Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 24

Intolerably poor sourcing
is characteristic of much of this article, but this stands out:- "and made into the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel (c. 11th century BCE).ref name='promise'Cite book"
 * (a) both sources are ideological. The 'city of david org' ref should be removed immediately
 * (b) the United monarchy is a theory based on a religious texts and hotly disputed, certainly for this time
 * (c) the word 'capital' for that period is an anachronism.
 * (d) it greatly overblows the narrative. 'In th days of David and Solomon . .its population wa probably no more than 1,000, again mostly ruling elites and their families .perhaps 10 acres in extent.'William G. Dever,The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel,Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012 p.55
 * (e) Can we establish a principle that all primary sourcing to the Bible needs to be filtrated through standard critical histories written by competent scholars and archeologists?Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It says that this is according to "Jewish tradition" and the "biblical account" right before your selective quoting.
 * (a) It's according to Jewish tradition, the sources are fine (not that anyone would seriously challenge that this is what Jewish tradition says).
 * (b) Yes, it's based on religious texts. It says so right there in the article. Are we supposed to expunge what Jewish tradition says from this article?
 * (c) Says you.
 * (d) Overblows what narrative? Again - "Jewish tradition".
 * (e) Interesting you don't make that suggestion regarding all religious texts, just the Bible. So the answer is no, we can not establish a principle where Jewish tradition needs to be filtered through modern academics while other religious traditions do not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Read again, if you read it at all. There is nothing selective in my quoting. The words 'Jewish tradition' heads a sentence on the founding of the city. 'In the biblical account' then heads the next sentence re Melchizedek. The third sentence slips into objective narrative mode, stating 'Later, in the time of Joshua, it lay within territory allocated to the Tribe of Benjamin' etc. A reader would never get any idea that here, editors have snuck in a counterfactual hypothesis as history, since Joshua's time corresponds to the period when Canaan formed part of the Egyptian empire (K. L. Noll,Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction, Continuum Publishing, 2002 p.78, and any number of sources.) There is no indication here or throughout many similar articles that the narrative voice is in fact a religious reconstruction of the past written several hundred years after the supposed events. The same slippage occurs all over these articles. 'According to Hebrew scripture, King David reigned for 40 years. The generally accepted estimate of the conclusion of this reign is 970 BCE.' Sentence on states a biblical tradition. Sentence two slips in a 'generally accepted estimate' in language suggesting we are dealing with an historical fact ('generally accepted'.


 * "Jewish tradition" etc. This language, which is so commonplace it goes unnoticed, reminds me that wikipedia articles are flawed in the way they constantly divide a common tradition along ethno/sectarian lines. "The Jewish tradition" is extrabiblical, but you confuse the two. The Bible forms part of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" and neither side of it has proprietorial rights. I.e. if we speak of Jerusalem, for once, in the Bible, then correct usage would require writing as a great scholar like Rifkin does when she writes of Jerusalem's "centrality in Judeo-Christian tradition." So
 * (a.1)'according to Jewish tradition' refers to the founders of the city. The Bible and Jewish tradition are two distinct things, which you have confused.
 * (a.2) 'The sources are fine. Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann were not historians. The Ir David Foundation is an organization devoted to judaising the city, and nothing on its various sites is reliable for an article on history, or anything but its own nature. It would fail RS instantly.
 * (b)All primary sources, the Bible is one, should be cited through secondary sources, religious or not. The other day I had to replace a direct cite to Herodotus by a reference to a commentary on Herodotus. We don't expunge what Jewish tradition or any other says from this article as your customary malice imputes I am suggesting. We should separate religious mythistory from the science of hard empirical history. We subordinate accounts written hundreds of years later to what actual historical and archeological studies tell us, just as we do not write the early history of Athens according to the mythological accounts in historians, or the history of early Rome according to the fantasies of Livy. etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I gather that the only relevant point you have in all that tldr is that it's not clear enough to you that the sentence you quoted above relates to the two previous sentences which do not present information as fact but rather as Jewish tradition? Feel free to suggest how to word it to make it clear these are all traditions.
 * I liked your point (a.2) about Ben Gurion . Amusing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read that diff?  nableezy  - 20:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * NMMGG. What's the point of making comments about what is relevant or not relevant when you cite WP:TLDR, which means you didn't read it? You can't make a relevancy call on what you say you haven't read. It's called logic. Since you confused "Jewish tradition" and the "Bible" you're the guy who should clarify what you mean in claiming the latter is a variant of the former. In the meantime, it is self-evident that irdavid.org is unacceptable. Many good sources state that both that and Ben-Gurion/Weizman argue. The Ben-Gurion diff is one of attribution of a position he held, which happens to be shared by several scholarly sources. The Ben-Gurion cite here is given as a fact. It can be backed, or replaced, by eminently good scholarly sources, but no one takes the trouble. It's called indifference to scholarly sources on an important page that could be written exclusively from them. Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you have a suggestion for wording you think will make it clearer these are traditions rather than accepted historical fact. I don't come here to read your never ending blogging. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should I let you know? I address a community of fellow editors, not casual small beer in the wiki commentariat. You never seem to contribute to articles. Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to hold my breath. I expect you'll be dropping the subject now that you've made your point about Jewish traditions and someone called you out on it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * translation:'Nishidani is an antisemite', your same old tired refrain. So drop it: we're here to build articles, not grizzle about our personal beefs with other editors.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to figure all this out, but I would like to state my opinion that the Ir David Foundation is definitely not a reliable source for history. And even if it was (which it is isn't), we should avoid using activist organizations for plain statements of fact. Zerotalk 23:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the oldest cities in the world
Hello Wiki editors,

I'd like to solicit some opinions on the statement in the lede that Jerusalem is "one of the oldest cities in the world". As a student of the city's history, this caught me off guard. True, archaeological evidence now indicates the city was inhabited, perhaps continuously, from the Early Bronze Age. That hardly makes it a "city" at that time, it could scarce be called a village through much of EB. In fact, most of our information for this early period comes from nearby tombs, and we have virtually no concrete information on the size of the settlement or even whether it remained permanently settled throughout EB.

Admittedly, the standard for when or at what size Jerusalem "became" a city is an arbitrary question open to a thousand answers. But the statement seems deceptively broad. Nearby Jericho has nearly six thousand (!) years of human activity underneath the EB layers, and the broader area is littered with Chalcolithic settlements.

Sitting in a region with so many Neolithic and Chalcolithic remains, should Jerusalem really be called, without qualification of any kind, "one of the oldest cities in the world"? I've avoided changing anything, but would solicit your opinion on whether a change is warranted. Thanks. -Brandon 67.161.254.8 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is interesting, do you have a suggestion on how to change the wording? --Dailycare (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about, Jerusalem is one of the most sectarian cities in the world?

Etymology section needs fixing

 * The Hebraic/Semitic root yry, "to lay or found" is wholly unrelated to the Sumerian word for "settlement" or "city", which by the way is "Uru", not "Yeru".
 * JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.145 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

About the "History" section.
In the history section it states that Zionism is "Israeli nationalism". This is incorrect. Zionism is Jewish nationalism. At this point in history, there is no Israeli nationalism because about 20% of Israeli society is non-Jewish and there are groups within the Israeli-Jewish society that reject Zionism and call for the establishment of Israeli nationalism which will include the non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel (those also call for the "One-state solution").

Please correct it. Zionism is Jewish nationalism.

Thank you --Moto53|Talk to me! —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes
I think that this article should begin like this: "Jerusalem is an old city in the geographic region Palestine and the self-proclaimed capital of Israel (though not internationally recognized as such). It is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It's one of the oldest cities in the world."

Starting the article with "... is the capital of Israel" is POV (I think most people would agree on that).--Ezzex (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added "according to Israeli law" into the opening sentence of the article, so it reads: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to Israeli law, though not internationally recognized as such..." I think allays the neutrality concerns, and I hope it may be a compromise that editors of different views can accept. Neljack (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion. In December 2012, the Arbitration Committee mandated a binding request for comment (RfC) to resolve this issue in the article. That is the discussion that will lead to the formation of the RfC on this issue. You are free to participate in the discussion there, but you are asked not to make any changes to that piece in the article until the conclusion of the RfC, and only then in accordance with the outcomes of the RfC. --  tariq abjotu  06:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC re WP:BOLDTITLE - Bolding Al Quds
Per WP:BOLDTITLE, "significant alternative titles are placed in bold". However, in this article the Palestinian name for the city is written as if it is a translation of Jerusalem. An illustration of its use in English by Palestinians is on the right in File:Alquds2009-Poster-Gaza.jpg. (Removing fair-use image from talk page. --  tariq abjotu  20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC))

I propose therefore that the first sentence of this article should read as follows: Comments gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, this is very similar to the Mumbai-Bombay example in WP:BOLDTITLE. --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading the comments below, I'm changing my view to no need to bold due to the "foreign language" provision in WP:BOLDTITLE. --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose No, it should not be bolded. al-Quds is not, nor has it ever been, a common name for the city in the English language. It is the name of the city in Arabic. This is completely different from Bombay/Mumbai, where both are widely used in English and the more native name (Mumbai) is the official English name. --  tariq abjotu  20:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a name commonly used in English by the 11 millions Palestinian people who claim the city as their capital, and many of the world's English-speaking Muslims. It was even used by the now-director of the CIA John O. Brennan who said in 2010 "And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is al Quds -- Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together"... Plus it is used my many organisatons in their English names
 * Anyway, the test is "significant alternative", which we seem to agree is the case given the prominence of the hatnote at the top of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a very low threshold of what is considered a significant alternative. The hatnote does not signify anything, other than the fact that there is a disambiguation page with other uses for something that redirects here. Kudüs also redirects here, but it is not a significant alternative title. al-Quds is far from being a suitable title for this article on the English Wikipedia, as it has no standing in the English language. So a government adviser used the term al-Quds to an audience of Muslims? And? Even in that context, he still clarified that he was talking about the city of Jerusalem, as it's known in English. Outside select contexts, the name al-Quds would not be understood or said by English speakers. The same goes for Saudia for Saudi Arabia; it is not accepted English and so, despite how many Arabs continue to say Saudia when speaking English, it is not bolded at the beginning of Saudi Arabia.
 * Other examples: Cannabis (drug) bolds marijuana as an alternative title, but not pot. Jesus does not begin as Jesus or Isa. Persian Gulf does not begin as The Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. Brazil does not begin with Brazil or Brasil. All secondary names are commonly used by some segment of the world population in English, but they do not rise to the level as significant alternate titles for the English Wikipedia, and so they should not be bolded. --  tariq abjotu  00:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't focus on the glaring errors ("Saudia" is an abbreviation of the Arabic "al-‘Arabiyyah as-Su‘ūdiyyah", "pot" is slang, and "Arabian Gulf" is actually bolded in the article (and that one has been argued over since wikipedia began 10 years ago...)).
 * In your core argument you are getting mixed up between (a) words with different roots vs (b) words that are simply transliterations. Isa and Brasil both fall into category "(b)" - they are words from the same root, with slightly different pronunciations. This is the case with most English exonyms, such as another relevant example Jericho, which is from the same root as Ariha and Yeriho (and therefore these names are correctly left unbolded).
 * However, there are some English exonyms with different roots (my category "(a)") - like Japan (bolded as Nihon), French Riviera (Côte d'Azur is bolded), Yangtze River (Chang Jiang is bolded) etc. The example of Kudus you gave above underlines this - Kudus is from the same root as Quds, as is Beit Al-Maqdas, so only one needs highlighting. All names of Jerusalem come from one of two wholly separate roots - we shouldn't be conflating those.
 * Your other core argument is a problem of your WP:WORLDVIEW. You seem to believe it doesn't matter that the city's existing Palestinian population view Al Quds as its proper name. And your world view seems to ignore the countries represented by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, whose various organisations use Al Quds as the primary name (e.g., , and ).
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this the response you're going to give every person who disagrees with you? That they're motivated by a worldview that you have no evidence they have? That their opposition comes from a desire to whitewash Palestinian heritage? Your comment reveals more about your point-of-view and motivations for this RfC than mine.
 * I see Arabian Gulf bolded later, but I was coming up with examples of terms actually accepted in English that aren't bolded -- but apparently that is actually bolded. Côte d'Azur is understood to mean the French Riviera in English by people outside the French-speaking world [myself included]. I don't know much about the Yangtze River, but a perusal of Google Books suggests Chang Jiang is used as a name of the river and a surrounding valley in English. This compares to al-Quds, which comes almost exclusively in transliterations of Arab texts or in Arab political documents. I can't speak for why Nihon is bolded, as it is in direct contravention to WP:BOLDTITLE imperative, Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English. The dissimilarity of the foreign term to the English version (and my goodness, there are so many countries and cities for which that is the case -- Germany and Ireland among them). Neither Nihon nor al-Quds are normally used in English, and there is no reason for the error there to be repeated here. --  tariq abjotu  16:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think you have a "motivation" - my guess is that you genuinely believe what you are saying. I think one's view of what is "actually accepted in English" is a result of one's life experiences - who we've spoken to, who we've learnt from, where we've travelled, etc. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't need your patronization. I am Muslim and I have countless Muslim and Arab friends, my roommate included (a native of Egypt). Along with traveling to Israel and the West Bank, I have traveled to Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the UAE, and Qatar (and places beyond the Arab world). Yes, I have heard people use al-Quds to refer to Jerusalem when otherwise speaking English (just as I have heard a number of Arabic terms in that fashion), but I would never claim that it is commonly accepted in English. Keep your bullshit pre-conceived notions about myself and my viewpoints out of this discussion, just as I am not using your thinly veiled political agenda to oppose your request. --  tariq abjotu  21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * An odd irony here - it seems you're actually the one with strange preconceptions. I honestly have no view on your background or views - I have just pointed out where i believe there are logical and factual problems in your statements. It's not personal.
 * Your fourth sentence is interesting, particularly "just as I have heard a number of Arabic terms in that fashion" - which terms are you referring to?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've named some of those Arabic terms above in my examples. And don't play innocent. You know exactly what you were doing when you decided to inject WP:WORLDVIEW and the baseless nonsense about what I feel about Palestinians and the OIC into this conversation. If you want to argue that al-Quds is normally used in English, okay, fine, good luck. But I am not changing my mind, and I suggest you not badger those who disagree with you with accusations they're not worldly enough, not hanging out with the right type of people, or have an axe to grind with Arabs and Palestinians. --  tariq abjotu  22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Enough of this please. Those are your emotional interpretations of my comments - they are different to my interpretations / intended implications. I strongly believe what I said that this debate is an issue of WORLDVIEW, just as you believe what you said. It's not intended to be a negative comment on anyone - none of us have a prerogative on the right, best or broadest worldview. Can we just move on please. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Not an alternative name for the city in English. It should be given in parentheses like the Hebrew name. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Good grief. Everytime one tries to be courteous to the non-English speaking world, esp. if it regards the Islamic world which also holds the city as sacred, and calls it Al-Quds, hysteria and ideological objections trample down a simple uncomplicated gesture of recognition of the dreadful other's worldview. Let's not be petty. It is just bolding, nothing ideological, no threat to the state of Israel, calm down chaps, and be decent.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support- Per policy and standard practice. Dlv999 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's the Arabic name, not an English name or a Palestinian one (outside of it being the common Arabic name). It isnt a common English name as far as I can tell, it is a relevant translation and belongs in the lead because of that. Al quds is a transliteration of the Arabic, not a translation.  nableezy  - 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Emphatic Don't Care: What on earth difference does it make? Jeez, the things you guys argue about! --Ravpapa (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could not possibly care less. There are more important things to discuss than this. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 05:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ravpapa and Evanh2008: Then why are you both commenting here? Do you actually think this helps? Who are "you guys"? Is it a crime now to respond when responded to and when accused of being motivated of bias? Tell me, what would you do? Just ignore it? Okay, but not everyone is fine just letting a label stand uncontested. If you think you're too good to be involved in the RfC, then don't be. Yes, this isn't earth-shattering -- nothing on Wikipedia is -- but the question has been posed, and no one should be lumped together and criticized for responding to it. --  tariq abjotu  07:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't criticize anyone. Heaven knows I've engaged in more pointless debate than this, so try not to take it personally. Consider my vote Neutral if blander phrasing helps. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am commenting because I think that "don't care" is an opinion relevant to this debate. And I don't merely not care - I emphatically don't care. I expect my opinion to be taken into account in the final decision. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose; Jerusalem is the common name in english, al-Quds is its arabic translation, and should be treated similar to the hebrew translation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BOLDTITLE Foreign language: Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English.PopularMax (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a big deal, but as per my reading ofWP:BOLDTITLE Al Quds is not a significant English language alternative. Jschnur (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The UN recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
"The UN and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital"

Look here: http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Israel

"Capital city and population in 2011 (000)		Jerusalem (791)"

This is an official website of the united nations. Please consider rephrasing the sentence above.

MagicWord (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Some site probably maintained by some bored interns is one thing. More telling is that the UN has a nice little publication on the status of the city . Here are some choice excerpts:
 * "[The UN] further reaffirmed the continued invalidity of all actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that have altered or purported to alter the character, legal status and demographic composition of Jerusalem."
 * "The General Assembly, in a resolution adopted on 9 February 1999, reiterated that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which had altered or purported to alter the character, legal status and demographic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, were null and void and had no validity whatsoever."
 * "The General Assembly revisited the question of Jerusalem at its fifty-fifth session. In a resolution adopted on 1 December 2000, the Assembly determined that the decision of Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem was illegal and, therefore, null and void."
 * You see, the UN is not a blog. It does not officially "recognise" anything by means of online afterthought websites. Its decisions are made with the assent of member countries and expressed through resolutions. Until you can provide a UN resolution in which the previous position of the organisation is reversed, the claim that "the UN recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is false. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And in fact there is a disclaimer about the statistical summaries here: "The designation of any specific city as a capital city is done solely on the basis of the designation as reported by the country or area. The city can be the seat of the government as determined by the country." So what MagicWord found only confirms that Israel considers Jerusalem the capital. Zerotalk 18:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess that I'll have to be more verified next time. Thank you for your response. MagicWord (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Annexation" in 1948
It is incorrect to say that Israel captured or annexed West Jerusalem in 1948. The statement appears to be a clumsy attempt to assert equivalence between the establishment of Israel and the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. Prior to 1948 the territory of Palestine was undivided and administered by Britain. Following failed attempts by the UN to partition Palestine, it was effectively decolonised by Briain to the indigenous authority at the time, the Zionist Organisation. By international treaty (the British Mandate, 1922) the whole territory of Palestine was set aside for "close settlement of Jews", with protection for Arab civil and religious rights. At the creation of Israel, it encompassed all of Palestine and did not need to capture or annexe any part of it. The armies of five Arab states immediately invaded Israel, that of Jordan capturing and annexing East Jerusalem. BTW this was not recognised by the international community, though it appears un-PC to say this!

By allowing material like this to appear, you are aligning Wikipedia with an unsavoury collection of antisemites, Holocaust-deniers and Muslim extremists. This is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.92.98 (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 121, it seems your knowledge of history is confused and mistaken. The factual core problem is your statement "it was effectively decolonised by Britain to the indigenous authority at the time, the Zionist Organisation". This portrays a significant misunderstanding of the facts.
 * Sadly your penultimate sentence about antisemitism suggests that your factual misunderstanding is exacerbated by a total lack of respect for people who have a different view to you. If you care about truth and history, I suggest you stay well away from baseless slander like that. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jerusalem area was expected to be a 'corpus separatum' under international juridiction but it was annexed by both Israel and Jordan.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Heiro-Asylum
Heiro-Asylum is the original name of the place as given by the Ancient Egyptians. The fact that I cannot make this known in this article is an idictment on the freedom of knowledge that needs to end. The origin of the name Jerusalem, is Heiro as in Heiroglyph and Asylum as given by the Ancient Egyptians, now you better stop this Jewish history lying game and get the encyclopedia delivering honest information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.11.51 (talk • contribs)
 * Nonsense. Go away. Zerotalk 09:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim that the city was originally called Heiro-Asylum may or may not be nonsense as user Zero confidently asserts, without evidence, but if the unsigned user making the claim has a source that would be a very useful addition to the article. And rather than, "go away" as user Zero impolitely requested, might I ask that you consider opening an account and playing a full part in Wikipedia. Thank you  Cottonshirt  τ   19:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit notice discussion
There is some discussion at regarding the edit notice for this article.

Portal
Portal:Jerusalem has just been created. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on the lead section has begun
It has been a long time in coming, but the RfC on the lead section has finally opened. This RfC was mandated in this motion by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years, so if you would like a say in how the lead of this article is written then now is your chance. The discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

From Wiki Aelia Capotina
"Aelia Capitolina (/ˈiːliə ˌkæpɨtəˈlaɪnə/; Latin in full: Colonia Aelia Capitolina) was a city built by the emperor Hadrian, and occupied by a Roman colony, on the site of Jerusalem, which was in ruins since 70 AD, leading in part to the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–136." This contradicts the article on Jerusalem. Indeed the destruction and the Diaspora are reported in amazingly confused ways in general. These issues and of the Jerusalem Christians and successions to James are important. Wblakesx (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unhistorical statenent, ungrounded in any evidence, should be removed or rewritten to avoid a falsification
"'Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Jewish tradition since, according to the Hebrew Bible, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE.'" Copied from the Jerusalem rfc. That is almost assuredly completely false, and off-the-planet fiction, though some RS, none of them by competent historians of antiquity, repeat the fantasy. David's inferred date is ca.1000 BCE. The formation of the conception of Jerusalem's holiness arose in post-exilic times some four or five centuries after the age in which David is said to have conquered the city. Yerushalayim 'ir haqodesh occurs at Isaiah (52.1:'O Jerusalem, the holy city' (KJV)), i.e. is the work of the anonymous hand behind the deutero-Isaiah, writing in the second half of the 6th century BCE in Babylon; Judaism, in the form we know it, was a religious culture that took shape between the 6th century BCE and the composition of the Bavli, a millenium later. That is, this totally unencyclopedic assertion of a popular myth anticipates a Jewish sacrality to the city not attested until at the earliest 5 centuries after David's putative reign, and which only consolidated at the heart of the central symbolism of Judaism from that late date through to the 4th century CE; the 'United Kingdom' is a historical hypothesis, doubted by many, based solely on late religious texts that rewrote old traditions to establish an orthodoxy; that David established a 'capital' in Jerusalem, or earlier in Hebron, is itself subject to serious historical doubt. This is one of the most political statements in the lead, and no one appears to notice it, because it doesn't, I guess, deal with the recent conflict. It ain't sexy. You will find general, popular or publicistic sources that might qualify as RS for this statement. The problem is, it is false in terms of what modern biblical criticism and ancient historical inquiries tell us. Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Pronounciation
Currently the pronounciations are in the page as follows: The pronounciation files (for Hebrew and Arabic) are linked through the minor underscores right after the sound image:. In fact the link is in a linked space put in &lt;small> text, like:. I think this is not acceptable, because it is actually hidden for the reader. (I myself was researching where that spotty dot came from before I discovered this). now what to do? One idea is to make them like this:
 * Jerusalem (יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; القُدس al-Quds  ) located on a plateau ...
 * A. (יְרוּשָׁלַיִם ; &tc.) but that might be mixing up transcription and pronounciation.

Or we could write:
 * B. (יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; &tc.)
 * C. Move most of this information to the infobox.

Ideas anyone? -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Result of Requests for comment/Jerusalem
After thoroughly reading this RfC and the arguments expressed for and against each draft, we have found a consensus for Draft 7 and have decided that it is within our mandate to insert the geographical information from Draft 14 in place of the ellipses of Draft 7. There was a consensus that it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel”, nor is it compliant to state “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such”. There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine.

We have decided to act under the broad mandate given us by the Arbitration Committee to set the first paragraph of the article in stone to best ameliorate the conflict, rather than instigate further conflict and edit-warring over what should replace the ellipses. Therefore, we have set the first paragraph of Jerusalem as follows:

To reiterate, this decision is binding for 3 years and no one may add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead.

Thank you for your participation.

Respectfully,

Keilana (talk), Pgallert (talk), and RegentsPark (talk)
 * Dead seas?  nableezy  - 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I get it now, seas is a reference to the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. Dont think its that great a phrasing, but oh well.  nableezy  - 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thanks for spending the time on this. Probably should have led with that.  nableezy  - 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Dead Sea and Mediterranean Sea" would have a more natural flow? NW ( Talk ) 18:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Or even the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea or the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean, as the Mediterranean is often mentioned without the word Sea. But definitely not the current formulation with seas uncapitalized. --  tariq abjotu  18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes more sense grammatically, I'll make that tweak. Thanks for pointing that out. :) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I got sidetracked from why I came here originally. Thank you to the closers for a job well done. If you want to shoot the Arbitration Committee a message (publicly or privately) with how you think the process went and how you think it could be improved, we would be happy to listen. Best, NW ( Talk ) 19:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll be dropping an email or WT:AC message in a couple days. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a question on process. I understand that this is binding for 3 years, but if there were to be a consensus established, through normal Wikipedia processes, to replace, for example, Israelis and Palestinians with Israel and Palestine, could that proceed? Or is this the only opening sentences that this article will have for the next 3 years?  nableezy  - 19:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note the following grammar correction, made by one of the closers:

I was going to make the same suggestion. Apteva (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * About the 3 year period, and this edit by Mr Stradivarius. The motion said three years from the adoption of this motion. Which makes it expiring in December 2015, not June 2016. -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think at least one link is required, certainly for Abrahamic religions, which may strike many a reader as obscure? Of course, such stylistic adjustments are uniquely up to the closing admins' judgement. Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The comma between Jerusalem and located has not yet arrived in the article. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it did arrive, but sat itself after Christianity illegally. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're going to be sanctioned for adding a comma somewhere. Also, the Oxford comma is perfectly fine after Christianity. --  tariq abjotu  18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My two separate comments on a comma were lighthearted, they made me smile myself, and I do understand the Oxford comma -- but the decisive text was different. This is AE matter, I am supposed to take this matter serious. Here appears a sloppyness in the handling of the finishing text by the deciding editors. That is worrying. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When I edit source, i get a message that starts: "Please do not change the first sentence. There is currently a discussion [at RfC]". I think this should be changed into the current status. -DePiep (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made some modifications. --  tariq abjotu  18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some improvement. You did not read my note about Dec2015/Jun2016, above? -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read it. However, I didn't think it made sense to use December 2015 in the edit notice when the talk page notice says July 2016. --  tariq abjotu  17:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I assumed without checking you were one of the closing agents with these Powers. Thanks for the edit. -DePiep (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Make sure to give it a permanent place on top of this talk page. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would split the last sentence; much too long. Also, it is not obvious that a capital nessesarily should have its primary governmental institutions there (no definition of that is given). Splitting will simply avoid that presumption. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That last sentence explicitly comes from the RfC, so it can't be changed. --  tariq abjotu  17:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the Closing Editors were not restricted in grammar. They were allowed to keep the stuff readible and in correct language (and still are). Why they did not use their powers to do so, I don't know. But they were not prohibited/limited/restrained/unsourced to produce a fine readable intro with the concluded content. -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? There is nothing grammatically incorrect about that last sentence. --  tariq abjotu  03:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Who said "grammatically incorrect" here? Noone. And, from the RfC to the final text, the closers have had every right to make their conclusions readable. Why not? -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, that was the best I could interpret from your previous comment (02:00, July 12); I couldn't make sense of what you were trying to say. However, it seems to remain clear that Wickey-nl wants the last sentence split because it's too long and you're suggesting the sentence isn't readable; that sounds like grammar, or something close to that. If you both (or you at least?) were just saying you'd prefer that the sentence be worded a different way, but think it's fine the way it is, ok, sure, but that's not what I gleaned from your repeated use of the word "readable" in concert with Wickey's remarks. Regardless, I think the sentence is both grammatically correct and "readable", so any objections to it are inadmissible under the mandate preventing modifications. --  tariq abjotu  23:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you could not make sense of it, why not ask? At least don't switch readibility for grammar. Simply: I obviously replied to your statement "... RfC, so it can't be changed" (which you only apply to the last sentence of three, btw -- elsewhere you didn't mind: ). But well, now you agree that readibility can be a topic. Here is another good point: . Since the closers are irresponsive here, I might conclude any further argumentation is useless. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The crucial difference between the phrase in the first sentence and the last sentence is that the former was never under discussion at the RfC. The closers developed that wording on their own by considering the points said throughout the RfC; "Mediterranean and Dead seas" was a basic oversight generated by the closers themselves. The modification request was partially because of grammar, while also partially due to awkwardness, but it was intended to have no impact (nor did it have any impact) on meaning. However, the last sentence comes verbatim from the RfC. And the change proposed by you, StevenJ81, and Wickey-nl does change the meaning, as noted by Wickey-nl below (see his comment at 08:04, July 12). --  tariq abjotu  09:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing, especially the, as part. "Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally." A better wording would be "Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital. Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there, and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally." It would also be better to change "three sentences" to "first paragraph" in the warning... Apteva (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the wording of that sentence was provided in the RfC verbatim. Obviously, not enough people objected to it there to prevent its inclusion in the final result. The change you suggest is not purely grammatical, and I have no idea what is "confusing" about the current and original formulation. To split the sentence after the word capital would be to change the meaning of the sentence; to do so would sever the connection between the Israeli and Palestinian capital claims and the points that Israel's government is there and Palestine would like its government to be there. The sentence is not a run-on by any standard. So, again, as the wording decided during the RfC, it needs to stay. --  tariq abjotu  03:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The implicit POV: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, because its primary governmental institutions are there; Jerusalem is not the capital of Palestine, because its primary governmental institutions are not there. Just the reason why it is stated at all. I notice that correctly the word claim is used here, though.

The proposal as formulated by User:Apteva does not change the essence of the current one. Just the correction I had in mind. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how you personally feel about the sentence. There's no point discussing modifications to it as the RfC mandate ensures it remains in the article for three years. If anyone could just come to the article and say a proposed modification wouldn't violate the mandate because a current phrase is POV, the purpose of the mandate would be defeated. All grammatical points have already been raised and fixed accordingly. --  tariq abjotu  12:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wickey-nl, the time to discuss the wording of the text was during the RFC, which has now been closed. The end result is good since, as you note, and unlike the previous version, this one presents the capital issues as claims. --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a reason NOT to adjust bad and suggestive language, as in the first sentence. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead suggestion
This is an edit proposal for the lead. It is outside of the now frozen first paragraph, but it might be within the restriction. So to be on the safe side, I'll propose it here. About the second paragraph (starting with During its long history, ...):
 * Current text: Modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond its boundaries.
 * Proposed text: Modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond these boundaries.

Rationale: "these" makes a fine closure of the paragraph, connection to the content. OTOH, "its" is introducing ambiguity, unnecessary even. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I noted the same thing this morning. The sentence as it stands is meaningless.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe "far beyond those boundaries"? Or "Modern Jerusalem covers a far greater area." Or "Modern Jerusalem covers a much greater area." Apteva (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Would solve what? -DePiep (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Solve the problem of Modern Jerusalem being bigger than Modern Jerusalem. Apteva (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the initial proposal? -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Future State of Palestine 'or' Palestine ?
While I realize some interested editors may originate from nations which refuse to recognize Palestine, these editors need to realize their POV is very much fringe. The city of Jerusalem is claimed by Palestine as their capital. Palestine's government would very likely operate out of Jerusalem today if the Israelis had not disallowed it. This is not a "future state" we are talking about, really how would we even know what a future state is going to claim their capital to be? Sepsis II (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No comment on the substance of your point. However, once again, ascribing ulterior motives and assuming a political agenda in other editors isn't helpful. The propensity for some editors to assume adversaries are motivated by political POV (without any consideration for whether they themselves are) is at the heart of the toxic disputes that ravage Israel-Palestine articles. It would have been more productive, and you would be more likely to be met with a congenial response, if you just plainly stated your objection. --  tariq abjotu  18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I was thinking about this question: Sepsis II, could you please phrase your reasoning more simple? Take more time & text? There might be a good argument in there, but I cannot get that with what you wrote. -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, Sepsis II simply objects to "The Palestinian Authority regards East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state" in the article.--Wickey-nl (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An exhaustive discussion took place, under set conditions that the result determined by outside eyes, would be stable for 3 years. This was done. Whether one likes the result or not, one is obliged to respect the outcome. So, we are wasting our time discussing its content, style, or choice of language. Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it's referring to this edit. It's not in the first paragraph of the article generated by the RfC.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Tariqabjotu's advice is the more important point in this discussion : "ascribing ulterior motives and assuming a political agenda in other editors isn't helpful." That is a principle asked by Stradivarius during the RfC and that enabled to reach a consensus after years of disruption.
 * I hope that a new fire will not start in the article just because we discuss something not in the lead. Given the current version of the lead is the result of a consensus and given the lead is assuming to summarize an article's content, I suggest to use in the article exactly the same wordings as in the lead, whether we like this or not. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So Pluto2012, first you elevate Tariqabjotu's post into a main thing (going the personal road), then you need hope that "a new fire will not start". Is that the way to go? At last in the end you do arrive at content. As has been pointed out here, Sepsis II posted here because I rv his edit, and he undid mine . Now we still do not know what Sepsis II meant. And using "exactly the same wordings" in lead and sections is quite useless, don't you think? -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, Pluto wasn't criticizing you at all. Chill out. Regardless of the words he chose, it's obvious Sepsis objects to your change. That's what the thread is (or is supposed to be) about. That's all. --  tariq abjotu  09:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we would need to use the precise wording in the lead. However, I think this dispute is extremely trivial. If there's a disagreement over whether to say "...sought by the Palestinian Authority as the capital of a future Palestinian state" or "...sought by the Palestinian Authority as the capital of Palestine", it seems readily apparent to me that the latter should be used. In this particular context, the latter formulation does not presuppose that the state already exists (nor does it presuppose that it doesn't). --  tariq abjotu  09:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont think the Palestinian Authority should be used at all. If anything it should say by the PLO.  nableezy  - 14:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC feedback
If anyone is interested, I have now opened step six of the moderated discussion that led to the recent RfC about the Jerusalem lead. This is a chance to give feedback about the moderated discussion and about the RfC itself, and everyone is welcome to participate. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reporting mean monthly sunlight hours makes no seance.
Please report the mean daily sunlight hours for each month, just like your source does. Thank you!Eddau (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Importance of religious sacrifice to Jerusalem's growth
I propose to add details from this study http://www.livescience.com/39307-jerusalem-animal-sacrifice-found.html  of the importance of animal sacrifice to the growth of Jeruslaem. Where should it go? Does anyone else want to do this before I get confirmed? Cocoamelia (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your interest, the article is indeed relevant to the topic. I think the proper place for it would be either in Jerusalem (or in one of the two main articles there), or in Religious significance of Jerusalem. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage article
Can someone contribute to the "discussion" on Wikivoyage:Talk:Jerusalem? Thanks -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to improve syntax of a sentence in the lead.

 * Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.

I apologise for not opening up a discussion on the talk page before I made the edit. However the grammar and the syntax do not read well. You have four separate concepts in the above:-

Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital. This should stand alone.

Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power. You might expect the international community to recognise one of these claims. Rather it recognises neither. This relationship is expressed by the use of although at the beginning of a subordinate clause, or by the use of however after a semicolon. Using as simply makes no sense. I certainly did not intend to alter the meaning. I certainly do not intend to push the point. Trahelliven (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You make good points. However, right or wrong, we are locked into this wording until Jan. 2016 per the Request for Comment linked to near top of this page. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeeds you both, a good edit prevented. When the RfC was closed, last June, the concluding editors thought it OR to write good sentences. -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Ultimately foresees it' is a, well, I've foregotten the right rhetorical term for this crassness, but it is a void phrase. 'Ultimately foresees' means on one level, that 'now they don't foresee it being/becoming such', and is only saved from such an absurdity by the ambiguity in 'ultimately' which may also, as perhaps intended here, suggest 'in the final analysis', which however is not true either. One foresees now, and what one foresees, if it occurs, is the ultimate result of that aim. It doesn't help that it follows by 'its' is cleft-thumbed stylistically. One could go on. Will you all join me in an offline eheu? (On the other hand, the sentence's shambolic incoherence reflects faithfully the discursive and practical impasses of all I/P realities.) Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In defense of the editors who created this sentence (I was not one of them), I would suggest that the intent is, "... The State of Palestine foresees it, ultimately, as its seat of power." That is to say, "ultimately" is intended to modify "seat of power" rather than "foresees". Jerusalem is today not Palestine's seat of power, but ultimately, Palestians foresee, it will be. Of course the sentence structure certainly obscures this intent, with the placement of ultimately obviously modifying "foresees". Fortunately, these niceties fly past readers with an agility and grace that we trundling editors seem unable to appreciate. Ravpapa (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm conditioned, in editing here, by memories of what chaps like Raja Shehadeh and Edward Said said of the initial early 90s peace talks. Lack of lawyerly attention by the Palestinian political elite to the niceties of phrasing, and the past history of contentious, indeed ominous wording that had previously been rejected on good technical grounds, translated out into endless woes for them. Twitter-age eyes zip, sure, but encyclopedias should get things straightened out beyond ambiguity, because, like all encyclopedias, this one will become eventually citable as authoritative. No criticism of the team who had to wade through the huge wasteland of bumf we collaborated in writing up. That they got to the other end without a Masada reaction was no mean achievement.  It is nice to wake up, in any case, every day, and realize one doesn't have to look at 30 edits overnight to the Jerusalem lead and disentangle them. My morning coffee has less mourning in it these days:) Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I found it curious that the RfC conclusion into these sentences did not include sources.

Adding a sentence to the opening section
My simple and correct edit was reverted by a user, claiming this subject is very sensitive and needs to get consensus first. So here I am, asking for it. Thanks Shalom11111 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comment. We recently had a formal procedure to determine how to represent Israel's and Palestine's claims to Jer as capital in the project, you can read the discussion and result here. The result is binding for three years, which is still running. --Dailycare (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, I read through this page now. I suggest that someone put a link for it properly here to prevent unnecessary future discussions. I'm personally not satisfied with the outcome of that long discussion, since it was partially the result of a mostly leftist majority of users, for a lack of a better term. Anyways, Israel is and forever will be my capital.. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shalom11111 this article is ridiculous. I mean Israel controls the city, it's the capital in every sense of the word. Even a majority of the arab people who live there want it to remain in Israel(http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/a-surprising-process-of-israelization-is-taking-place-among-palestinians-in-east-jerusalem.premium-1.490367). So basically a foreign power wants to take over the city against the wishes of its residents and Wikipedia's editors agree with them. This article is very political and one sided and no one can edit it because of some ridiculous arbitration. I can't even fix the BAD grammar in the opening paragraph or add in brackets under "country" beside "Palestine" that only the eastern part of the city is disputed because apparently some people have determined that even the western part is disputed which is just insane(and no one says that not even the UN). This article has destroyed the trust I once had in Wikipedia, now I always do my own research on the side to make sure the article I read on Wikipedia is true or like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csi.southpark (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing your own research is commendable. In your research, you'll doubtless have discovered that even the United States does not recognize West Jerusalem as being in Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You're half right Dailycare, I worded it wrong, quote from the Wikipedia article on West Jerusalem: "West Jerusalem refers to the section of Jerusalem that is in Israeli territory in reference to the borders usually accepted by the international community and that fit to the ceasefire lines of the First Arab-Israeli War. A number of western countries such as UK and USA acknowledged de facto Israeli authority, but withheld de jure recognition." Csi.southpark (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact I'm completely right, see e.g. Victor Kattan: "no state recognizes Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem in neither its eastern nor western half". (page 2, paragraph 2) --Dailycare (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well not really, most countries de facto recognize West Jerusalem as being a part of Israel. Here are two links http://trueslant.com/nealungerleider/2010/06/04/jerusalem-headaches-for-iphone-users/ and http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/19/obama.israel.palestinians/index.html. The second one is interesting because in pre 1967 borders West Jerusalem would stay a part of Israel. The debate is more about East Jerusalem. Csi.southpark (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway I'll give you the last word Csi.southpark (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be wonderful. But highly improbable. Ravpapa (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's true that the debate is mostly about EJ since WJ is slated to become Israeli in case a two-state solution is agreed. But for the time being, no country recognizes WJ is in Israel so it's not "insane" to say it's also part of the dispute. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ironically I must comment that it does sound insane to me when I hear that the place I lived in for most of my life, East Jerusalem, is not only not the capital of Israel, but also not in Israel itself! According to the international community, I grew up outside of the Jewish state without even knowing! Shalom11111 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To you it seems 'insane', since you grew up in an occupied land as if it weren't thus occupied. 'Without even knowing!' There's still time to learn. Ask the folks in Hārat al-Muslimīn, or the next time you see a joyful Jewish family accompanying a smiling kid on his bar mitzvah visit through Sha'ar Ha'ashpot to the Western Wall, ask yourself why no Jerusalem-born boy of the same age can enjoy a similar joy by going with his family to the Haram ash-Sharīf a few yards away. That is what strikes the world as 'insane'. You can't legally discriminate like that in Israeli law: you can in East Jerusalem, ergo. . . Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, why does it say "retired" or your userpage? Looking at all your anti-Israel/Jewish contributions on Wikipedia (which I plan to review soon), you seem to be quite active for someone who claims he left Wikipedia. My first respose to you is that this is not an occupied land, it's DISPUTED territory, click on that link and read about it, because as you said - "there's still time to learn". Obviously no country is perfect, but Israel is a true democracy with equal rights for all its citizens. I'm not going to get into details here but this not-very-nice life situation which you described above has its reasons. Sometimes Israel has to take ugly actions for security purposes, all of which have very well known and understood justifications. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Did I say "highly improbable"? Hah! That was an understatement! Ravpapa (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Shalom11111
 * Did you say that it is not occupied but disputed? According to the website of the New South Wales Board of Deputies, it is not even disputed. It is already part of Israel. If that is correct, then Israel is not a democracy since the Arabs living in Gaza, Judea or Samaria do not have a vote in Israeli elections. Trahelliven (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * IRavpapa, your comments aren't helpful, and Trahelliven, is this a forum discussion here or what? Some knowledge about the history of the Land of Israel and modern Israel is required in order to fully understand the answer to your question. There are currently "Palestinian Autonomous Area" and "Palestinian Administered Territories" in Judea and Samaria. Also, the majority of those under Israeli rule there don't even recognize it as a state, and definitely don't want to become Israeli citizens. The circumstances are very complex and need to be judged in a neutral point of view. By the way, Israeli Arabs comprise 20% of Israel's population, and sometimes actually enjoy even more privileges then I do. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The current form of lead is tragically poor as it looks that the de facto situation does not exist. Concerning Haram ash-Sharīf I think no one believes that a Muslim family can not enjoy at the place. As far as I know it is only forbidden to Jews, Christians and non Muslims to pray at the site (all the time) and even to visit it beyond two or three hours daily. I do not think that this article should state that there is no occupation in E. Jerusalem, this view has mainstream support, but to negate the fact that Jerusalem function as de facto capital of Israel is an unrepresented collision (for any Wikipedia article) with actual situationTritomex (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)--Tritomex (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says that many Israeli government institutions are situated in Jerusalem, which may be read as an indication that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel. During the decade-long wrangling over the wording of the Lead, one of the suggestions was that the article should state that Jerusalem is the de facto capital, but that was rejected by those opposed to any change in the former wording. It little matters what editors think the 'real' situation is; what matters is neutrally reporting what sources say.      ←   ZScarpia  12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. Wikipedia should provide real and factual NPOV content, and not what was decided by a group of people in an almost private "formal procedure". I too propose the addition of the sentence "Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel" in the article's entry. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are actually pushing a real POV, and are trying to make the change from your own viewpoint. Note that this group of people were trusted administrator and they worked out the lead only after a long discussion participated by a large number of users, and not in an almost private "formal procedure" as you wrongly accused.
 * The juxtaposition of words Jerusalem and capital of Israel will give people the wrong impression that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel which is the negation of truth. For example, Encarta encyclopedia (2008) says Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such. The truth often seems bitter to you because Israel illegally occupied lands and the international communities are aware of this. - Ascetic Rosé   15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Encarta encyclopedia contrary to this article has a very reasonable and balanced definition based on facts, the problem is that this article lead is detached from any reality.--Tritomex (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AsceticRose, whether this sentence is added to the article or not, Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel, even if you don't like it. So we're hiding this fact because of the impression people will get from reading it? I mean, isn't it a little pathetic? Regardless, this rightly "occupied" land is disputed, so please write with NPOV too. I'm not the only user here who thinks that the "lead is detached from any reality". Even if some administrators think otherwise, it won't actually change much in real life anyway so I'm not going to argue here anymore. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Who told you that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, whether de facto or anything? It is Israel itself which claims so, but this claim has not been accepted by the international bodies and other countries. The matter is simple: Israel claims, and international community rejects. The article is saying the same thing: Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally. So I don't see how or on what point it is detached from reality. Palestine also claims Jerusalem as its capital. So why don't you advocate that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of State of Palestine?
 * And it is not some administrators as you again wrongly blamed; they made this lead on the basis on wikipedians' comments. So, by disregarding the lead, you are actually insulting the Wikipedia community.
 * @ Tritomex, I do not see any encyclopedia's wording is better than the other. Wikipedia's version is also balanced, and needless to say, based on truth.- Ascetic Rosé   17:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just frustrated with what I believe is a little unbalanced, that's it. De facto often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law", and so I would personally accept an equal Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as its de facto capital. Regards Shalom11111 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a question, why is east Jerusalem considered occupied and Tibet is not? Also correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Morocco or Turkey have ever been condemned for "occupying" the Western Sahara and northern Cyprus at least not by the UN(or if it has been condemned then certainly not as many times as Israel). Csi.southpark (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sean it's rude to just delete someone's comment. Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not the talk page? Csi.southpark (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Read WP:TALK and either remove your comment or rewrite it so that it is consistent with WP:TALK. Disruptive misuse of the talk page like this on a page covered by discretionary sanctions could cost you your editing privileges, so I suggest you comply with WP:TALK. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay what would you suggest that I change Sean.hoyland? Which part of my comment is against Wikipedia's policies? Thank you for your feedback. Csi.southpark (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in your comment that complies with WP:TALK. Talk pages are not for asking and answering questions about the real world or voicing your personal opinions about the real world. So, your entire comment does not comply with WP:TALK and shouldn't be here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sean.hoyland I'm not sure if you have noticed or not but most of the comments on this page don't comply with what you cited. So I don't understand why you have chosen to single my comment out. I guess I should have worded it differently; I only thought that "I have a question" was a nice way to word it(I wasn't really asking a question; it was more of a rhetorical question). I was just looking to see what others thought of my point and if it was agreed upon in the talk page, which I understandably highly doubt; seeing as most of the editors to this page don't live in Jerusalem(myself included) and are of a particular view point(not that there is anything wrong with that; but maybe this article could benefit from a more mixed group of editors) then the article could be changed and the legality of Jerusalem could be better explained(from both sides; in a non-biased and equal fashion). The suggestion that I had was the article could include the fact that while Tibet's annexation is universally recognized, East Jerusalem is not. Another fact that could be added could be that while East Jerusalem's annexation is heavily condemned Northern Cyprus's occupation/rule by Turkey and Western Sahara's annexation by Morocco is not and Jordan's annexation of East Jerusalem also wasn't condemned heavily(or at all; not sure). Yet another relevant fact(in my opinion) that could be added is that Israel captured East Jerusalem in a war of self defence. Another relevant fact(in my opinion) is that a majority of its citizens both Jewish and Arab don't want to divide the city and also don't want to live under Palestinian jurisdiction (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/a-surprising-process-of-israelization-is-taking-place-among-palestinians-in-east-jerusalem.premium-1.490367). Again thank you for your feedback. Csi.southpark (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's nothing personal. Imagine what the talk page section would look like as a heat map with comments color coded based on their inconsistency with WP:TALK and WP:SOAP, from cool blue (consistent) to hot red (inconsistent). It's true that most of the comments on this page don't comply with what I cited but this section was turning blue with comments like "so I'm not going to argue here anymore". The addition of your comment was an abrupt transition from blue to red, which in the WP:ARBPIA topic area is how to start a fire. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand it's not personal. Thank you for your advise Sean.hoyland next time I will word my comments better. I was not trying to turn the comments "red" I was only trying to start a discussion that might with a little luck lead to a change. I hope someone will discuss my points with me(which correct me if I'm wrong, still new on Wikipedia, is why they created the talk page). Csi.southpark (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages aren't the place to discuss the points you raised (in this edit<-added for clarity). Per WP:TALK, this page is "to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article..." Editors can discuss the points you raised with each other on their talk pages if they wish. If you are interested in Western Sahara you might be interested in "The International Law of Occupation" by Eyal Benvenisti, section "7.2.2, The Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara (1975)", Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199588893 <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if worded myself wrong, but I'll try to be clearer. I was suggesting including the facts that I raised be included in THIS article(the one on Jerusalem) and was looking for feedback. Which would indeed fit your definition of what the talk page is for. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Thank you for the article on the Western Sahara I will read it. My suggested edit to THIS article is that it include the discrepancies between the treatment of East Jerusalem and other places that have been recently won through war. Also that THIS article should state that Israel captured East Jerusalem through a war of self defence and that a majority of its residences(Jewish and Arab) want to remain in Israel. Csi.southpark (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my mildly chiding attempts at sarcasm above, but the point of my comments has obviously not been understood. So, at the risk of making a joke boring by explaining it, I will clarify: The lead of this article is embedded in stone by a community decision in which dozens of editors participated actively, and which is enforced by the communal will of editors and administrators. The purpose of taking this extraordinary measure was to obviate endless arguments just like the one you are conducting on this talk page.

No amount of disputation, however impassioned, however sage, however convincing, is capable of causing a change in the lead, at least not for the next three years. I imagine that is clear to all the disputants, but, driven apparently by some strange power - maybe a rabbinical dybbuk driven to unrelenting talmudic exegesis - they seem unable to let it alone.

Therefore, I suggest that you continue this argument elsewhere. http://wikipediareview.com/ is, for example, a forum where you can steam all you like without adding megabytes to this already bloated talk page. Ravpapa (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I know what I did wrong now(I'm new here). I wrote my comment under the wrong column/section. I didn't mean for any of the facts I wrote above to be included in the opening because I know that's impossible and wouldn't make sense in an opening paragraph anyhow. What I mean is that it should include, under political status(not in the lead paragraph; it should say this in the section on political status), that while Tibet's annexation is universally recognized, East Jerusalem is not and that while East Jerusalem's annexation is heavily condemned by the UN Northern Cyprus's occupation/rule by Turkey and Western Sahara's annexation by Morocco is not and that Jordan's annexation of East Jerusalem wasn't condemned heavily(or at all; not sure) My second suggested edit was to maybe include, somewhere else in the article(not the lead paragraph), that Israel captured East Jerusalem in a war of self defence. Another suggestion that I have is that this article should say(somewhere; again not in the lead paragraph) that a majority of its citizens both Jewish and Arab don't want to divide the city and also don't want to live under Palestinian jurisdiction. I wrote this in the talk page because I thought thats what I was supposed to do. I hope that someone will consider these suggestions. Csi.southpark (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The second suggestion, 'a war of self defence', seems to be based on something you appear to believe is a fact rather than a narrative. But even if it were true, why do you think it should added here given, for example, International Law: A Dictionary p.213, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and many other sources about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll research that more. My point on that was just that the section on political status could be expanded(on both sides). But what about some of my other suggestions? Csi.southpark (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some(not all) good points are raised in this article http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/international-law-and-the-arab-israel-conflict#7 Csi.southpark (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Stone's views probably fall in the fringe category. They are mentioned in the East Jerusalem article (search for "Lawyers have argued that Israel has sovereignty over East Jerusalem under international law") and indirectly in the Israel section of the Positions on Jerusalem article. I don't think this article should get bogged down in the details of the various legal arguments. The Political status section has a link to the main article, Positions on Jerusalem. John Quigley (academic) has written about this issue at length too. Questions like "why add Stone here but not Quigley" etc will come up. It's probably better to keep the details over at the Positions on Jerusalem article, especially minority views like Stone's.
 * The third suggestion, or something similar to that, looks okay to me. There's some related info in the Status under Israeli rule section (search for "On the other hand, a poll conducted in June 2013 found 74% of Israeli Jews reject the idea of a Palestinian capital in any portion of Jerusalem, although 72% of the public regarded it as a divided city"). Or perhaps the Current demographics section is better. It has related info too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your feedback! If you think the third suggestion I made is a good one then could I ask you to please add it to the article. I'm still very new on here and every time I edit something it gets reverted. Anyway thanks for all your feedback, learned a lot. Cheers, Csi.southpark (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The article should be totally re-edited.
Just a small example: The list of notable residents is a mixture of real notable residents, people of secondary or even marginal or no encyclopedic importance and beside them people who have not really been residents of Jerusalem like for example Rachel Bluwstein who had stayed in Jerusalem for few weeks only. 18:34, 24 October, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.28.130 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think yonks ago we agreed to remove this. Contemporary figures there amount to publicity and boosterism, etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem as a capital
Israeli Foreign Ministry building On 5 December 1949, Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel's capital,[186] and since then all branches of the Israeli government—legislative, judicial, and executive—have resided there, except for the Ministry of Defense, located at HaKirya in Tel Aviv.[187] At the time of the proclamation, Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan and thus only West Jerusalem was proclaimed Israel's capital. In July 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law as Basic Law. The law declared Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel.[188] The "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" is a main reason for the international community not to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In an unusually quick action, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 478 on 20 August 1980, which declared that the Basic Law is "a violation of international law", is "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith". Member states were called upon to withdraw their diplomatic representation from Jerusalem.[189] Following the resolution, 22 of the 24 countries that previously had their embassy in (West) Jerusalem relocated them in Tel Aviv, where many embassies already resided prior to Resolution 478. Costa Rica and San Salvador followed in 2006.[190] Currently, there are no embassies located within the city limits of Jerusalem, although there are embassies in Mevaseret Zion, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, and four consulates in the city itself.[191] In 1995, the United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which required, subject to conditions, that its embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.[192] However, U.S. presidents have argued that Congressional resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem are merely advisory. The Constitution reserves foreign relations as an executive power, and as such, the United States embassy is still in Tel Aviv.[193] Due to the non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, some non-Israeli press use Tel Aviv as a metonym for Israel.[194][195][196][197] On 28 October 2009, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine if peace is to be achieved.[198] Capital of Palestine[edit] See also: East Jerusalem#Jerusalem as capital

Orient House in East Jerusalem. Important Palestinian political and diplomatic center, closed by Israel in 2001 The Palestinian National Authority views East Jerusalem as occupied territory according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. The Palestinian Authority claims Jerusalem, including the Haram al-Sharif, as the capital of the State of Palestine,[182] The PLO claims that West Jerusalem is also subject to permanent status negotiations. However, it has stated that it would be willing to consider alternative solutions, such as making Jerusalem an open city.[199] The PLO's current position is that East Jerusalem, as defined by the pre-1967 municipal boundaries, shall be the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel, with each state enjoying full sovereignty over its respective part of the city and with its own municipality. A joint development council would be responsible for coordinated development.[200] Some states, such as Russia[201] and China,[202] recognize the Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. UN General Assembly resolution 58/292 affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over East Jerusalem.[203]

Very pro-palestinian rather than pro-israeli ,please balance the information bellow... "capital of israel" has more cons and negative critic than information and "Capital of palestine" has only positive information. please add criticism to both sections ,in the good way and in the bad way. --Dorpwnz (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

History and religion
With all respect for the Bible, it is problematic that some sections of this article use the Bible as the only source to present events from the Bible as facts. The existence of Solomon's Temple is not a historic fact (in contrast to the second Temple, which we know existed), just as the existence of David and Solomon are not proven. That is not to say that they did not exist. They might have, they might not. What we should not do is to present the history of the Bible as undisputed facts in the cases where there is no scientific evidence to support it.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Third Paragraph
This paragraph is biased: According to the Biblical tradition, King David established the city as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple; there is no historical evidence that Solomon's Temple existed [6] These foundational events, straddling the dawn of the Ist Millennium BCE, assumed central symbolic importance for the Jewish People.[7] The sobriquet of holy city (עיר הקודש, transliterated ‘ir haqodesh) was probably attached to Jerusalem in post-exilic times.[8][9][10] The holiness of Jerusalem in Christianity, conserved in the Septuagint[11] which Christians adopted as their own authority,[12] was reinforced by the New Testament account of Jesus's crucifixion there. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city, after Mecca and Medina.[13][14] In Islamic tradition in 610 CE it became the first Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (salat),[15] and Muhammad made his Night Journey there ten years later, ascending to heaven where he speaks to God, according to the Quran.[16][17] As a result, despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi),[18] the Old City is home to many sites of seminal religious importance, among them the Temple Mount and its Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.

The first five words already state that it is according to Biblical tradition that King Solomon built the first Temple. The sentence: "there is no historical evidence that Solomon's Temple existed" is not necessary, that fact is already discussed later in the article in a more appropriate place. The words in biblical tradition make it obvious that there isn't any proof yet. If you disagree with me and you do think it necessary to say this along with "according to the Biblical tradition" then we should also include that there is also zero historical evidence of the night journey and ascension to heaven. Also the fact that virtually zero archaeological research been done on the temple mount might also be worth mentioning or we could just remove the sentence and leave it where it is more appropriate (later in the article) and not in the lead. Csi.southpark (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't explain why it's biased, so it's a bit hard to answer your comment. What you suggest is to removed one of the few sourced facts (that there is no evidence the first temple existed), and I have a hard time seeing how this would be an improvement. At Wikipedia, in general, sourced facts are a good thing and unsourced religious belief is less relevant. You propose leaving in claims that an alleged temple was built, but to remove all references to modern science about the existence of this temple. That would be biased, the current paragraph isn't.Jeppiz (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A minor quibble about the lede
I know the RFC results are binding for three years, but would it be too much to ask that Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally be changed to The states of Israel and Palestine both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as the former maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the latter ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally (changes bolded). It is factually incorrect to assert that all Israelis and all Palestinians support their respective governments' claims. A territorial claim is made by a government, not by an ethnic or national group. The phrases "Israeli" and "Palestinian" aren't even mutually exclusive, as Arab citizens of Israel attests to—as currently worded, this article implies that an individual of Palestinian descent with Israeli citizenship would support both nations' claims to the city. Once again, I appreciate that this wording is the result of a great deal of discussion and a long-awaited consensus, but I'm really only asking that a few words be changed. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  01:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be too much since the RFC really is binding. On a practical level building consensus to edits that affect that specific aspect of this article is arduous even in the absence of a binding text. --Dailycare (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems rather... bureaucratic. Perhaps this request is more controversial than I think. But I'd at least like to hear what others have to think. In my view, this is the simple correction of an error. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  23:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It has been over a week since I made this comment. If no one can actually explain a non-procedural reason to not make this change in another week's time, I will be invoking the fifth pillar of Wikipedia and doing so. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  08:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you change it, it will be reverted. The RfC result is binding until January 2016. That is all anyone needs to know. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. We are here to improve the encyclopedia. Any enforcement of policy must be in the name of that ideal. To revert an edit simply on procedural grounds, without considering its content, is contrary to the principles of a wiki. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  11:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that your proposal is very good and I would have supported it during the RfC.
 * I will not revert you if you introduce it but you will be reverted if you do so.
 * Have in mind that this article was the theater of a several years long dispute about the lead and that the ArbCom decided a binding RfC closed by 3 uninvolved contributors to put an end to this situation. If you are allowed to perform this (clever) edit the Pandorra box will have been opened. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view, what has pointed out is probably technically correct. However, due to the binding, we can't alter it. Another problem is that if we start making any change (even if it is logical) to any binding item, others may advance similar demand. Ultimately, system will collapse. One consolation is that most readers are not so fastidious as we are the trundling editors.


 * As to the improvement of the article, the binding is for the greater interest of the article which you should recognize. Cheers!- Ascetic Rosé   12:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is how I see it. Someone wants something. I agree that it's an improvement but someone else will agree that a different amendment is also an improvement, and the RfC binding breaks because people want things. People wanting things is one of the reasons the topic area is broken. The argument that the binding nature of the RfC can be ignored because one or more people regard something as an improvement can be made by anyone for anything, at great length, as was the case before the RfC. I think it's the way to restart a fire that burned for 10+ years before being finally put out, for a while at least, by the RfC. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right, and we have to accept the binding for the greater interest. Most readers will not find much difference between the two wording. Hope, the issue has been resolved! - Ascetic Rosé   14:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The intro
Do really the Israelis and Palestinians claim that Jerusalem is their capital? Not the Israeli state/government and the Palestinian state/government? Can a people claim a capital? Also the word Israelis is linked to the article Israeli people and Palestinians to Palestinian people!

It is very unwise to make big warnings against editing the rather inciting intro! It incites people against each other. The current intro drags ordinary people in a conflict who happened to find themselves born in that place of the world! You better be wise and write that both of the Israeli state and the Palestinian state claim Jerusalem is their capital.

I will do the editing in a few days if no one did it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See the header at the top of this page
 * In May/June 2013, there was a Requests for comment/Jerusalem about the lead section of this article. This discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result remains binding for three years (until January 2016).
 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias regarding Jerusalem's significance in Islam
I just made two edits about Jerusalem's significance in Islam. As explained there, the city is the third holiest city in Islam. Saying "generally considered" is weird, which was the case in one section but not in the lead. Jerusalem's significance is true for both Sunni and Shia Muslims. In that section, there is a reference to Two Nations Under God: Why You Should Care about Israel by Tom Doyle. The source doesn't say that Islam is the third holiest site in Islam so why it's used here is only to point out what he says, where he sets out his bizzare theory about the significance of Jerusalem in Islam. Such crap has no place in an encyclopedia. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct about Doyle; that sort of ignorant claptrap can't be allowed here.  However, you are not right about Shia Islam.  Twelvers like Ayatollah Ali Sistani usually place Jerusalem fourth after Najaf.  Zerotalk 06:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I do think it's accepted that Jerusalem is the third holiest city for all Muslims. But maybe I am wrong then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A large majority of all Muslims are Sunni, and sources often ignore the rest. Sunni writers frequently speak of "all Muslims" when they really mean "all Sunni Muslims", and other writers can be simply careless.  A precise statement would be "Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Sunni Islam and one of the most holy sites in Shia Islam".  If we can find suitable sources that would be better than "generally held" or whatever it was before. Zerotalk 00:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. The sources used here refer to Jerusalem as the third holiest site, they don't use an imprecise language. It was only someone here at Wikipedia who wrote it that way in the section Religious significance. The lead was correct written. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your formulations
Hello. I'm sorry, but your formulations detached from reality. First of all, the situation today: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel - the east jerusalem too. So it should appear at the opening of the city. the wording should be: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but without international recognition. It was the previous formulation, and is most appropriate when compared to reality. Irrespective can talk about the Palestinians who demand sovereignty over East Jerusalem, but again, first you have to specify the facts as they are today. And now - there is no country called Palestine, and doubt if any ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.87.97 (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See Requests for comment/Jerusalem. The current wording will remain as it is until at least January 2016. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, reality is what sources say it is, and on the status of Jerusalem they disagree. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  15:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sean.holyland, with all due respect, let me correct you. The current wording will remain as it is until January 2016 if and only if in reality things will stay the same. Because, as a matter of fact, some of the claims in the lead can simply change, such as the way Jerusalem is "recognized internationally", or the "residential location of the Prime Minister and President". Reality is what sources say (as ZScarpia wrote), not what a consensus on English Wikipedia agreed upon. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite right of course, I apologize for the error, but if the status of Jerusalem changes in the real world there will probably be 10+ year lag here on Wikipedia to reflect that change in a way that actually complies with policy according to the consensus of the community. We only have one sample to go on but that had a lead time of ~10 years of pointless bickering before resolution. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014
Please include "Lander Institute" on the Education section. It's a private college located in Givat Shaul in Jerusalem. "Lander Institute - Jerusalem Academic Center is an Israeli institute of higher education, consisting of the School of Business Administration, The School of Judaic Studies, The School of Tourism, The School for Land of Israel Studies, and The School for Continuing Education. The Lander Institute is accredited by Israel's Council for Higher Education". here are the two websites of the college : http://www.lander.ac.il/ http://english.lander.ac.il/ Thanks

Hodhod1 (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lander Institute currently appears in 9 articles including List of yeshivas, midrashas and Hebrew schools in Israel and List of Israeli universities and colleges Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should first start an article on the Lander Institute, which will involve making a case for notability. After that, come back here and try again. Zerotalk 12:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ I fully agree, if we list every school and college in Jerusalem it would seriously unbalance the article, but to include one without its own article is a definite no-no. Please see Write the article first.

The Lead
While I recognize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem I must note a status change. Palestine it seems doesn't claim Jerusalem as it's capital. Their claim it seems is for East Jerusalem. While East Jerusalem is apart of Jerusalem, a claim for East Jerusalem is hardly a claim for the entire city. The lead however doesn't represent that. Since this claim as actually made in the article I'll assume this already known. The facts are are misrepresented in the lead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem. When and why became Yerushalayim.
In the article we have: The ending -ayim indicates the dual, thus leading to the suggestion that the name Yerushalayim refers to the fact that the city sits on two hills.[45][46] However, the pronunciation of the last syllable as -ayim appears to be a late development, which had not yet appeared at the time of the Septuagint. The change prevailed after the destruction by the Romans. It related the upper ("heavenly") Jerusalem to the lower ("earthly") Jerusalem. The dual form is a ritualistic act, praying that redemption comes soon by uniting the two Jerusalems.Reb Uri (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why only an Israeli flag?
Why is only an Israeli flag shown for the City flag? Why isn't there a Palestinian flag too? The City is a divided one. Shouldn't both be shown? Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you have a suitable Palestinian flag, please feel free to add it. --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Spelling
In traditional Hebrew (Bible and Siddurim) Yerushalaim is written without the yod but with a patach+hiriq under the lamed. Currently only fonts that place double niqqud with Opentype can render that properly. It should be יְרוּשָׁלִַם but to render that you should use SIL Ezra or SBL Hebrew or view this with an Android phone (whose engine places double punctuation correctly). 79.26.55.1 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you wrote in the start that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel?
I know that both the Palestinians and the Israelis say that Jerusalem is their capital, but there is no such thing "The state of Palestine" until now, so I think that you should write that it is Israel's capital. I'm not saying not to write about the palestinian position, but currently all the government's buildings are in Jerusalem and it controlled by the Israelis, so...

Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.19.57 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The community decided that it would violate WP:NPOV, a core policy of Wikipedia (see Requests for comment/Jerusalem). There is a state called Palestine and you can read about it at State of Palestine and International recognition of the State of Palestine for example. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014
From "Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim About this sound ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds About this sound  ),[i] located on a plateau in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally." change it to Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim About this sound ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds About this sound  ),[i] is the capital and most populous city of Israel. Located on a plateau in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, it is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. 76.68.250.14 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as the use of bold contradicts MOS:BOLD and the removal of the Palestinian comment does not appear to be a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See the header at the top of the page. "In May/June 2013, there was a Requests for comment/Jerusalem about the lead section of this article. This discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result remains binding for three years (until January 2016)." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad article
The definition of Jerusalem and its boundaries is controversial and what this article is talking about is Jerusalem as it is defined by the Israelis and not the Palestinians. what the readers must know is that the the municipal boundaries which the article’s population numbers refer to is drawn by Israel in a way that includes Jewish neighborhoods and settlements and excludes Palestinian ones and if you look at the map you can clearly see this, For example why isn’t azzaiyem, abo deis, azzeriyya and other Palestinian towns and areas considered part of Jerusalem although it is closer to the old city than most Jewish neighborhoods and settlements which is considered part of Jerusalem ? the answer is because it has majority Palestinians living in it. This article needs a lot of work to make it accurate and to reflect the actual realities on the ground. I’ll be back soon Zaid almasri (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this. This article is not the place to read primary info about Jerusalem. Probably a good description, as you write about, is beyond the reach of WP. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad Article 2
This article is predominantly secular and politic and it fails to discuss the holiest of cities in a religious context. The article contains a hip of minor dubious notes and makes a colossal failure to relay the one important thing all religions agree on: Jerusalem as discussed in the Holy Bible: Jerusalem is the center of the world and in time God will endow it with its own light - a special light that shall lit the world. Note by Silvia Ohana, Israel, 04/05/2014. 2.55.136.111 (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
In Hebrew the word Yerushalem means Their Heritage (יְרוּשָׁלַיִם = ירושה לם  Yerusha Lahem) or Undivided (Whole) City (Eir Shalem  ע)יר שלם)). Note by Silvia Ohana, Israel, 04/05/2014. 2.55.136.111 (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That assumes that the origin of the name is Hebrew. See the Names of Jerusalem article.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Capital of Israel
Most people don't know the capital of Israel. Even Google is ignorant on this subject. It's TEL-AVIV, not Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel like Kiev is the capital of Rus[sia].

I wish you stop reverting this. THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL IS TEL-AVIV.--24.203.108.54 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that insightful and informative post. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014
213.55.105.167 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2014
I noted some unreliable information that footnotes a dubious website under...

1917–1948 − British Mandate "From 1922 to 1948 the total population of the city rose from 52,000 to 165,000 with two thirds of Jews and one-third of Arabs (Muslims and Christians).[145] The situation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine was not quiet. "

Citation: 145. "Chart of the population of Jerusalem". Focusonjerusalem.com. Retrieved 11 September 2010. http://focusonjerusalem.com/jerusalempopchart.html

Just check the above website and you'll see what I mean: no sources listed for information on a "bible prophecy" website.

Please delete the above quoted line and footnote. Replace with...

"From 1922 to 1948, relations between Arab Christians and Muslims and the growing Jewish population in Jerusalem deteriorated, resulting in recurring unrest." This is merely a general, introductory sentence for the following information in the paragraph.

Thanks. CatcherWry (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

CatcherWry (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You are quite right that this is an unacceptable source. Zerotalk 11:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph text is left a bit chaotic now. The repetition of "Jerusalem" does not look OK.
 * Then, there is not mentioning of Zionist aggression. The King David Hotel bombing was in 1946. This omission makes the section incomplete and oblique. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't read well:
"The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies."

Should not this be:

The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as an Israeli, or as a Palestinian capital city.

-or-

The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel.

-with new sentence (if it is factual)-

There are no foreign embassies located in the city of Jerusalem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankin1958 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
"The name "Jerusalem" is variously etymologized to mean "foundation (Sumerian yeru, 'settlement'/Semitic yry' 'to found, to lay a cornerstone') of the god Shalem"

There is no proof that Sumerians spoke a Semitic language. "Sumerology" is rather based on wrong transliterations from Akkadian and even youngest - hebrew, which has 0 to do with the original languages of Sumerian people. The best transliterations of Sumerian words can be described even today through Turkish, Hungarian, Finnic, Estonic,... prism for example and not through Hebrew. That's why were many Sumerian and even Hittite words wrongly translated. This includes the claim about Hittite city "Kadesh", which was translated through Semitic as "holy". Hittites weren't Semites either. The correct transliteration is "Land of Hittites"; Desh / Deza((Indo European root)... in old Hittite. Uru (ürü)was a Sumerian word for a "product" (made by) and Solim as "sülu" (watery, runny...; is there any river nearby Jerusalem?). That's why words could be transliterated in many ways. Transliterations of Indo European, Sumerian(and consequently Turkish, Hungarian which partially derived from Sumerian) through semitic languages are incorrect. 194.165.126.172 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Palestinian" mayor of Jerusalem????
Are you people out of your mind. There is no one - except for the Israeli municipality and government which runs Jerusalem - both west and east. It is a fabrication to mention a "Palestinian" mayor or sector of Jerusalem. It is all run, paid, developed by Israel. And all of the 360,000 Arabs in east Jerusalem get ALL of their stipends, money, health care, municipal services from no other than Israel. What you wrote is simply NOT true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.84.4 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yitzhak Rabin
Under Notable Residents, Yitzhak Rabin is briefly described as "general and the fifth Prime Minister of Israel". If a brief description of Rabin is to be given, it should include his nobel peace prize. The nobel prize is a very special accomplishment; the nobel peace prize, the pinnacle of achievement for a statesman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.65 (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I added it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the name
Jerusalem, Guerre Salem, Salut pour La Guerre,

War Capital of the Empire, Religious Capital Of The Old Empire.

Please learn more European and Slavic languages before to delete that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk • contribs)
 * It was deleted because it was misformatted, incoherent, and unsigned. This message here is incoherent and it was unsigned. That looks like French. But if it's not french could you point out which other European or Slavic language it is? Could you also explain your point in putting it here on the talk page?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead section and 2013 ruling
Noticing that the introduction says nothing at all about the origins of Jerusalem (originally a Jebusite town names Jebus), I inserted a neutral sentence stating that "Jerusalem was founded by the Jebusites and was originally named Jebus." This sentence was deleted, and the reason given was this ruling from 2013. The problem is, that reason is not valid. The ruling set in stone how the article should start, the first paragraph should be this one ''’’’Jerusalem’’’, located on a plateau in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean and Dead Seas, is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.''"

Nothing in my edit changed that paragraph. Somebody else appears to have made a previous change by connecting the second paragraph to the first. That could possibly violate the ruling, but my change did not. If someone disagree to it for some other reason, we should of course discuss that, but I'm using the allowed revert per day to re-insert the sentence, and to detach the second paragraph from the first, in line with the 2013 ruling. On second thought, there is no hurry whatsoever, so before doing anything at all, I'm waiting for possible arguments in case there are other arguments against the sentence.Jeppiz (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed, see edit summary. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Scholars often refer to "Jebusites" as the people who lived in Jerusalem immediately before the Israelites conquered it, but this is just a convenience for communication purposes. In fact there is no evidence outside the Bible that there were ever people called "Jebusites" or that Jerusalem was ever called "Jebus".  Some of this information is in the article Jebusite. It is particularly erroneous to extend this terminology even to centuries earlier, times not even mentioned in the Bible except in mythological terms. On the contrary, the name Urusalim is definitely proved for a time 4-5 centuries earlier, and archaeology proves the original foundation of the settlement to be earlier still.  So statements like that Jerusalem was founded by the Jebusites and called Jebus are not only unproved but are proved wrong.  The biblical account does belong in the article but should not take the place of scientific knowledge. Zerotalk 00:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I demand that Wikipedia remove the racist Arab lies from this article.
There is no "Palestinian" mayor of Jerusalem. Arab attempts to steal Jewish history and Jerusalem are vandalism and should be immediately REMOVED. — ''Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.219.161 talk 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to your claims. -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dubious historical timeline
The article states: "After the establishment of the state of Israel, Jerusalem was declared its capital city" which is misleading and belies the fact that Jerusalem was not part of Israel at its inception: Israel was established as a state on May 14th, 1948. On August 12th, 1948, David Ben-Gurion issued a government proclamation declaring Jerusalem an "Israel-occupied city". Nearly a year and a half later, Ben-Gurion declared the occupied city the capital of Israel. 71.190.239.54 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of “Jerusalem” according to history
"Jerusalem" is just a translation, it means nothing. To understand what the name means; pay attention to the Hebrew name. "Yeru-Shalem" means “city of Shalem” in Jebusite. Why then did Yeru-Shalem turn into Yeru-Shalim? (Plurel). That is because the Jebusites ruled over one part of the city and the Israelites ruled over another part. According to the latest research (Mosh Yahalom Book: דויד המלך מיתוס או היסטוריה) the two tribes had amicable relations. Proof to that is the biblical account of the Jebusite allowing the Israelites to build the Temple on their land. Eventually the two tribes united when David married Bathsheba (the Yevusi Queen) and Yeru-shalem turned into Yerushalim. The Israelites agreed that Bathsheba’s son will be the next King. Yerushalim (Jerusalem) is a city of unity, not division. (The biblical account about Bathsheba is not accurate and by the way, her name is Bat-sheva: daughter of 7)--Jane955 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Metro area
There are a total of three metro areas in Israel with pages in Wikipedia. Jerusalem is not one of them. Is this an oversight or is this an example of the ME being complicated? TMLutas (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

גור אריה יהודה's edit re: Melchizedek
Rather than get into a silly edit war with גור אריה יהודה, the self-proclaimed "Lion of Judah" (who has a history of unsupported deletions evidently for ideological reasons), I'd like to point out that גור אריה יהודה deleted an edit concerning Melchizedek and Salem which was designed to make the "Notable Residents" section consistent with the Etymology section which casts doubt on the tradition that Salem was Jerusalem. I pass over his deletion that Melchizedek was "legendary" because it should be obvious that a person who appears in the historical records many hundreds of years after he supposedly lived and in a religious/ethnic history has as much evidence as Achilles does for being a historical person. The Etymology section shows why the uncontradicted assertion that Salem=Jerusalem cannot be supported. גור אריה יהודה doesn't even claim to have a reason for deleting the qualification. If you look at his other deletions, however, you will see that it is likely a theological reason (which is also explained in the Etymology section).

I will leave it to others to police גור אריה יהודה. In the meantime, allowing ideologues to pillage articles results in the kind of unscholarly, biased mess that many of the Jewish history articles in Wikipedia have descended into. AnthroMimus (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Jersualem in Template:Largest cities of Israel
Hi, There is an RfC on how Jersualem should be represented in the list of Largest cities of Israel. Please comment. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Date of Muslim conquest of Jerusalem:
Date of Muslim conquest of Jerusalem: I am surprised to see the date 634 CE without any comment or citation (at the beginninf of the section: Middle Ages and caliphates). In history books the date is either 637 CE or 638 CE, see also the main article on wikipedia "History of Jerusalem". Unless good reasons are provided I would suggest to use 637/38 CE or explain the reasons for 634 CE.93.229.142.185 (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right. Year 634 is when Muslims first conquered parts of Palestine, but Jerusalem held out for a few more years. Fixed! Zerotalk 09:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Add citation needed.
Add to the end of the following sentence as shown below.

However, the pronunciation of the last syllable as -ayim appears to be a late development, which had not yet appeared at the time of the Septuagint.

Sorenstoutner (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Pishcal  — ♣ 17:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this link has supportiung info, but haven't read through. trespassers william (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Too many templates
There are an insane amount of templates on this page. For such an important article, the "Eurovision Song Context" is hardly notable. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem in pushpin map
Hovering the mouse cursor on the pushpin map used on this page pops up a text which says "Jerusalem is located in Israel". How does one go about editing that text? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015
Capital of Israel is Tel-Aviv.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.235.197 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Tel_Aviv. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  19:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

re arrange final paragraphs
Interested in thoughts on changing the following:"In 2011, Jerusalem had a population of 801,000, of which Jews comprised 497,000 (62%), Muslims 281,000 (35%), Christians 14,000 (around 2%) and 9,000 (1%) were not classified by religion.. All branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister and President, and the Supreme Court. Jerusalem is home to the Hebrew University and to the Israel Museum with its Shrine of the Book. Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, West Jerusalem was among the areas captured and later annexed by Israel while East Jerusalem, including the Old City, was captured and later annexed by Jordan. Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it. Israel's 1980 Basic Law the Jerusalem Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital. The international community rejected the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies."to:

Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, West Jerusalem was among the areas captured and later annexed by Israel while East Jerusalem, including the Old City, was captured and later annexed by Jordan. Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it. Israel's 1980 Basic Law the Jerusalem Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital and all branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister and President, and the Supreme Court. The international community rejected the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies. In 2011, Jerusalem had a population of 801,000, of which Jews comprised 497,000 (62%), Muslims 281,000 (35%), Christians 14,000 (around 2%) and 9,000 (1%) were not classified by religion. I would remove the line on the museum, doesnt strike me as terribly important, and move the single sentence paragraph on the government being there to where i think it makes mroe sense by the material on Israel calling it its undivided capital. And put population at the end, just strikes me as a better flow. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I think your proposal is a good one and should not generate controversy.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)