go into much more detail in the lead about the present conflict (it seems like recentism) but I believe you have a decent re-wording. However, I believe the semi-colon should be changed to a period (since the sentence has gotten much longer). Additionally, I'd reword the first sentence to remove ambiguity (note how territory is used twice and the use of great). Perhaps something like...

...as a large portion of the city is in the West Bank, an occupied territory.

Furthermore, the sentence might be able to do without the occupied territory of as it's just the lead. -- tariqabjotu 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points and would be happy to see the phrase introduced into the article in the form that you suggest. Kosebamse 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; a few extra words isn't a big deal. I re-worded my previous suggestion so as not to give the impression that only part of the West Bank is an occupied territory. -- tariqabjotu 13:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, I would prefer not to change the article myself because I have criticised it on FAC. Would you like to do it?Kosebamse 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone objecting to an FAC and also making a change. I was thinking of waiting for okedem to chime in, but this is not a real dramatic change. So, I went ahead and did it. If okedem has something to say about the matter, he can comment when he gets back on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I fine with it. okedem 14:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the introduction is fine enough, I think it might still be better to rearrange a few items. The introduction deals with a wide range of topics (geography, demographics, history, religion, current situation, and political controversy). However, the sorting of these items looks a little criss-cross. The current intro reads (references etc. stripped and additional whitespace added for clarity):

Jerusalem (

This brings things into a clearer order IMO (first general/geographic/demographic info, then history/demographic aspects of history, then religion, then current political situation and controversy). Just a suggestion. Kosebamse 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, in this edit basically changed back the wording, with the edit summary: "that's not true geographically nor the major reason; most of Jerusalem was never part of the West Bank, particularly the Old City.". I can agree with the "not the major reason" explanation, but I don't really understand the geographical point - "West Bank" is used here to refer to all the areas captured from Jordanian control in 1967 - and East Jerusalem is a part of those areas, including the old city. In fact, after the war, Israel extended Jerusalem's municipal borders to encompass a large area, not previously a part of East Jerusalem. Also see - [11] and [12]. okedem 10:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not interfere with the article, as I have not edited it before and am not an expert in the matter; also, I have criticised it on FAC and feel that in FAC matters I should be either critic or author, but not both (just my personal opinion and not at all policy). As for the facts, I really can't understand why one would disagree that East Jerusalem is part of the occupied territories. If it is a matter of nomenclature, Jayjg is welcome to find a better term than "West Bank", but unless he can, he should leave the article as it was. And as for my original point, how about the rearrangement? Kosebamse 10:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find it a bit strange to list specific holy sites, and only afterwards say the whole city is holy to three religions. Other then that - It's better. okedem 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Why move the sentence "Jerusalem is considered important to the three major…" from its original position?--Redaktor 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's rather the somewhat out-of-context sentence about the geographic location that I had moved out of the religion-oriented paragraph, and as for the rest, I have tried to group sentences by topic. As for Okedem's argument, it could probably be done even more logically, but I have not found an easy way - the religious significance is present wherever you look and I have tried to not let it dribble through every paragraph. But please do improve it if you have an idea how to. Kosebamse 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's not accurate to say much of Jerusalem is part of the West Bank is that the original Partition plan envisaged it as a separate territory, administered by the U.N. Since 1967, when Israel captured it, every negotiation has considered the situation of Jerusalem as separate from the West Bank. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. How about we add something in parenthesis, like "Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem (captured as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial..."?

Note that originally, East Jerusalem was a rather small area, and after the war Israel decided to expand Jerusalem's municipal borders south, north and east, including several Arab villages (see the map I linked to above (link 7). From what I gather (from

UN General Assembly Resolution 194, section 8), most of that area was supposed to be a part of the Corpus separatum. We can also say something about "a large portion of its area is beyond the Green Line." okedem

22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter suggestion seems most logical to me, as it avoids any confusion: no West Bank, no occupied territories, no East Jerusalem. "Green line" and "territories captured in 1967" is unambiguous and should be the wording of choice IMO. Kosebamse 08:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Idea: we can make the beginning less divisive by moving up "Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state" to be second sentence in the first paragraph. (Re: discussion inWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive1) nadav 11:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I could agree to that. Depends if this would be the end of it, or if other concerns would be raised. okedem 11:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and there shouldn't be given undue weight to "claims", definitely not in the beginning. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Amoruso 11:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So you prefer not getting FA, if it comes to that?? The weight given these "claims" is not undue if the claims are strong enough to prevent the article's promotion. nadav 12:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso - the crystal ball point would fit if we were to say "Jerusalem is... and the future capital of a Palestinian State". However, the suggestion is to mention the claim - they're making this claim today, not in the future, thus - no crystal ball.

The claim is a major issue in Jerusalem, and, as a compromise, I think we can place it after the first sentence (though I prefer its current location). I can agree to this as a compromise, not as a basis for further changes to the lead. If there are more suggestions - let's review them now. okedem 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the idea, but I believe that we should instead move up the piece about the UN resolution and the embassies not being located in the city. That seems more pertinent and current. I believe we have been dancing around the issue of the "capital" on its own in the lead for so long, but it's time we must do something; there have been too many complaints to ignore them. -- tariqabjotu 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be an overload of particulars. Instead of starting off with the fine details, I think we should jump right to the heart of the matter: that the Palestinians would also like to see Jerusalem as their capital. The other facts are corollaries that, in my opinon, are well situated in their current position. nadav 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe we need to ensure we have smooth transitions between paragraphs. We seem to have that at the moment, but suddenly interjecting with something about controversy of the city may seem out of place. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, thank you for coming up with this; I think it's a good idea. I'll check the rest of the article later. Tony 22:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu's point about the transition highlights for me the odd placement of this type of statement. When I object on the grounds of undue weight, I don't just mean in terms of competing POVs, but in terms of the recentist angle. It just doesn't seem appropriate to deal with anywhere other than where it is now. The brief mention of Israel in the first line is only warranted by convention, otherwise such a modern fact would also be out of place. I also want to make sure that the FA folk realise the amount of tedious discussion over a period of years that went into the extremely precise wording we now have. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a few changes, per the conversation here and per a few suggestions on the FAC. I basically moved the Palestinian state piece toward the front and added a few intermediary sentences to set up the concept created by the sentence and the subsequent paragraph. Presuming this doesn't get reverted outright, I hope some of you will reconsider your positions on the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope they'll help, they seem good to me... okedem 07:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I think that, if we're listing some of the inhabitants - why not list all - would be longer, but more complete: "its inhabitants have included

Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, and Israelis." (Otherwise, listing the Jesubites but not the Ottomans would seem strange - the ottomans held it for 400 years, of relatively modern history. The British held it for a short time, and only under a mandate for the Arabs and Jews, so they're not worth listing here). I know it's long, but at least it's inclusive... okedem

08:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mostly it seems very good. What was the basis for the choice of nations you included as inhabitants? I am assuming it is the historical groups that had the largest populations living in the city? This may need to be clarified or sourced... nadav 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My goodness; people need to chill. Not every paragraph, sentence, word, and letter has some hidden meaning. They're examples. Do whatever you want guys; I made a huge mistake thinking I could get this article featured without having every little bit analyzed to death. -- tariqabjotu 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this must be extremely frustrating to you. I understand, believe me. But I'm trying to avoid problems later, with people jumping up and down, yelling - "why isn't X listed?" and so on. The lead is always the most analyzed, and most people don't even bother reading anything else before expressing some opinion about the article. Trust me, better to just list them all now (I've listed them by order of their control of the city, not necessarily having a majority of inhabitants), and avoid problems later, even if it looks a bit worse. okedem 11:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, if we attempt to list every group that has lived in Jerusalem but miss one or two, someone is definitely going to complain. If you think the list you devised is truly exhaustive, go ahead and add it. However, I find that highly improbable (what about Europeans?). Regardless, I'm not married to the idea and I won't make a big ruckus either way. -- tariqabjotu 15:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Why do we want to list inhabitants, instead of just rulers? That'll be easier, since the rulers were pretty much only those I mentioned. (except for the British, and I explained why). okedem 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I dont find the current wording much of an improvement. The sentence "Today the city is governed by Israel but remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future Palestinian state" seems very general. Since I objected to this intro, i'll go ahead and make my own suggestion on how to handle the capital issue.

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. The city consists of two distinct parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jeursalem has been Israel's capital since the 1949 Armistice Agreements. East Jerusalem, with its large Palestinian population, has been administered by Israel as part of its capital following the Six Day War in 1967 and its subsequent annexation, something both the Palestinians and United Nations do not recognise

I based this on the Encarta intro which i pasted in the FAC page. You'll see it begins with a general geographic statement and explains the capital issue only as part of the greater conflict. I find this npov, but i'm sure some people will completely oppose this. --A.Garnet 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object. The city is not two separate districts, it's one city, and you can't see any division. Jerusalem, as a whole, is the capital, not just the Western part (see the 1980 law about that). West Jerusalem served as capital from 1949 (after the end of the war, when the western part of Jerusalem was finally in Israeli hands). The area of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line has a very large Jewish population. And, quite frankly, no one asked the Palestinians for their recognition - they're not a sovereign entity. The controversy about control is already handled in the lead, and way more clearly than this suggestion. okedem 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited from "separate districts" to "distinct parts". Also added "since 1949 Armistice Agreements", is this correct? As for the Palestinians, they are part of the dispute so I think they warrant a mention... --A.Garnet 18:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's incorrect. It's not distinct parts or districts, or anything. It's one city. The only distinction remains on the maps, not in real life. It's not from the armistice agreements, but from December 1949, and, again, the entire city of Jerusalem is now the capital, not just the western part. The Palestinians are mentioned in the current phrasing.

I'm sorry, but your attempt seems to be going the wrong way, in my view, and no amount of minor changes will fix it - the whole structure is faulty. okedem 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for other views also. --A.Garnet 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative rewrite:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinans as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. nadav 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is excellent Nadav, it is factual, concise and neutral. I cannot see any reason why anyone would oppose this. --A.Garnet 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I oppose. It doesn't say that Jerusalem is the capital (it only says that about West Jerusalem), or the largest city. It gives too much weight to the very close history, bombarding the reader with an issue that is better served in the appropriate sections.

I'm sorry. I can accept many compromises, but I see no good reason to stray from the current structure and phrasing of the lead, in particular, the first paragraph of it. No reason to turn this into a history section, and/or another "conflict" article. okedem 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot "largest city", but we can easily add that. I did write "declared the unified city to be its capital". Is that not good enough? As for emphasis on history, you guys have to compromise. Some of you are saying that without it, it suffers from recentism or doesnt sufficiently cover the disputed status. Others are saying the history is too much. We can't have both. nadav 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not, since the reader has to read the entire paragraph, to start understanding what the city is now (and still not really get it). I don't understand the need to alter the current, very clear phrasing: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital and seat of government. It is Israel's largest city...". These are the most basic facts regarding Jerusalem's current status, and are way more relevant than any claims or changes which might, some day in the future, occur (or not). I'm fine with placing the Palestinians' claim (or something like "The eastern part of the city was captured in the 1967 six day war, and remains disputed".) right after these first two sentences, before anything else, but not with your formulation. It just seems to muddle things up, and I've yet to see a good reason for it.

History/Recentism - in a city with several millennia of history, placing a lot of emphasis on events from the last 60 years is recentism. okedem 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another go at it:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands many times. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinans as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. nadav 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Better, but still - trying to tell the whole story here is too much for the lead, and does seem to me to suffer from recentism. I don't think the finer points of this need to be in the lead, and the mention they do have now is more than enough. okedem 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It goes into far too much detail on recent events and I would prefer that the second sentence is followed by something related to the five-thousand year history (rather than the recent sixty-year conflict). -- tariqabjotu 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per my previous comments, these changes are destined to lead to renewed controversy, and inevitably recentism, in what was a deliberately worded section. I think we should restore the consensus version prior to this discussion and the attempt to accommodate it. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd love to go back to that version. But I don't think a consensus has formed yet about the shape or priorities for the lead. We should set up a poll to pick from the leading options. Here is one more option. This one significantly reduces the details about wars and so forth:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands repeatedly. In recent times, the annexation of the eastern part of the city by Israel has been a major source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians, along with the United Nations, do not recognize the annexation and see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs

) 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

A link to Tolerance Monument was added to "See also" several days ago. I removed it due to its relative unimportance and the existence of List of places in Jerusalem, but it has since been re-added. Shall it remain? -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you were quit right to remove it. There are far more famous buildings and monuments. nadav 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, where is the link to List of places in Jerusalem? Shouldn't that take its place in See also? nadav 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in {{

Jerusalem}} (near the top of the page), but it probably should also be added to "See also". -- tariqabjotu

05:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you were right. okedem 07:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about bringing yet another edit for review here, but I don't want to start an edit/revert war. Essentially, Brilliance removed a sentence – Nevertheless, the percentage of households with employed persons is higher for Arab households (76.1%) than for Jewish households (66.8%). – from the "Economy" section, saying "Why must we continue to seperate these two groups and point out every instance where arabs might some how be slightly better?" I re-added the sentence, because it directly relates to the previous sentence – Although many statistics indicate economic growth in the city, since

I'm gonna side with you, but only because you're right... The sentence naturally flows from the previous one. okedem 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see Brilliance's reasoning so I asked. Hopefully we'll get a response, since an edit war is really not we need. nadav 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it should be removed becuase it is clearly stating a POV. The sentence before it is stating that the region of West Jerusalem is economically better than the region of East Jerusalem. Although it does note that East Jerusalem is mostly Arab, it does not directly state that Isrealis have a better economy then Arabs. But, the sentence that I would like to remove clearly seperates these two groups. I don't see why "it flows" is a good enough reason to keep it. Brilliance 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The previous sentence says West Jerusalem is economically better than East Jerusalem, not vise versa. Regardless, I'm not understanding your argument; the truth is not always fair as the world is not a

HDI of any Middle Eastern country. China is a more populous country than the United States. Africa has a higher incidence rate of AIDS than Australia. The percentage of households with employed persons is higher for Arab households (76.1%) than for Jewish households (66.8%). All of those are facts; now tell me – how do they present some point-of-view? -- tariqabjotu

01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand at all. Are you saying the sentence reflects badly on Arab East Jerusalem? Or badly on Jewish West Jerusalem? Maybe you are mixing them up? Regardless, the sentence is sourced, and sourced statements are normally kept.nadav 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I mixed them up. I get your point and agree.

Feel free to modify the table, add a candidate, or get rid of the table if it's annoying. nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Version 1

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands repeatedly. In recent times, the annexation of the eastern part of the city by Israel has been a major source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians, along with the United Nations, do not recognize the annexation and see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state.

• Neutral. I'll take anything people agree to (as long as it's not very anti-Israel). nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why settle for even slightly anti-Israel. If its the objective truth then it should be stated that way, period. I can't understand why we Jews have an innate need to give in. Nadav; I respect your edits and my comment should be taken in the proper light. Itzse 21:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • First, I find your third sentence offensive, not to mention ridiculous. Realize that the "objective truth" may not be pleasant and may portray the Israelis or the Palestinians in a bad light. Sensitive facts should merely be used cautiously and with the appropriate amount of weight – not too much and not too little. -- tariqabjotu 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Look you seem to be finding offense again where none was intended. I disagree totally with your premise, you read me completely wrong. This is an encyclopedia of facts created not to make anybody happy, but to inform the truth or where there is a dispute to inform the reader with both perspectives. I'm absolutely against Wikipedia appeasing anyone and let it state facts as unpleasant as it is and it if portrays people in a bad light, then so be it; remember we are not creating facts, we are only reporting them. Itzse 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • "Again"?? I understood you and I know you didn't intend to offend, but you did. If I said "I can't understand why you Jews have an innate need to give in," someone would take issue (with good reason). Replacing "you" with "us" does not make it any better. As for the part about the article itself, I don't think we're in disagreement; you basically repeated what I said. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
          • So then the only thing left is the perceived offense. If I would make such a statement about lets say a Chinese; then he would rightfully be offended. But I made a blanket statement about Jews in general; from one of the tribe to one of the tribe. I'm sure Nadav wasn't offended, he knows exactly what I mean; if you don't believe me, then ask him. Itzse 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
            • The perceived offense is not important. Let's drop it and finish working with the article. -- tariqabjotu 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
              • On that high note we proceed.Itzse 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral This version gives the impression that the United Nations sees East Jerusalem as the future capital of Palestinian state. Is that true? Additionally, I'm not sure why the first sentence of the article was changed; it seemed okay to me, clearer, and more likely to be described as "compelling, even brilliant" prose. I'm not 100% happy with the fact that the long history was mentioned so briefly in comparison on the recent events, but it's better than Version 2 and I won't complain profusely. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't thinking about the 1st sentence. Yes, your 1st sentence is better. nadav 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Contains elements from various proposals to some extent. nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Version 2

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands many times. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinans as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state.

• Oppose This places too much emphasis on recent events, which, in the grand scheme of things, are insignificant. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Closer to Abu Ali and A. Garnet's preference. nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Version 3

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is Israel's seat of government, capital,[iii] and largest city both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) in an area totaling 126 square kilometers (49 sq mi). Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes as far back as the 4th millennium BCE. Since then, its inhabitants have included Jebusites, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Israelis. Today the city is governed by Israel but remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future Palestinian state.

• Support -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Leaning towards this version, which is close to the current form of the article, though perhaps current "Today the city is governed by Israel but is seen by Palestinian Arabs as a future capital for a Palestinian state" is better. nadav 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine too, although I tweaked the wording. -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• tariqabjotu's version nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Overkill

I believe this straw poll is overkill. Things have not gotten this bad. Really. All this does is give the impression that there is more instability than there really is. There are going to be some people would won't stop complaining until we declare Palestine the rightful owners of Jerusalem... er... al-Quds and there are others who won't stop until we paint the town with blue and white. But ultimately, we're going to have to stick with verifiable statements, presenting the issue briefly. We can't please everyone and we should stop attempting to do so; that would be hopelessly futile. We agreed on the "compromise" to move the Palestinian state piece up. If people didn't like my intermediary sentences, fine; suggest a new rewording. However, I'm afraid some of the original signers and witnesses of the compromise are now trying to muscle more out of their opposition. At the very least, version two ought to be completely off the table. Ideally, this straw poll should be eliminated and converted to regular discussion. -- tariqabjotu 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in hindsight I'm not sure I was right in creating this poll. I may have been too hasty in trying to appease a small number of objectors whose opinions are irreconcilable. Most of us are happy with how the aricle looks now. Others can suggest small changes. The lead was stable for a long while before this discussion began, and tariq's changes have already made it even more acceptable. nadav 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think we should go back to the previous consensus version. With all due respect to the FA discussion, a balance in the weight and placement of content is/was extremely difficult to come by, and upsetting the stasis will only result in the same discussions had months and years ago being rehashed. Any suggestions as to style etc. should be welcomed, but something as sensitive as the lead shouldn't undergo these changes at this point in the article's life. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. When decent objections are raised on an FAC, I feel the main contributors to the article have the obligation to attempt to resolve them (to an extent). A few editors complained about the lack of prevalence given to what is a somewhat important issue (the political status of Jerusalem) and another editor objected to the minimal coverage of Jerusalem's lengthy history. Those issues may or may not have been resolved through the "compromise", which newcomers and regular contributors to this article alike have given a (dim) green light. Note that the discussion resulting the current intro was actually brief; it occurred in late January and is visible under Talk:Jerusalem#Capital, "largest city" out of intro. So... it actually wasn't exactly extremely difficult to come by. -- tariqabjotu 06:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That compromise maybe, but this specific point has been a focus of contention throughout the article's [relatively] long life (certainly for the brief period of my involvement way back when). Eitherway, in light of what you are saying Nadav, and what I think you recognise Tariq, what shall be done? I still feel that even the small line brought up is far to recentist, and I'm not sure that the listing of different inhabitants will be the most stable way to relate the city's long history...would you oppose going back? Tewfik^Talk 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The key word in what I said below is if. As it is, we must determine whether any non-radical change (as opposed to ver. 2 above) will win over anyone. So far, it sadly hasn't. nadav 07:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If we could only make the people on FAC see how much effort and argument went into forging that consensus, they would surely agree with you (Tewfik). I only attempted a new version because of the objections, but I see now that there were an equal number of objectors from both sides, which is inevitable for any compromise. nadav 06:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we necessarily have to limit ourselves to the demands of some of those voices, especially when they are in any event drawn to such radical versions. As for the lines moved up, I believe that we yielded far to easily on that point, which hasn't produced the sought after harmony in any event. I will restore the previous consensus version with just brief mention of the history, though if one of you truly objects, I suppose you could revert. Tewfik^Talk 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if a compromise can be reached; in the long run it can not hold; and when this discussion is archived; a new round will inevitably begin. Therefore why not debate the changes as we go, where edits that are true will stand the test of time and edits that are false will eventually fall. The good news with such an approach is that occasionally someone comes along and brings proper references and another nail is driven into the coffin, or comes up with such wording which objectively states different perceptions, leaving even less to debate, until theoretically the article is crafted and worded in such a way in which most people while not being happy can at least digest it.

To kick it off; I'll start by dividing the first paragraph. The reason being, that I checked out quite a few capital cities and found that all of them first state in two or three lines what it is; then the following paragraphs go into detail. The way it currently is, is IMO one big mumble jumble.

If anyone objects please spell out your reasons. Itzse 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this latest edit (with my emendation) is any better than the previous attempts, since it is still recentist to make an attempt to have 'the controversy strike the reader in the beginning'. Beyond that, like moving up the other line before it, this removes it from the summarised narrative (i.e. where it was previously) and breaks the flow. Thoughts? Tewfik^Talk 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the recentist issue, however I do agree that this edit breaks the flow. If there were a consensus that the controversy should be introduced off the bat, then any of the proposals above would be a superior choice for doing that. I am still unsure where most people stand on the issue of recentistism vs. controversy in the lead. In any any case, I ask people who make big changes in the lead to discuss them here first, since they are controversial. nadav 07:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry to have not discussed the intended changes in the lead. I came to the article after a long hiatus (read the article in the beginning of the first version of the FAC), and was largely unaware of the proceedings in the talk page.

Ok, the sentence that I moved from the last para of the lead to the second line, does break the continuity. However, the continuity can somewhat be regained if the third sentence in the first para of the lead (in the present version) is shifted to be the first line of the second paragraph of the lead. This will make the second paragraph concerned with location, history and religious importances — leaving the first paragraph to deal with what is Jerusalem (a city, a capital, the largest city) and the controversy. Someone can say that still the first para contains geographic info (size and population), but that is in order to prove that it is the largest city. In fact, the data on exact size and population can be removed from the lead, and shifted to relevant parts of the article (geography, demographics). That will leave the first paragraph of the lead (which will be a short, two-sentence paragraph) solely concerned with what is Jerusalem and what is the controversy. Comments?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, population is basically the most important stat there it. It has to remain. okedem 08:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I institutes the changes proposed. Please check, modify or revert, as needed. Sorry, did not know population stat is important in the lead beginning . It can be easily incorporated (for example, within brackets—though that somewhat hinders the reading). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the previous lead was better. Although controversy surround Jerusalem, I don't think it should surround the lead, and in it's current from we start we the controversy (first paragraph), and end with it (third paragraph), and we also lost the population figure, and size. (I don't think we should place it in brackets). I'll revert to a previous version. okedem 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bar-Kokhba revolt

Per this source from Brown University:

Numismatic evidence indicates that Hadrian undertook the refoundation of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina before 132 CE, thereby causing or contributing to the outbreak of the Bar-Kokhba revolt.

Another source, from the Jewish Virtual Library, and another concur with this sentiment.

There might be a few contradictory sources, but according to this source, there is no way the renaming to Aelia Capitolina could be, as noted here, a punitive measure in response to the Bar-Kokhba revolt. I also believe we could do without the piece trying to de-

I have "heard from somewhere" Itze's claim, but your sources look impeccable. nadav 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, you have heard correctly. Let me point out that it is exactly the numismatic evidence that supports my change that Judaea was renamed in the year 136 or slightly before.

Here take a look at lot number 3321 [13]] and a poor picture at [14].

The obverse of the Sestertius depicts a bust of Hadrian with the inscription "HADRIANVS AVG. COS III P.P" and the reverse depicts Hadrian sacrificing a bull at an altar; with two children and Judaea in attendance, with SC in the exergue (meaning that the Roman Senate authorized this coin) with the inscription "ADVENTVI AVG IVDAEA". The numismatic evidence (based on the portrait and the Consul year etc.) from the experts in this field all agree that this is from the year 136 or slightly before.

So here you have it, Judaea was called JUDAEA even by the enemies of the Jews like Hadrian and Trajan and the renaming wasn't an innocent act, but a sinister attempt to eradicate and de-

Judaea

which unfathomably still continues on until today as we speak.

To me this goes to the heart of the matter where all those that want to deny the Jewishness of Jerusalem will go to any length to dig out or even concoct any superficial evidence to support their goals. I'm only accusing those that are guilty; so those that are not need not be offended. Itzse 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, out of the three souces that you give the only serious one is that of the historian

Dio Cassius

(c. 160 - c. 230) who writes that the Bar Kochba revolt was as a result of Hadrian renaming Jerusalem; but as to the renaming of Judaea these souces are in agreement with me.

As to Dio Cassius's understanding I question that too, because it was penned by him close to a hundred years after the fact; where there were no newspapers and here he is not stating facts and dates; but motivation which even to a contemporary can be subjective. Besides the precursor of the revolt really started much earlier during the rule of Trajan (98-117) who squashed it. It is shallow to suggest that renaming, as insulting as it is would trigger such a ferocious revolt. As an historian I can tell you that it was the Roman desire to abolish Judaism together with the burning desire of the Jews to regain their at least semi independence which triggered that revolt which had the backing of the greatest sage at that time Rabbi Akiva and put mighty Rome at bay for almost three years.

Also let me take all of you in on a little secret which shall surprise you. That there almost doesn't exist anybody who is both an

Archeologist and a Numismatist. So where assumptions or theories by archeologists conflict with numismatic evidence; the latter should be given more weight as it deals with hard facts. Itzse

19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand how a coin printed in 136 CE automatically means the city was constructed that same year. I have a United States twenty-dollar bill with a picture of the White House marked Series 2004, but I don't get the impression the White House was built in 2004. I never suggested that the renaming of Judea to Syria Palaestina was not an attempt to "de-Judaize" [sic] the city; I'm merely saying there's no need to rub it in. The article states that Hadrian "banned the Jews" as a "punitive measure". It then goes on to say "In order to stop future rebellion" and then in the same sentence brings up the attempt to "de-Judaize" the city. I mean... we got the message the first, second, and third times. But as I said earlier, the first part is the bigger issue because it's not correct. The decision to establish Aelia Capitolina was a cause, not result, of the revolt. Yet another source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. How many sources do you need? Lastly, I don't know what...

To me this goes to the heart of the matter where all those that want to deny the Jewishness of Jerusalem will go to any length to dig out or even concoct any superficial evidence to support their goals. I'm only accusing those that are guilty; so those that are not need not be offended.

... means, but I sure hope you're not suggesting I and the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs are anti-Semitic. Really, the concept is laughable. -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here let me explain it to you. If Rome renamed Judaea to

Syria Palæstina then the same Rome wouldn't go and mint their largest coin, mind you, the Sestertius

which is the size of an American half dollar and three times as thick, and clearly call the Holy land JUDAEA.

BTW, who accused you of being anti-semitic. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Itzse 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, per

Wikipedia policy, documentation must be in the form of published secondary sources. I believe you when you say you are an expert numismatist, Itzse, but we can't very well insert a quote in the article saying "Look at this coin. Itzse interprets it to mean..." The burden of proof is on you, so show us published material that agrees. nadav

23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadav agreed. I'll look it up and quote chapter and verse, as most of what I wrote is from memory where I'm quite confidant that I remember correctly. Itzse 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, could you get back to the matter at hand here? No one so far has objected to the part about the renaming of Judaea to

Syria Palestina, as I said in my response just prior to this one. Thus, I'm not sure why you've brought that up again. This is about the establishment of Aelia Capitolina as it always has been. -- tariqabjotu

23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I challenge the validity of when Jerusalem was renamed to Aelia Capitolina; you do have Dio Cassius to rely on. But as far as rubbing it in; the Romans don't exist to be offended; so why should someone object to it if not for ulterior reasons. Again I'm not accusing you of having those motives; but you know as well as I do who those are. Itzse 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are two quotes from "The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina" by professor Ya'akov Meshorer who was an authority on the coinage of the Holyland and wrote numerous books on this subject.

(Page 19) "The most controversial problem concerning Aelia Capitolina is the date of its foundation. In the past, scholars tended for various reasons to disregard

I don't have any more time now so I'll have to continue another day. Itzse 00:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embassies in Tel Aviv

The insertion of the idea that most countries locate their embassies in Tel Aviv "to avoid a diplomatic confrontation with the Arab States" seems out of bounds. Surely, United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 had something to do with the relocations. Additionally, as noted later in the article, many embassies were located in Tel Aviv at the time anyway. -- tariqabjotu 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to speculate on other countries' motivations in relations with Arab states. Should be stricken. -nadav

I stand by my change; but I don't have the time now to find a source for it. Needless to say that what most people know in their heart (they don't need to go to their heart of hearts) that what I wrote is correct not mere speculation; but for now until I or someone else brings a source, I'll let go of it. Itzse 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Lay barren"

I also question the factuality of the statement that the city "lay mostly barren" [sic] during Byzantine times. I realize Jews were banned from the city, but wasn't the city a major pilgrimage destination for Christians as the previous sentence and source imply? -- tariqabjotu 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't give a source, and "barren" is subjective. At this point, everything inserted must be sourced, as we're going for FA status now. nadav 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrimage was done for religious reasons without the requirement of actually living there as opposed to the Jews who wanted to live there for nationalistic and religious reasons. Sure there were here and there people who settled there but a far cry from being called a settlement. Even as late as 1869, Mark Twain describes his visit to the Holyland and describes it as "barren". The influx of Arabs into the Holyland was a direct result of the influx of Jews starting after the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1516 as any Historian would attest.

Secondly calling it a "major" pilgrimage destination in the beginning of the fourth century when Christianity was hardly on its feet is standing history on its head.

Nothing personal, but I have to use strong language to make my point. Itzse 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Although Christianity was a young religion, you should not underestimate its influence at the time. Following Constantine's conversion to Christianity, he made a huge impact on the development of the religion within the Roman Empire. Its precense was far from trivial, regardless of what Mark Twain said 1500 years later. "Barren" is completely subjective and some would still consider using that term when describing the vicinity of Jerusalem, which has its decent share of open space (as any satellite photograph would reveal). -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a guessing game where we estimate what was. The history of the period is clearly understood to historians. When

Julian called Julian the "apostate" by some and Julian the "philosopher" by others removed Christianity as the state religion and reinstituted in its place again Paganism. As to "barren", I think that it isn't a good enough word; "desolate" is; but saying that it wasn't barren but settled is patently false. Itzse

22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a new source, The On-line Encyclopedia of the Roman Provinces, published on the University of South Dakota website that has an impressive looking editorial board. Relevant passages:

• "Extensive systematic excavations and salvage work since the late nineteenth century have redressed the dearth of information about the city between the time of Josephus and the explosion of Christian interest in the fourth century. Beginning with Constantine Aelia enjoyed Christian expansion and building activity, and in the fifth century its bishop received patriarchal status. It reached its greatest ancient extent in the sixth century." [15]
• "Hadrian seemed to have planned a great temple to Zeus in a newly founded city, Aelia Capitolina, on the ruined site of Jerusalem. Such a pagan intrusion could not have pleased the Jews...Nevertheless, it does seem that these Romanizing acts of the government, easily construed as hostile to the Jews and added to latent nationalism and Messianism, ignited the second great revolt of the Jews against Rome, the Bar Cochba Revolt of 132 to 135...In the aftermath of the Bar Cochba Revolt, the Romans excluded Jews from a large area around Aelia Capitolina, which Gentiles only inhabited....The province now hosted two legions and many auxiliary units, two colonies, and--to complete the disassociation with Judaea--a new name, Syria Palaestina" [16] nadav 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So for non-Jews, Jerusalem was anything but barren in the byzantine era. And there were two renamings: the city was renamed before the revolt, and the province was renamed after the revolt. nadav 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, your conclusion is a fair one regarding the renamings based on the historical information that we have. But regarding settlement in what was once Judaea; sure there were settlements here and there as Christianity spread with more activity in the fifth century then in the fourth and more activity in the sixth century then in the fifth; but still it all didn't amount to a major settlement and was still barren well into the Byzantine Empire. But the article is talking about

Constantine the great a Roman not a Byzantine ruler, who ruled at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century; and at that time it was completely barren or desolate for their being no reason for non Jewish people to desire to live there. Afterwards as Christianity spread, sure there were occasional settlements constructed but compared to how it was populated before the destruction of the Temple it still would be considered barren. Only after the first Crusade in 1096 quite a few years later there existed a religious fervor for the Christians to live in the Holy land and even with all the influx of people Jews, Arabs and Christians; in 1869 Mark Twain correctly found a barren land. It seems to me that the interest of removing the word "barren" (not by you) is to add weight to the claim that the Jews stole someone else's land. Itzse

00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit mentioned Byzantine times, that's why I thought this was relevant. I think the quote I brought and additional material on the second quote's page do disagree with your assertion "there were occasional settlements constructed". The source emphasizes the fervor with which Christians settled the place. Regardless, we are talking only about Jerusalem here, not other areas of the province. I'm not an expert, but the roman provinces encyclopedia does seem very precise on this matter. I don't think I have anything more to add about this issue. Still, tariq and I have been bringing sources forward even though the burden of proof is on you if you want to keep the text. So I think we should change these particular edits back for now while we wait for authoritative sources that dispute ours. Regards and kol tuv. nadav 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am astounded that prior to your edits, the article did not mention at all Hadrian's Romanization of the city, the change of name, and the disassociation with Jews. This is something even a total non-expert like myself knew. nadav 02:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there are way too many photos of the Dome of the Rock. There is much more to Jerusalem than that, and it should be reflected in the pictures. The quality of most of them also leaves something to be desired. If you agree, let me know and I will put up some of mine. Oh, and Nadav, thanks for the welcome. You asked what I think of this article for featured status. Personally, I think it needs more work - more copyediting in particular and less pandering to certain groups that are trying hard to push their political agendas. Jerusalem is unlike any city in the world, and the article should reflect something of that.

--Gilabrand 09:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now there are 3 pictures of dome of the Rock. We should remove one. If you have any good pics of the new city, it would be nice. I also tried adding a historical pic of Yaffa street. Tariq, is the pic not appropriate at all? I thought it was interesting because it shows the division between the East and West sides, and how things were built outside the walls. I also found some pictures on the hebrew wikipedia: [17], [18], [19], [20]. -nadav 10:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay... fine... put it back. I'm not sure who changed their sizes, but I think the pictures are too big now. There are some as large as 350 pixels, which could be a problem for users with lower resolutions. I also don't understand why the images were put in tables; that just moves images away from their relevant section and can potentially cause conflicts with preceding images. -- tariqabjotu 10:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I also can't decide whether it was better with some images aligned to the left. nadav 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the tables or alignment, but the reason I restored the picture I did was because it is a unique panorama of both the old and new cities. I do realise that the picture of the Dome of the Rock is from the same angle (essentially a zoomed-in or cropped version), and I'm not sure I have a good solution for the ambiguity. The shot from the old city to the Mounts of Olives and Scopus seems a bit dull and could perhaps be replaced with a "three towers" panorama of the famous northeast skyline, though I'll have to go about locating one. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a pain (apparently not), but it would be great if someone can think of some creative way to include Image:DavidTower.jpg in the entry, since it really is an iconic image associated closely with the city. Anyone able to find the above mentioned photograph (NE skyline with the three towers) would also have my gratitude. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not too concerned about including a photo of a building essentially dating to the Suleiman reconstruction of the walls in the 16th century, relatively modern by Old City standards, considering we already have a lot of Old City photos. nadav 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the change to the caption of the New City landmarks because: 1) Mishkenot Sha'ananim is already described in the text, so caption is more concise without description 2) Depending on semantics and definitions, the Russian Compound could be older or newer (or even may not be considered a true 'neighborhood'). No need to get into that question in a simple image caption. I also reverted the knesset caption because the change made it redundant: "Israeli parliament legislative branch". nadav 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This section was unclear and my edits were an attempt to make it more logical. I don't see why these edits should be removed, especially since they add pertinent information regarding the physical condition of the streets (and as a resident of Jerusalem for over 36 years, I do have some knowledge on this subject...)

--Gilabrand 11:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you are correct. Unfortunately in this case, we still have to follow wikipedia policies against

published secondary sources. These are useful policies: if a reader asks where we get our facts, we cannot just refer him to your knowledge of the city (what would the footnote look like?). As an Israeli, following these kinds of rules is against my natural tendency :), but I know why they exist and respect them. nadav

11:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the best solution is just to find a source that corroborates your facts. nadav 11:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I think the whole paragraph should go. I found no such comparison between East and West Jerusalem in any Google search, and if you can't check the Nusseibeh material it is based on, who knows if isn't fabricated. To me it sounds like hogwash - there is no reason for East Jerusalem to have have more "air pollution due to traffic congestion" than West Jerusalem unless someone is interested in digging up more issues to add fuel to the flames. So forget my edits as well. They were an attempt to make the argument sound more logical, but maybe it isn't logical to begin with. --Gilabrand 12:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can read the book source. Click on the ISBN, then click on Google Book search (which will lead you to the exact book), then use the search bar on the right side to find the relevant pages ("East Jerusalem" is a suitable search term). The book explains somewhat extensively why there is more pollution from cars in East Jerusalem. Not everything in this article is an attempt to be polemic (in fact, nothing in this article is an attempt to be polemic). -- tariqabjotu 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not every single word here needs a little number beside it.

Statements that are easily verified by reading a linked article don't need specific sources, or it'll turn into an abomination.

The "Name" cite - what source would you like here? Any Hebrew speaker will tell you that if we treat the "aim" as a suffix, what remains (Yerushal) is not a word. Where do you want me to link - to a dictionary that can't find the word?

okedem 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree out of principle to the citation of easily verifiable and undisputed information such as the geographic location of the city, the importance of

cn}} tags can be placed, and that could quickly become a method of disrupting the entry. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk

21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I didn't really want to edit war over it. okedem 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am interested, however, in learning where the "two hills" theory of the name comes from. nadav 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading about it once, but can't recall where. Anyway, here's a respectable looking source about the name: [21] (Hebrew only, sorry). okedem 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed an excellent source and goes into a lot of depth. Shame it's in the wrong language. Another possible source is [22]. Concerning the two hills, looks like that theory should be removed for now. nadav 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This does mention the hills, but it doesn't look very reliable. nadav 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we now remove the sourcing for basic information (the maps for Jerusalem's geographic location), as well uncontroversial sourcing available via wikilink to main entry (Egged as 2nd largest bus company)? Obviously, matters of dispute (the etymology mentioned above) should retain sourcing. Tewfik^Talk 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we do that? -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we entitled to rest on the FA laurels for at least a few days before proposing such changes...? nadav 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadav: rest? =D Tariq: see my 'principled stand' against unnecessary sourcing above ;-) Tewfik^Talk 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Today, Jerusalem remains central to the

I find this statement problematic and have removed it for the following reasons:

• 1) When I go to the article on the
  Arab-Israeli conflict
  , not a word is said there about Jerusalem, let alone that it is central to the conflict. So before we can have such a statement it should at least point to an explanation.

• 2) The Arab-Israeli conflict started long before the establishment of the
  Six Day War
  the conflict wasn't resolved without Jerusalem being central to the conflict.

• 3) If it's today central to the conflict is highly questionable and it's certainly POV. If it should stay then it should at least be attributed to whose view this is. Itzse 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more specific is the fact that Jerusalem is central to the

Arab-Israeli conflict, but since the paragraph seems to survive just fine without the clause, I won't object to the removal. -- tariqabjotu

22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've change "Central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "a significant issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". There are other issues that are equally important, if not moreso; for example, the Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian claim of a "right of return". For groups like Hamas, Israel's very existence is the central issue, Jerusalem is a side point. All the negotiations up until now have left Jerusalem as a "to be determined" item, so it's clear that progress can be made without solving the Jerusalem question. In summary, a significant issue, but not central. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been left as a "final status" item because it is seen as intractable, and it was one the biggest reasons the Barak offer failed. Anyways, your change is good; the phrase is unsourced so it shouldn't be even the slightest bit contentious. nadav 08:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)