Talk:History of Jerusalem/Archive 1

Too many Biblical references for ancient history?
This article seriously needs some ancient history that is not based on the Bible. --Zero 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Let's use the Qur'an instead. woops: It is not there. Zeq 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, yes it is. Either way, there are other sources about Jerusalem other than religious texts, they're just harder to find. Raven 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zero. This article reads like a bible story, not an encyclopedia. Recently the Smithsonian magazine did a full article on the latest archeology of the area which indicates that Jeruselum was unihabited until about 200 years after the supposed time of King David, and then it was just a small goat herder village for hundreds of years after. It seems that they can't turn over a shovel full of sand that doesn't indicate that the Bible is all wrong. Lets update this page!http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/archaeology.php

I don't have the time, but someone should do it. :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.63.192 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To say that this article is compromised is an understatement. After the first paragraph, which is academic in nature, the article devolves into a bible reading, clownishly refered to as "history". Wikibearwithme (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Even the first paragraph is quite biased, as it assumes that the entire basis of the Israeli/Palistinian conflict, and history, is based only on on adherence to specific religious texts - a disingenuous argument. Wikibearwithme (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, why doesn't this page write down what the Bible and the Quran BOTH say about Bronze Age Jerusalem, about Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael? It doesn't mean they are "true", just that both the Bible and the Quran are documents referring to the history of Jerusalem from 2100-1500 BC and beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KartikAshok (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding a new comment here to note that the 15+ year issues described here have not been resolved in this article. It relies on unreliable religious texts curated by founders and leaders to tell the story they wish to tell. It is entirely inappropriate to have text like "According to the New Testament...", because that is not a historic document. It is a mythology, and unless we're talking about the mythical status of Jerusalem, which does not see to be the case for a page titled History of Jerusalem, it is entirely inappropriate to included here. -AC

Discussion of the CURRENT status of Jerusalem
This article seriously needs some ancient history that is not based on the Bible. --Zero 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC). I agree with Zero’s comments. The section on Antiquity (prehistory - 6 CE) gives the false impression that the Hebrews and Jews were the only occupiers of Jerusalem that mattered. Until more balanced information is provided, this article should be listed as “factually disputed” as it is biased to the Jewish and biblical version of history, even though the history of Jerusalem also involves other nations and peoples. . “More on Canaanite civilization: "Recent archeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofor attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE." The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998. . Before the Hebrews first migrated there around 1800 B.C., the land of Canaan was occupied by Canaanites: "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land." . The Jewish kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine: "The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David's conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan." http://www.cactus48.com/earlyhistory.html Tony February 4, 2006

Why is the current status included in the history article? This is redundant with the main article. Also it politicizes the article, while one would expect to read on history under history. A huge bias towards the disputes is already typical of most Israel/Palestine related articles. gidonb 13:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that current politics should be left for other articles. Some of the "current status" is history but it tends to duplicate the previous section.  What is useful can be merged upwards.  The rest we don't need.  --Zero 13:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing. I copy the text below. Anyone who finds historic data for this article or descriptions on Jerusalem in the present for the main article in the copied text, is welcome to make good use of it. gidonb 13:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

''==Current status== (copied by gidonb on 13:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC), not written by me, please verify information!)

''Israeli law designates Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; only a few countries recognize this designation. See Status as Israel's capital.

''According to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, not part of either the proposed Jewish or Arab state. Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, West Jerusalem was occupied by Israel, while East Jerusalem (including the Old City) was occupied by Jordan, along with the West Bank. The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom, who added a caveat that the recognition of Jordanian authority in east Jerusalem was only de facto.

''In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured East Jerusalem, and began taking steps to unify the city under Israeli control. In three legal measures passed by the Knesset on 27 and 28 June 1967 Israel extended its laws to 6.4 km² of Jordanian Jerusalem and 64 km² of the nearby West Bank, effectively annexing them (see Maps of Jerusalem pre- and post-1967). Residents of the annexed territory were offered Israeli citizenship on condition they renounce their Jordanian citizenship, which most of them refused to do.

''In 1988, Jordan withdrew all its claims to the West Bank (including Jerusalem) in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

''The status of Palestinians in East Jerusalem is also controversial. The Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have a 'permanent resident' status, which allows them to move within Israel proper. However should they move out of Israel proper (e.g. into the Palestinian territories), this status will be lost and they will not be able to return. Since many have extended families in the West Bank, only miles away, this often implies enormous hassles. By Israel's Citizenship Law, they are entitled to Israeli citizenship, which they can receive automatically or almost automatically, provided that they do not have any other citizenship. Thus, many Palestinians who would like to hold their Jordanian passports have to retain the status of permanent residents. Some Palestinians decline to accept citizenship since they consider it equivalent to accepting Israel's annexation.

''Another issue is the status of family members not recorded in the census preceding the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. They must apply for entry into East Jerusalem for family reunification with the Ministry of the Interior. Palestinians complain that such applications have been arbitrarily denied for purposes of limiting the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem, while Israeli authorities claim they treat Palestinians fairly. These and other aspects have been a source of criticism from Palestinians and Israeli human rights organizations, such as B'Tselem.

''Also see: Hebrew University HUJI


 * And while we are at it, the chapter 1948- is not really written as a history either. Some of it also redundant with the text above. gidonb 13:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Israel
Unless reasonable objections, I will add the Israel template to this article.Stoopideggs2 03:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Distortion of source
"Jordan also burnt down 57 synagogues" -- the given source does not make that claim. --Zerotalk 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * fixed it, thanks. Amoruso 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note on the Gerald M. Steinberg-sourced material, I noted it as his, as per the preceding Guinn material.--AladdinSE 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary as it's in the ref. Previously, it used quotation remarks which is why it made sense to understand what it is. Amoruso 09:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say. It is necessary, and perfectly in unison with the treatment given to the Guinn material.--AladdinSE 10:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary in both cases, but in the first it will not be coherent since it used quotation marks. The names of the authors are in the references. Amoruso 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is rank POV double standards that Steinburg's material be treated as fact, while the material unfavorable to the Israeli position is given the qualifier "According to David Guinn".--AladdinSE 08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I deleted this section: "Historical Controversy Recent archeological data indicates that Jerusalem was uninhabited until 200 years after the Biblical time of King David. Obviously this is in direct conflict with Judeo-Christian mythology and explosive in nature.  However, it is important to note that this new data is well documented and widely accepted (very quietly) in the scientific community.  http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/archaeology.php" This article does need a better criticism section, but this is not the way to do it. First, using terms like "explosive in nature" and "accepted (very quietly)" makes this sound like a tabloid article. Second, most of this article in the external link provided does not even deal with Jerusalem specifically. Third, much of the external link given is about the work of Israel Finkelstein, who is a controversial figure. Fourth, the claims in the criticism section are misleading, because while most archaeologists do not accept the Bible's version of Israelite history they certainly do not accept such a radical view as Finkelstein's--and they certainly don't keep this "very quiet." This article needs a more balanced view, but it needs an intelligent criticism section. SU Linguist 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance about whether or not Jerusalem was captured by the Mongols in 1300. The opinions of other editors who are familiar with the topic, would be appreciated in the discussion. --Elonka 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

597BCE or 586 BCE
I always heard Jerusalem fell in 586 BCE, leading to the Babylonian captivity. This article says, without a reference, that it happened in 597 BCE. I have placed a "fact" tag on the claim. If no reference is forthcoming, I will change it to 586 BCE as given by refs such as the Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1911 Britannica. Edison (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jerusalem fell in both years. See Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) and Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) --Jack1956 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Antiquity and United-Monarchy-era
The two sections about the very early history lack references to archaeological and historical evidence. The sections content is almost exclusively based on biblical narratives. And between Melchizedek and the United Monarchy period there is a gap of at least 800 years to fill. References to excavations would be nice. Cush (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Added citation tag
I have added a citations needed tag, surprised that no one had earlier. At present, the article has hardly any sources (a shocking 9 sources and 16 footnotes for thousands of years of heavily-contested history - a simple college paper has more sources than that). Every single line in a history article should be sourced by one, or better yet two or three sources of different types. Otherwise, none of this is to be believed. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jebus
The following material (which could never be part of a properly maintained disambiguation page) is removed from the Dab Jebus:
 * * Jerusalem – Jebus (יבוס, Standard Hebrew Yəvus, Tiberian Hebrew Yəḇûs) was the name of Jerusalem before it was captured by the Israelites (Joshua 18:28; Judges 19:10-14; 1 Chronicles 11:4-5); however, the Amarna letters suggest that the pre-Israel Canaanite population also called the city Jerusalem.

Perhaps this information is useful here (if not already included). (BTW, if research supports Jebus as either a fortress on Mt. Sion or a pre-David name for Jerusalem, an article on the fortress and/or one on the pre-David period of the city -- or corresponding sections of other articles (provided the relevant coverage is not just a dictdef, but extensive enuf to require at least a couple of sentences) -- should be linked from (a) new entry(s) on the Dab page when they become available. --Jerzy•t 06:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Herodian dynasty as subheading of Roman rule?
If Herod himself was installed as a client king by the Romans, it seems that he and the rest of his dynasty is part of the era of Roman rule. This would be nice if we can but the Herodian dynasty under the Roman rule section because it would help keep the time-line linear and therefore easier for readers. Please comment, history buffs. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Overview of Jerusalem's historical periods
Hi, Can any one change the color for Israel - Jordan period from blue to bleue and green or a neutral color. From here and every where the overview exists ? Plz see here for discussion. --Helmoony (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting paragraph in lead
I removed the paragraph dealing with political positions on Jerusalem in the lead for the following reasons:
 * This is a timeline, not a discussion about respective positions on the city. Modern positions are just that, contemporary views that irrelevant to the 5,000 years of recorded history. Their place is precisely were they were taken from, not here. It introduces an entirely irrelevant dimension to the article, and is a rather weaselly attempt at influencing the way people view the facts presented here. Let the facts and citations speak for themselves.
 * There is no point in lifting entire paragraphs from another article. There is no way, nor reason, to maintain two identical paragraphs on two different articles, it's just a matter of time before they begin to drift apart. The correct way to handle this is therefore to provide a link to the original article.
 * On a more personal note, it is patronizing to describe Arab and Israeli positions as a clash of "discourses". It's not some fluffy post-modern construct. The Arab-Israeli conflict a real conflict between two ethnic groups with different national aspirations, burdened by different ideologies thousands of years of history. Poliocretes (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Poliocretes, nice to hear from you again. I respectfully disagree with you on this - the deleted paragraph sets out how the history has been manipulated by both sides through selectivity. That is (a) highly notable; (b) confirmed through numerous WP:RS including the sources linked to the paragraphs; and (c) critically important for any reader of this article to understand. To answer your three specific points:
 * The facts speaking for themselves is not the point - it is all about selectivity (i.e. which facts are chosen to be presented).
 * That happens all over WP - if they diverge, so be it.
 * Delighted for you to edit the text as you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, Oncenawhile, it's weaselly. Selectivity is an issue with every bit of historical writing, and inserting it here is self defeating. If you're concerned with selectivity in the article, just add whatever you think is missing, no one has stopped you thus far. However, if we're discussing how different ideologies emphasize different aspects of history, then there are several politically-oriented articles which deal with the Arab Israeli conflict in which this already appears. This timeline is not the place to discuss modern perceptions of history, these simply pull the rug from under every effort put into the article. Speaking of self-defeating, divergent paragraphs soon become conflicting paragraphs and are a phenomena we should try to eliminate, not promote. Poliocretes (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To call something "WP:Weaselly", you must be saying that something it implies is not true? It's a pretty strong and emotive accusation, so I would request you to retract it. Particularly since i don't think you are actually disagreeing with what the text says - the fact that the history of Jerusalem has become highly politicised is undisputable. Perhaps you could clarify whether you agree with the text and sources? If you are saying that you agree, but your point is solely that this issue could be applicable to a handful of other cities, then I agree with you and perhaps we should add such an explanation to other articles if we can support it with similar WP:RS. I am happy to debate your "self-defeating" / "pulling the rug" point, but would prefer to clarify this emotive stuff first. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should read the link you provided better. It does not say something "is not true", but rather that it may "disguise a biased view." I do not care for text because it takes a subject I care about, the history of Jerusalem, and introduces a political dimension which is entirely unnecessary, already elaborated elsewhere, and whose only possible outcome is to turn this article into yet another battlefield. It saddens me that people can't see that there's more to life in in Israel than the Arab Israeli conflict, I tire of people who think they will liberate Palestine one Wikipedia article at a time and I have no intention whatsoever of partaking in the petty political bickering that is sure to follow the text. I have said all that I have to say about the subject. If you still feel offended by what I wrote, though no offense was intended, feel free to report me to the administrators. Poliocretes (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It always surprises me how people who agree on the core can feel so strongly about different ways to go about it. I am with you 100% on your core point - this article should not be a battlefield - it has been nice and stable and should stay that way. I interpret the text to be helping with that cause - ask any hard-line Israeli or Palestinian nationalist if they could summarise the history of Jerusalem for you, can you imagine either starting by saying "well, before i start you must bear in mind that the history of this city has been highly politicized by both sides"?! Such a position is wholly neutral (and of course backed up by WP:RS), so no POV-pusher would ever set out such a position. I understand you feel some element of ownership over the article so how about we make a deal - we leave the text in for a test period of a month or so, and if anyone tries to turn the paragraph in to a battlefield you have my word in writing that i will then support the deletion of the whole paragraph altogether. Is that fair? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reference to "hard-line nationalists" is a prime example of everything that is wrong with your text. These are your labels, much like as the positions within were not Israeli or Palestinian perceptions of the conflict but your perceptions of it (and the Zionist stance, as exemplified by two quotations from primary sources, is a clear cut case of WP:OR). Your disclaimer is an attempt to influence the way readers view the facts, a prism that you place in front of them. Do not force your views on the readers, they (=we) and not children and are not in need of either guidance or supervision. Seriously, I actually find your disclaimer to be rather offensive and will therefore decline to put it up for any amount of time. You can try to establish some sort of consensus, you can get on with some other work, or you can decide to press ahead with your alterations regardless of what anyone else thinks. It's up to you. Poliocretes (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am really dumbfounded about this conversation because you are obviously well-educated about the topic yet you continue to dispute what is a wholly uncontroversial and helpful paragraph. My only conclusion is that whilst you are intelligent and educated in history, your understanding of Historiography and nationalism leaves something to be desired (sorry if this is blunt but you have been pretty strong with me). This is not about the regional politics that you (patronisingly) mentioned - this is a global phenomenon relevant to every nation - except that Jerusalem is the only city I am aware of that sits right at the heart of two competing national narratives. So perhaps you could step back from your emotional position and we can discuss the facts for a moment.
 * Sorry if i've misunderstood you, but it is absurd for you to suggest that the phrase "[Zionist] discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees" is WP:OR or in any way controversial - it's like saying that "English discourse suggests that the English descend from the Anglo-Saxons", or that the sky is blue. The third para of the lead of the Jews article is a good example, as is this from the foreign ministry, or thousands of other sources on google - but you must know all this already so what exactly are you saying is WP:OR?
 * In order that we can conclude this discussion, please could you kindly set out slowly and clearly for me the specific facts or implications that you disagree with in the text you deleted? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have written at length about what bothers me, but I will reiterate my previous point. You insistence on telling me what I know, what I don't, what I am saying and how possessive I am of this article is precisely the authoritarian attitude your text smacks of. I have no problem with the way you speak to me, but I do not consider your text in any way "helpful". I think it is downright authoritarian and an attempt to channel readers into the views you espouse. I am done writing about this. Poliocretes (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry we are unable to get past the emotional side of this debate. I have stated clearly that there is not one view stated or implied by the text that is anything other than a widely held majority view (as per the RS provided). The fact that you have chosen not to identify the facts or implications that you disagree with says more than anything written above. I believe i have the right to put the text back in given where we have got to in this discussion, based on WP:JDLI. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging history articles
Is there any reason why History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) and Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period are separate articles? These both contain excellent information which would be good to have on this page, and this page is only 59k so not too long at the moment. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Crusader period
I made some effort in rescuing and cleaning the machine-translated article (now moved into my user space) User:Staszek Lem/Jerusalem during the Crusader period. See some of its fate in Talk:Jerusalem during the Crusader period; people wanted it to be kept, but did't want to spend their time on it.

Please contribute to finishing the job, or I will delete it from my space. I am not even a Jew. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem lead RfC
There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Early Ottoman period
The Hurva synagogue could hardly have "served as the main synagogue in Jerusalem from the 16th century until 1948" as it was burned down in 1721 and only rebuilt in 1864. During that time prayer took place at the Four Sephardic Synagogues--ארינמל (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726151231/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?Id=20094 to http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=20094
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509144425/http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=530047&contrassID=1 to http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=530047&contrassID=1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025062624/http://www.custodia.org/ to http://www.custodia.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205220744/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/995/focus.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/995/focus.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928062456/http://isfn.skytech.co.il/articles/UM%20One%20God%20One%20Cult%20book.pdf to http://isfn.skytech.co.il/articles/UM%20One%20God%20One%20Cult%20book.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719231956/http://homepages.luc.edu/~avande1/jerusalem/sources/nasir.htm to http://homepages.luc.edu/~avande1/jerusalem/sources/nasir.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=591356
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708204843/http://otherisrael.home.igc.org/silwan.html to http://otherisrael.home.igc.org/silwan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208160016/http://members.verizon.net/vze3xycv/Jerusalem/conflictsum.htm to http://members.verizon.net/vze3xycv/Jerusalem/conflictsum.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208021820/http://www.history.com/content/jerusalem/timeline to http://www.history.com/content/jerusalem/timeline

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Part of ARBPIA remedy
Is the article a part of ARBPIA remedy? Tnx. -- M h hossein   talk 06:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Neil N  talk to me 12:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Justinian: Nea Church and related finds
There is nothing yeat on Justinian's building programme and the Nea Church as the "new Temple of Jerusalem". Here some excluded text to be reused wherever appropriate:

In 2017, during a salvage excavation, archaeologists uncovered a rare Greek mosaic dating to the year 550/551 CE, about a kilometer north of the Old City on a road leading to the Damascus Gate. The inscription on the mosaic reads, "In the time of our most pious emperor Flavius Justinian, also this entire building Constantine the most God-loving priest and abbot, established and raised, in the 14th indiction". It is closely related to another mosaic previously found among the ruins of the contemporary Nea Church, or New Church of the Theotokos. Arminden (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Outdated information regarding US Embassy in Jerusalem
The following sentences under the "State of Israel" section are no longer correct due to the recent opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018: << The international community does not recognize the annexation of the eastern part of the city, and most countries, including the US, maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. The United States Congress has pledged to move its embassy to Jerusalem, subject to Presidential approval, which has not been forthcoming as the peace process continues. >> I don't have the editor status needed to update the article and hope someone else will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoopczar (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2019
change "The international community does not recognize the annexation of the eastern part of the city, and most countries, including the US, maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. The United States Congress has pledged to move its embassy to Jerusalem, subject to Presidential approval, which has not been forthcoming as the peace process continues"    to

The international community does not recognize the annexation of the eastern part of the city, and most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. In May 2018 the United States and Guatemala moved their embassies to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. 2001:558:141C:3F:2529:7BE9:2C2:3354 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Duplicate of request below – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2019
change X "The international community does not recognize the annexation of the eastern part of the city, and most countries, including the US, maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. The United States Congress has pledged to move its embassy to Jerusalem, subject to Presidential approval, which has not been forthcoming as the peace process continues"

to Y "The international community does not recognize the annexation of the eastern part of the city, and most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. In May 208 The United States and Guatemala moved the embassies to Jerusalem. Donald Trump was the first U.S. President to fulfill his promise to Israel. 2001:558:141C:3F:2529:7BE9:2C2:3354 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — IVORK Discuss 04:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2020
please change Vincent Lemire to Vincent Lemire. Allexkoch (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 10:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong periodisation
See arguments at Talk:History of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages. There are books and articles on the topic, and a consensus among mainstream scholars has emerged. The terms used so far are plain wrong, as they are not region-specific, but copied and pasted from Western Europe, where history took a very different course. The periodisation used here wouldn't be applicable even to the Byzantine Empire and Eastern Europe. Arminden (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020
Location of correction: Section: Roman Jerusalem; 1st paragraph; 1st sentence. Change "... captured Jerusalem after forty-day siege" to "... captured Jerusalem after a forty-day siege" by adding the word "a" before "forty-day" Goman1 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dylsss(talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 02:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020 (2)
Location of correction: Section: Roman Jerusalem; 4th paragraph; 4th sentence Change "... an early centers of Christianity..." to "... an early center of Christianity..." by deleting "s" in "centers" Goman1 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dylsss(talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 02:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Seljuk period: date?
Is this supposed to say 1076? "In 1176, riots between Sunnis and Shiites in Jerusalem led to a massacre of the latter." [the nearest preceding date is 1071, and the nearest following is 1086]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2021
In the section 3.1 Early Muslim period please correct the line

Map of Jerusalem as it appeared in the years 958–1052, according to Arab geographers such as al-Muqaddasi

The Hereford Mapa Mundi, depicting Jerusalem at the centre of the world Although the Qur'an does not mention the name "Jerusalem", the hadith assert that it was from Jerusalem that Muhammad ascended to heaven in the Night Journey, or Isra and Miraj.

Change this to

Jerusalem is mentioned and referred to as Masjid Al Aqsa which is quoted in the Quran 17:1 “Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed to show him Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing” 2600:1000:B146:AC0F:A971:731F:AF0B:A44E (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The section mentions that the Quran does not contain the name Jerusalem. See COMMONNAME. There should be good reason to use a Quranic term or direct quotation, which looks misplaced/irrelevant here. MxWondrous (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman period needs more data
Please follow or contribute at Talk:Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, I think that's the better venue for the topic. Arminden (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Creation of category "EB sites in Southern Levant"
Please see discussion here. Arminden (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)