Talk:List of oldest continuously inhabited cities/Archive 1

Old World and New World
Why?! 81.105.141.43 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Colonia del sacramento
For what I´m seeing in the list of new world cities, Colonia del Sacramento should be listed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_del_Sacramento —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.179.0 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexico City
I want to add Mexico City to the list, but I can't edit this page (not sure why). It was founded in 1325 by the Aztecs and has been continuously inhabited since then. Also worth mentioning is that Mitla (near Oaxaca) has been inhabited continuously from at least 200AD. But, as with Acoma Pueblo, Taos Pueblo and Oraibi, it is a town not a city.

Nathangeffen (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgot one!
You forgot Quebec City, founded in 1608 by Samuel de Champlain.142.167.44.87 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) -corosive_frog@hotmail.com Poliohn is dated at 2700 BC, and Athens is mentioned by the Minoan Myths and that make athens at least 2000 BC back old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.171.17 (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions?
this article contradicts, as i see it, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_European_cities —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilorojas (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

from brittanica
brittanica lists varanasi as the oldest city in the world. your views on this.

nids 05:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont have a view on it - do you have the source? The online article doesnt seem to say that stating instead that it is "one of the oldest continually-inhabited cities in the world" (the Damascus source - also from Britannica - states that it is "believed to be the oldest continually-inhabited city", by the way). If you're using a hard-copy of Britannica, can we have the edition? Of course, there's nothing to stop you just changing it, it wouldnt be the first time someone has just done that - things like this do tend to be particularly prone to petty nationalism and religious bigotry from all sides (not that I am suggesting you are a nationalist or a bigot) which is one of the reasons I wanted this article deleting in the first place.

--Si42 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

well the answer to question, why i havent changed this lies in your answer. that if i had done it, it would have seemed out of extreme nationalistic views and bigotism or even worse a spam.

if it is such a big problem to verify the authenticity of informations given in this article, i would also support the removal of such article from wikipedia. or we can have an disclaimer on top of the page, where it shall say that the contents of this page cannot be verified.

nids 08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, that makes sense - please excuse my attitude there. I have already requested that it be deleted and was defeated in the resulting debate as the rest of the AfD crew felt that the table could be verified (I felt that the archaeology was more than a little 'fuzzy', as well as the definition of the 'urban life'). However, I won't be requesting it again (at least not for a while) as I dont want this to appear to be a chip on my shoulder. I did write a pretty long disclaimer at the top (above the table!) although I doubt most people bother reading it. To be honest, I am really, really sick of this page and am far from satisfied with it (Personally, I doubt Byblos is 'older' than Damascus but can't face a revert war) - perhaps a fresh contribution might help? (Hint hint) --Si42 10:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved Varanasi back down the table again because the source that it is linked to uses the words "more than 3,000 years. If people are going to accept nationalistic propaganda, and attempt to push it here, they should at least be bothered enough to find an article that supports what they are saying. Sigh. --Si42 15:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Varanasi? Tirupati, considered an ancient city at the time of Romans? Some in the Gangetic belt, Some on Indus... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.132.109 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Cities
Here is my contribution to the article that some all knowing guy DBachmann constantly deletes without informing himself. If he actually was competent enough to make any contributions to Wikipedia, he would at least inform himself first. This kind of intrusion makes me think that Wikipedia is not the quality, free source of information that everybody thinks that it is. According to him it seems that there are just 12 handful ancient cities and all of the in the Middle East, which is ridiculous. I wonder who has given the moral right to such incompetent people as him to edit Wikipedia. Please read books or at least check online!!! It seems that contributing to here is a complete waste of time.

BTW Plovdiv was mentioned and described in the works by historical authors such as Herodotus, Lukian, Ammianus Marcellinus and many more... and it this should ring a bell in the head of Mr. Dbachmann! Thanks! Thanks for spoiling my belief in Wikipedia.

BTW the information I'm citing is from Wikipedia itself! ;) hahahahahhaahaha'


 * Plovdiv
 * [[Image:Flag of Bulgaria.svg|22px]] Northern Thrace, present Bulgaria
 * 8,000-7,000 BC
 * Plovdiv is one of the oldest cities in Europe. It is a contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople. Archaeologists have discovered fine pottery and other objects of everyday life from as early as the Neolithic Age, showing that in the end of the 7th millennium B.C there already was an established settlement there. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Plovdiv's written post-Bronze Age history lists it as a Thracian fortified settlement named Eumolpias. Known also by many names throughout the ages most popular Philippopolis (Greek), Trimontium (Roman), Pulding (Slavonic).
 * Plovdiv is one of the oldest cities in Europe. It is a contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople. Archaeologists have discovered fine pottery and other objects of everyday life from as early as the Neolithic Age, showing that in the end of the 7th millennium B.C there already was an established settlement there. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Plovdiv's written post-Bronze Age history lists it as a Thracian fortified settlement named Eumolpias. Known also by many names throughout the ages most popular Philippopolis (Greek), Trimontium (Roman), Pulding (Slavonic).

When I read the list of the cities that are allowed to be in it. I do not see any reliable evidence about Hebron, Medinat Al-Fayoum, etc. And read about Jericho "Evidence indicates that the city was abandoned several times, and later expanded and rebuilt several times.[3]" - oh, my Lord, it was not continuously inhabited and it is written but the city is still in the list! I don't think that another proof is needed to display the incompetence, the ignorance and the arrogance of the editors and how biased are they! ;) Thanks for not deleting this critique! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.230.179 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I also support the suggestion that this article should be deleted because it is so bad and misinforming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.230.179 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbil (Erbil) in Iraq is considered to be at least 4000 years old. Please add to your list.


 * Cholula, Mexico is the oldest continually inhabited city in the Americas. "From two separate villages settled in 1700 BC, it grew to one of the largest towns in the region."  It's not as old as many of the other cities but at 1700 BC it makes the cut.

Source - http://www.geocities.com/atlantis01mx/puebla_tlaxcala/cholula.htm


 * Put it in then! ;) --Si42 09:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Beograd (Belgrade) should be added. City have had two major name changes: Vinca (dating back to estimated 4800 BC) and than Singidunum since approximately 300 BC. Source:

Quote from the source: "The first chapter of the history of Vinca being preserved in fragments only is insufficiently clear. Based on scarce remains of the oldest settlements discovered at about 10.5 m below the surface, it might be concluded that Vinca was inhabited first at the time of decline of the middle Neolithic Age (the Starcevo culture), around 4800 BC."

"Vinca: Centre of the Neolithic Culture of the Danubian Region" by N.Tasic, D.Srejovic, B.Stojanovic; 1990 Centre for Archaeological Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia.

Also on-line at: http://www.rastko.org.yu/arheologija/vinca/vinca_eng.html

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singidunum

editprotected


 * This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Barcelona? there are some archeological rest from the Neolithic (1500 B.C.) and was conquered by the Carthaginian empire the 200 B.c. and as far as i know never been dishabited. Not the oldest city in Europe but older than few... thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.49.103 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Improvements Necessary
Right, since the community unanimously disagrees with me regarding deleting this page, I have taken it upon myself to attempt to get it up to a semi-reasonable, semi-factual standard and adding a load of notes explaining just how un-definitive the whole ranking system is and how fuzzy the archeology is when it comes to dating settlement times.

Things we need to do:


 * Define the terms of the list better, and put the definition in the article.
 * Get sources for the data, and quote them.
 * Write a dsiclaimer pointing out how ridiculous and un-definitive the whole list is.
 * Change the name of the file to "List of the Oldest Cities in the world".
 * Perhaps add some pictures, to run along the right-hand side, as in the "World Cities" article. Come to think of this, I dont really see the point in doing it.


 * Updated the table, going mostly on the data that was present on each city's own page - I am hoping that there will be sources cited there although there may well not be. Anyway, I think these ages are relatively correct 'ballpark' figures for serious human habitation and construction in the area - certainly much better than the previous set, which was completely off the wall and in some cases just outright wrong (eg, Cairo 3,000BC (!), Zurich 3,000BC... madness). I also need to go through and look for a source stating continuous occupation for (at least) Byblos, Fayoum and Jericho (I am doubtful of the last one, although I think to remove it will need a citation because so many people will be expecting to see it here). I am also waiting for the "Arbil/Iraq/Kurdistan is the best" brigade to show up and come up with some crazy figure for Arbil (c. 15,000 BC) - perhaps we could put some notes in, pointing out that the site of the present day city possibly has been occupied by people longer than Damascus, although not as a city per se. --Si42 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if Gaziantep should be here either - I read here that the old city is 12km to the north of the new one. Meaning they are not on the same site and therefore are not the same city of the purposes of this. Related to this, I have accepted cities that have changed names but remained on the same place, although this is of course, perfectly arbitrary. --Si42 14:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to change anything, and I don't have a reliable source article on hand, but Jericho is certainly up there. I'm not sure I quite believe 11,000 BP as a date at which there was a city there, especially since agriculture hasn't been reliably dated to then, but 9,000 BP or so is pretty well confirmed.  A bit later that Catalhuyuk, but of course that hasn't been continuously occupied.  Of course, I'm not a specialist in the area either.  --Ben Mudd, Anthropology, Washington University.  74.140.177.127 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the current disclaimer is good. I would support the idea of deleting this page because I think you can find literature that claims that each of the main contenders is the oldest, especially from sources that are published in that location. I would support you in deleting it or making it an unranked list. Shaque 12:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename
After the AfD is closed, the article should be moved to the same title in lower-case, per naming guidelines.  young  american (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done now, and sorted out the redirect. Sorry about that, this is the first page that I've done any serious editing to. --Si42 11:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion
Since I was the one who nominated this article for deletion, and not a single other user has come out in favour, I posted the resolution that I do what I can to better the article and remove it from the list. I am therefore removing the AfD tag from the article header. The verification tag should stand (I believe) until all sources are verified. --Si42 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Oldest cities  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   21:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Byblos
The article claims Byblos dates from 3000-4000 BC... From what i know, and have read in other articles on wikipedia, it's actually 5000 BC. I clicked on the link for the source of the numbers in this article, it says "Although its beginnings are lost in time, modern scholars say the site of Byblos goes back at least 7,000 years."... a simple calculation gives us 5000 BC (2000-7000= -5000). The information in the article doesn't even match the one in the source. When "http://www.middleeast.com/byblos.htm" says 3000-4000 BC, it's talking about the Chalcolithic period which is not the first one, as Byblos started during the Neolithic.


 * The criteria I was using was presence of "urban life" rather than "signs of settlement" which is clearly stated at the top. If you want to change the criteria, go ahead, but you will have to rewrite the whole page from scratch and will come up with wildly different, and much more unverifyable results. Nevertheless, going from the source, the age should read 'before 3,000 BCE'. --Si42 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I had modified the Damascus entry based on excavations of groups of settlements from 8,000-10,000BC. Not verified whether they were full fletched urban settlements. --User:atif.hussain 07:16, 28 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Locations
Someone changed the locations of Jericho and Gaza to read Palestinian Authority - which I have changed to read "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip" respectively, since these are more correct in a geographical sense, the Palestinian Authority being a political entity, of course. I have also changed the heading "Country" to read "Location", as the broader term might help prevent nice things such as edit wars.

Delhi
Delhi/ Indraprastha/ Hastinapur in India is continually inhabited since 5000 BC. Please this to your list


 * Actually, no archaelogical findings support this claim. If there are some, please give the source. You can yourself add Delhi, if you have reliable source for this.nids 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Susa
Someone added Susa, but I'm reasonably sure ancient Susa was abandoned, and that the city was destroyed at least once -rendering its inclusion invalid. I will leave it there for now and check up... Comments, anyone? --Si42 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC) I lived 30 Km from Shoush or Susa the area is inhabited by one of the oldest race of indigenous people of Iran they are called Khouzi or people of sugar-cane (since till few years ago the only sugar cane fields of Iran was around this city and few miles south (Haft Tappeh or 7 hills) the city has the tomb of Prophet Daniel, ruins of Archeminians and few prehistorical excavated sites. The City was only once attacked and the citadle of Susa was looted and burnt down and that was by the Babylonian whos painting of the attack is available. Susa never been abondened and it has survived many agressors like: Babylonian, Alexander The Mean, Arabs invaders and Moghols. The main reason I think was the stragetic placement of the city (from Zagros montains to Andamaska to Susa) the distances are 30 to 40 Km apart (sweet waters of Karkheh river and lush green pastures for horses) and just few Km north of Susa were the resting place of the Persian Lion Race. Simply because you doubt I am sorry it is not sufficient. I can be reached at eqdam@ebox.tninet.se for hundreds of books name links and photogrphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.86.156 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

)( I lived 30 Km from Shoush or Susa the area is inhabited by one of the oldest race of indigenous people of Iran they are called Khouzi or people of sugar-cane (since till few years ago the only sugar cane fields of Iran was around this city and few miles south (Haft Tappeh or 7 hills) the city has the tomb of Prophet Daniel, ruins of Archeminians and few prehistorical excavated sites. The City was only once attacked and the citadle of Susa was looted and burnt down and that was by the Babylonian whos painting of the attack is available. Susa never been abondened and it has survived many agressors like: Babylonian, Alexander The Mean, Arabs invaders and Moghols. The main reason I think was the stragetic placement of the city (from Zagros montains to Andamaska to Susa) the distances are 30 to 40 Km apart (sweet waters of Karkheh river and lush green pastures for horses) and just few Km north of Susa were the resting place of the Persian Lion Race. Simply because you doubt I am sorry it is not sufficient. I can be reached at eqdam@ebox.tninet.se for hundreds of books name links and photogrphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.86.156 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Varanasi
The Varanasi article links here, and Varanasi is named as being in the list, but, er, it's not listed. Anyone have any real clue (reference, whatever) about its age? - Somnior 04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really, the same goes for a lot of the cities in here. It's very difficult to define the ages of most of these places with any real accuracy. My own personal opinion is that Varanasi should be somewhere between 3rd and 6th on the list, although there is a lot of conflicting info out there on it. But yes, it should probably be in there somewhere. --Si42 22:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yerevan
Does it go here? Jordan Elder talk 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like it, at least from the city's own Wiki page --Si42 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Halstatt
Does it go here?
 * Some Hallstatt's oldest archaeological finds, such as a shoe-last celt, date back to around 5000 BC. ... Active trade and thus wealth allowed for the development of a highly-developed culture, which, after findings in the Salzberghochtal, was named Hallstatt culture. This lasted from approximately 800 to 400 BC, and now the town's name is recognised world wide.
 * So says our article here. But nowhere can be found any indication about continuity of settlement. And there were no roads - boat or narrow trails. So : for the moment, no. -- DLL .. T 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaziantep
Can anyone rephrase the note? It doesn't make much sense as written: I'm even having trouble discerning what's in dispute. -- bcasterline • talk 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tirunelveli
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has confirmed that continually humankind present in Adichanallur - 24 km from the city Tirunelveli since 3,800 BCE.,,

continuous habitation
For Jericho...

"Evidence indicates that the city was abandoned several times, and later expanded and rebuilt several times.[3]" Thus not CONTINUOUS, why is it one the list? Arthurian Legend 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Damascus listed twice
Instead of having damascus at 1st and 3rd, have jericho/damascus tied for 1st, and then list the rest from there. I would do it myself but I don't know how to work tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.242.46 (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jericho
The article on Jericho says that this city is the second oldest. Which article is the most accurate? 157.229.217.35 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mexico
The indigenous peoples began to selectively breed maize plants around 8,000 BC. Evidence shows an explosion of pottery works by 2300 B.C. and the beginning of intensive corn farming between 1800 and 1500 B.C.

The Wikipedia page Mérida,_Yucatán states that "many historians consider Mérida the oldest continually-occupied city in the Americas". It is not listed in the New World section, though. 10:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.35.88 (talk)

Peru
Can someone add this new find to this page, I found it in yahoo, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080225/sc_nm/peru_archeology_dc, it is supposed to be over 5500 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.124.150 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

THere are many errors on this page. Why is there no Cattal Huyuk (The oldest known human settlement)? In the americas, Cholula is mentioned, but not Mexico City (Tenochitlan), nor is Vera Cruz (est. 1519) nor Puebla (est. 1527) mentioned. If I find the time I could add something valid. These lists are so inaccurate as to be almost harmful. Peace, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.87.166 (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely the omission of Cusco is a gaff? Capital of one of the two great pre-European American civilisations, founded in about 1200 or thereabouts, and still populated. Oh, and while I'm at it, what about Lima? It terms of antiquity, it surely knocks the socks off the third oldest Canadian city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.102.21.7 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... Israel again
Look, there is simply no way that we can list Jericho and Hebron as being within "Israel." Israel is not some metaphysical ideal, it is a recognized state with recognized boundaries. Anything beyond the Green Line is not in Israel, no country in the world recognizes anything beyond the Green Line as being Israel, the ICJ and even the Israeli Supreme Court recognize that these are occupied territories. I am getting sooo tired of having to argue this point in every WP article you could think of. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 11:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh... "anti-Zionists" again
 * Look, the phrase "anything beyond the Green Line is not in Israel" is just a view statement. Currently it is supported by the majority of countries in the world (BTW, I can't recall a single instance when any cause, or mere survival of the Jewish nation or the state of Israel was supported by such majority; in fact, the very opposite is true). The Israeli Supreme Court is not the Israeli or Jewish people. WE in majority do NOT recognize them as "occupied". WE in majority also loathe many of this court's shameful decisions on security issues and view it as a closed, suicidal leftist ivory-tower clique, detached from its people and the reality on the ground.


 * Wikipedia, of course, should reflect the current state of affairs, so these indeed should be designated as currently not in Israel.


 * However, I do see now Jericho as listed under "Palestine" (though conveniently redirecting to Palestinian Authority). Since, by the current state of affairs, there is no (and never was) any country called "Palestine", it should be properly listed as being in "Palestinian Territories" or "Palestinian Authority". Also, Jerusalem, which currently lies in BOTH Israel and Palestinian Authority, should be designated as such, and the two-stars notice on positions on its status should come AFTER the flags, not INSTEAD of them (it seems someone tries to escape in all means the display of the dreaded Star of David flag, even if it means conceding the beloved Palestinian flag).


 * And I ask: why any edit with pro-Israeli POV like the one you described gets reverted in a blink of an eye, but so many pro-Arab/Muslim POVs stick practically forever? I think that the answer to this is obvious. After all, Hizballa apologists and moral relativists like you are one of the main reasons why Wikipedia just cannot be trusted in near any political article (not just Israel). Sadly, people like you make a large enough part of Wiki community (and usually are the most zealous in editing/reverting/feuding, unlike more neutral folks that usually have a life and a work to do) to keep its crystal-clear anti-Israeli bias alive and well. No CAMERA-smear-campaign incidents can in any way counter this obvious fact.


 * I've spent too much time on writing this, as I am at work. I will edit the article as I stated above, and if it gets reverted so be it, I won't return here. But at least this comment will stay as an evidence for blatant distortions that keep being posted onto Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.237.41 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh cool, I've noticed it now is "semi-protected" (yeah, sure). So this blatant bias will remain on display for all. Just another evidence to my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.237.41 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

additions
Can everyone please stop adding their hometown for a minute? Let's be clear what this article is about: continuous habitation. Adding a city and giving a neolithic date because a neolithic settlement was found near the town doesn't cut it. Also, using some random weblink thrown up by google isn't sufficient. We want a WP:RS, ideally academic reference that a given settlement has been continuously inhabited for such and such a period of time. Thanks. dab (𒁳) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem - why is it listed in two countries?
Why is Jerusalem listed as being in Israel and Palestine? Last time I checked, Jerusalem was in Israel only. Yes, international law and what not might disagree, but the point is in practice Jerusalem is in Israel. I am not pro-Israel or anything like that, I merely think that the actual reality on the ground should have more relevance than some legal document in The Hague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.110.218 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Unless somebody says something, I'll change Jerusalem from 'Israel and Palestine' to 'Israel'. --[[Image:EmbrunChurch01.jpg|20px]]FreshFruitsRule 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In 1967 Israel occupied East Jerusalem, and soon extended its domestic laws to the area of the city. However, this de facto annexation has not been recognized by any nation and has been repeatedly and strongly condemned by the international community. In the eyes of the world, East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Regardless of the actual physical control of the city, listing it in Israel alone would misrepresent the situation. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is 9a) no such thing as 'Palestine' today - there is a Palestinian Authority, whose jurisdiction does not extend to Jerusalem. Prior to 1967, East Jerusalem's annexation by Jordan was also not recognized by the Internatioan community. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing called Palestine today, but there is something called Palestinian occupied territories, where east Jerusalem falls under. Denying that fact is denying the international community.Michael1408 22:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Michael1408
 * Have you guys even been to Jerusalem? I've travelled there twice (my family lives there) and you can't even tell the difference between the East and the West. There are no signs of a border there. There are no signs of anything different. There is the same shops and houses on one side and the same shops and houses on the other. I had to use a GPS just to be able to tell where the line is. A few kilometres further east, however, at the border between Jerusalem and the West Bank, you can definetely tell there's a border there. The fact on the ground is that Jerusalem is united under Israeli jurisdiction. It has been that way for about 25 years, and there's no reason for the UN to complain: no matter how many countries refuse to recognize this, what the other countries think doesn't magically change the reality on the ground. --216.106.108.95 (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have. What the UN and the other countries think does make a lot of difference, the reality of the ground is the whole world except a few countries don't recognize it as part of Israel, then why should Wikipedia? Michael1408 23:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Michael1408


 * IP editor: I am entirely familiar with the "facts on the ground" created by Israel's de facto annexation of East Jerusalem, and with its efforts to blur or reposition the Green Line elsewhere. I have already alluded to them above. You are of course free to personally believe "there's no reason for the UN to complain" about "the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible" (UNSC 242, 252, 267, 271, 298, 476, 478) but in this belief you are in disagreement with a clear and durable consensus of international opinion. Assigning all of Jerusalem to "Israel" is thus a gross violation of Wikipedia's policy of NPOV, and is factually inaccurate. It is also at variance with WP's action on other conflicts. We do not list Transnitria or Abkhazia as Russian territory, even though the "fact on the ground" is complete Russian control. Nor do we categorize East Jerusalem, 1949-66, as Jordanian territory, but rather territory under Jordanian occupation and control, even though Jordan annexed the West Bank and treated Palestinians as citizens in a similar fashion to what Israel did later in East Jerusalem.
 * I agree that the solution of using "Israel and Palestine" is potentially problematic, not because I accept CM's racist and denialist claim that "there is no such thing as Palestine," but because Palestine is not yet a fully recognized sovereign nation. The "Palestinian Authority" is an interim governing body created by a treaty between Israel and the Palestinian people represented by the PLO, and is neither a nation nor a national government. Large swathes of territory (East Jerusalem, "Area C," of late Gaza) are regarded legally as Occupied Palestinian Territory, but are not subject to any PA control.
 * It might be better to simply list Jerusalem without any country, instead putting something like "Special case" wikilinked to Positions on Jerusalem.
 * Statewise, there is no, and never has been, such thing as "Palestine". This statement is not "racist" or "denialist" in the least. It is, however, factually accurate. The phrase "Palestine is not yet a fully recognized sovereign nation" is also problematic, because it is 1) POV-ridden, because "not yet" implies some inevitable recognition in the future, which is not certain at all, given the Palestinian Arabs' tremendous efforts to avoid the creation of their state alongside a Jewish one at all costs, starting from 1947; and 2) misleading because the "Palestine" you are referring to, converges yet again to the "Palestinian Territories" and does not include Israel which is also a part of historical Eretz-Yisrael, or "Palestine" as Romans called it. "Palestinian" identity is also entirely artificial, but this is another topic.


 * The city currently lies in both Israel and Palestinian Territories and should be designated as such. "Palestinian Territories" exist as at leasr SOME kind of state-like entity, while "Palestine" does not.


 * And the last thing: "the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible"? What about an aggression against a sovereign state with overtly genocidal intentions (where is the UN resolution on this?), is it admissible? Is building of a mosque INTENTIONALLY over the most sacred site of Judaism, and appropriation of the Western Wall as "al-Buraq wall" (yeah, right) admissible? Is the hadith call to "fight the Jews as the Day of Judgement won't come till Muslims kill them" (which plays a very important part in today's conflict) admissible? When UN will mull over this (or at least bother to organizationally condemn terrorist attacks like it routinely does for Israeli retaliations), I'll think about its superior moral authority. "International opinion"? Give me a break. It was in favor of the Jewish people only once - immediately after some of the bearers of this same "opinion" slaughtered a one-third of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.237.41 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As tempting as it is to refute your screed, which is littered with really howling inaccuracies, it's really not relevant to the issue at hand. "Israel and Palestinian Territories" is fine. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is one giant argument in favor of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem - Israel is the only sovereign state that has ever allowed people of all beliefs to worship in Jerusalem. When the Ottomans, Caliphates and the Saladins ruled the city, they allowed only Muslims to enter. When the crusaders controlled, they allowed only Christians to enter. Jordan refused to let Christians or Jews in when they owned the city. Israel has allowed all three religions to worship, and they have never had a holy site destroyed (every other ruler of Jerusalem has always had some holy sites destroyed upon taking rule). Israelis are the first and only country ever to grant religious freedom to all peoples of Jerusalem. The human rights organization Freedom House recognizes this and points it out almost all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.109.236 (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a political case for why Israel ought to be sovereign in Jerusalem, and has no bearing on whether Israel actually is sovereign in Jerusalem. Or it would be a political case, if it had any historical truth whatsoever, which it doesn't. Please don't expound on matters about which you are ignorant. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

look, the status of Jerusalem as part of Israel has no international recognition, period. This is a territorial dispute under international law. West Jerusalem is recognized as part of Israel, while East Jerusalem (which includes the actual Old City of interest to this article) is de jure part of the Palestinian territories. dab (𒁳) 09:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * De jure part of the Palestinian territories? I don't think so. It was part of the [corpus separatum]], and is now the capital of Israel, regardless of the potential future status of part or all of it. Lhasa is still in China too, by the way, despite the various protests insisting it should not be. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An entirely specious analogy, which adds nothing to the debate whatsoever. "I don't think so" is not an argument. UN security council resolutions have passed 15-0 reaffirming that East Jerusalem is not Israeli territory. The ICJ ruled 15-0 that East Jerusalem is not Israeli territory. Etc, etc - we've had this discussion before. Trying to overrule such a broad international consensus by sheer force of will is just bad form, and won't work. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

East Jerusalem isn't internationally recognized as part of Israel, period. Wikipedia adheres to the neutral point of view, not to Israeli law. Tibet is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of the PRC "various protests" notwithstanding. This article isn't an appropriate battleground for people with opinions on the Middle East conflict. dab (𒁳) 07:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerusalem is de facto in Israel period. Wikipedia should reflect reality not anti-Jewish wishful thinking. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Kuratowski's Ghost above. It is downright shameful that Wikipedia continues to be an agent of falsehood in this way.  --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

oh yeah? "Falsehood" as in de jure according to international law and UN consensus? No, a state doesn't get to pick its capital beyond its internationally recognized borders. According to Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost, every state on the planet except for Israel is antisemitic. That's 191 out of 192 states in the UN. Give us a break. dab (𒁳) 04:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerusalem's division is erroneous, thus saying Jerusalem is not in Israel over a certain section being passed an armistice line is ridiculous. To be inline with actual international policy you would have to leave the country as blank.  People born in Jerusalem are not born in Israel according to numerous countries when filing for passports.  Truth doesn't need a majority. The reality is that when the Jews reunited their city no one accepted it.  From 1948-1967 no one protested Jordan's annexation and division of Jerusalem.


 * The claim isn't dubious and the marker should be removed. A real encyclopedia can reference Jerusalem as the capital.  watch out....--Saxophonemn (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice job Eleland, the Israeli mfa nicely shows everything about Jerusalem. First of all the Palestinians don't refer to Jerusalem they call it a different name.  That should be a big ding ding ding.  Where is Western Jerusalem?  Have you seen a map that anyone uses?  How do you get to Jerusalem?  You seem to have a huge bias on your edit based on the international communities contempt.  You forget this same community claims that Israel is the source of all of the ills of the world.  Consider each position as to what country Jerusalem is in: The USA, says Israel, yet doesn't want to piss off the Arabs so won't do more than just say so, England, former imperial meddler still can't keep hands off of huge blunders, Arab/Muslim World, 50 countries approximately many with no diplomatic ties to Israel, and then there are the other countries who buy oil, etc.  The reality is that Jerusalem is in Israel and all claims of the contrary are based on a sever bias against Israel for winning Independence and the 6 Day War.  Anyone old enough to remember what happened would see it in a clearer context.  Stating that Jerusalem is not in Israel is also an over complication of the matter.  Essentially to bring up the dispute is dubious and to bring conflict to a page on cities.  --Saxophonemn (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well someone could argue that your statement of putting Jerusalem as an Israeli city is anti-Palestinians, including muslims, christians, the minority of jews who call themselfs Palestinians, and the athiest and will consider your position as. bias to Israel. it's not anti-jewish to call things with their names. using your logic atleast 300mil person of the world will never recognize Jerusalem as an Israeli city but rather as a Palestinian city, as well as considering the other cities under Israeli control, (Acre for example) as Palestinian cities. They can argue that any other claim would be considered anti-Palestinian, anti-arab bla bla bla. Wikipedia is trying to stick to what is "legal" and that means old city Jerusalem is NOT an Israeli city. --Michael1408 04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

this is all addressed at positions on Jerusalem. We cannot treat Jerusalem as part of Israel within WP:NPOV, it's as simple as that. Now please stop holding this article hostage over a dispute completely irrelevant to its topic. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the flag icons
they are clearly troll magnets. They aren't needed, this isn't a list of sports results. --dab (𒁳) 08:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that, as I didn't know the flag for the West Bank was exclusively a made up flag in the 60's for Palestinian Nationalism! Despite that quirk the flags clutter the table. --Saxophonemn (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I say we keep the flags. It is more pedagogic. --Fipplet (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * no it isn't? These flag icons are intended for sports topics. --dab (𒁳) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. And these flag icons are seen in lots of non sport articles for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew. And Jerusalem isn't located on the West Bank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fipplet (talk • contribs) 07:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The flags are problematic since they should be flags of the cities not of countries who happen to possess them.--Saxophonemn (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Information on early Jerusalem
The following seems to be the current state of knowledge about Jerusalem from archaeologists and is not seriously disputed except on religious grounds: "In 7th C.BCE, the built-up area of Jerusalem covered a max. 150 acres, c. half the size of the present Old City. It had a population of around 15,000 and had had never been this large before". ... "An optimistic assessment of the negative evidence is that 10th C.BCE Jerusalem was limited in extent, perhaps not more than a typical hill country village. " PRtalk 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * well, of course, most Bronze Age to Early Iron Age cities by modern standards would qualify as "village" or at best "small town". I don't see your point. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my request that everyone, please, if you have a bee in your bonnet about Jerusalem, take your edits to some article which actually is about Jerusalem and stop disrupting this one. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are the one being disruptive by insisting on having geographic revisionism in the article that denies the reality of Jerusalem being part of Israel. The fact that there is dispute over whether it should be part of Israel or not is irrelevant. Several other places in the article are in disputed territories, for example I don't recognzie any of Arab states invented by Britain and France after WWI such as Lebanon and Syria and I don't recognize the Palestinian Authority, but the facts on the ground are that they exist and the cities listed are part of them in the same way Jerusalem is in Israel. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I understand you: repeated UN resolutions in both the Security Council and the General Assembly have condemned Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and affirmed it as occupied territory. The International Court of Justice ruled 14-0 that East Jerusalem was part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT.) The vast majority of the world's governments, including even Israel's closest ally the U.S, not only do not recognize Israel's claim in East Jerusalem but have moved their embassies out of even West Jerusalem in order to avoid the appearance of recognizing Israel's claim there. And you compare this to your own personal feeling that Lebanon and Syria aren't real countries on an equal basis? Are you kidding? This is Wikipedia, not Masada2000, and we're not going to weigh the judgment of the entire international community on an equal basis with fringe, nationalist claims that aren't even a major current in Israeli politics. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't change the reality that the locality is under Israeli rule. If Jordan invaded tomorrow and annexed the city then the article would be changed to reflect that. If the Israeli government decides to give half away to the Palestinian authority then the article would be changed to reflect that. The reality is that is currently part of Israel whether the rest of world likes it or not. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally the UN is not a world government it has no more authority than what its members are willing to give it which is usually not much. Although you happen to feel that it is somehow authoritative many other people consider it to be a completely useless organization. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to debate your political or religious opinions. If you want to be taken seriously than please answer the following question: where do |31.7939213076947&sf=72142.968401088 National Geographic, Google Maps, Yahoo Maps, and the CIA World Factbook show the city of Jerusalem? Is it shown as Israeli territory? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The actuality of the matter is that Jerusalem was only a capital when a part of Israel. Otherwise it was nothing of note, as a capital.  Jerusalem is de facto in Israel, and no border splits the city.  The sad reality is that there is no East/West Jerusalem, that was merely a fabrication caused when Jordan took over half of the city.  The sad thing is this is merely a list of cities and their countries.  Why is only the Jewish state not allowed to pick its capital?  Sovereign nations are allowed to pick their capitals!--Saxophonemn (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO AIR YOUR VIEWS ON THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT. See WP:TALK. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 04:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What dab said - and also, you didn't answer my previous question. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 07:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ??? sorry for posting in the wrong spot before --Saxophonemn (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why Jericho in this list?
I don't understand why Jericho is in this list it was destroyed and rebuilt several times sometimes with significant gaps between destruction and rebuilding so in what sense is it continuously inhabited? Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You probably have a point there. I seem to recall this issue coming up earlier. Frankly, this whole list seems to be a compilation of divers offhand references that aren't really adequate to support a claim of "oldest continuously inhabited" status. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jericho imho should be listed because it is often dubbed the "oldest continuously inhabited city". That's all we are doing here: listing cities that have been called continuously inhabited. If there are references to the contrary, we should obviously list these too. --dab (𒁳) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Its dubbed the oldest city not the oldest continuously inhabited. Its the oldest city that is inhabited today by virtue of having been rebuilt. If we include it on those grounds then I think the article might be missing many other places that are rebuilt ancient cities. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

you sort of have a point in that we do not give a reference unequivocally calling it "continuously inhabited". but seeing that google gives close to 2,000 hits, I suppose this is a technicality. Jericho is indeed often called the "oldest continuously inhabited city", and hence belongs in the list, even if we can cite other references adding caveats to the claim. Google books gives me about 100 hits, including International Dictionary of Historic Places (1994), The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1915), A History of Israel and the Holy Land (2003) to pick a few at random. Look, I agree that Jericho was probably not technically "continuously inhabited" since the Neolithic, but it still belongs in this list as being often mentioned as "the oldest continuously inhabited city". Ok? dab (𒁳) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, I've tried to figure out Jericho. The question is, if it has been abandoned several times since 9000 BC, for how long has it been continuously inhabited? I couldn't find anything definite on this, so I propose we leave the "founded" cell empty for the time being. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jericho and Jerusalem
Hello new section to discuss what I did:

So Jericho is not in any official country due to the complex situation in the aftermath of the Israel War of Independence and subsequent 6-Day War. The NPOV place name for the region is the West Bank, it's a geographic descriptor neuter of ownership claims. Since I would be right in claiming it Judea since that is indeed where it is I would be challenged by someone claiming it's Palestine which doesn't actually exists in the fullest sense.

Jerusalem, the city is in Israel the only doubt comes from international condemnation of Israel for actually winning the 6 Day War, I modified the table to link to the status of Jerusalem with out making the table screwed up. This is a merely a list of cites and where they are, there is no need to politicize the list by bringing up positions based upon pure idiocy. Saying Jerusalem is not in Israel is like saying Paris isn't in France, it sounds stupid!!!!

Anyone reverting the edits without visiting the talk page? -- Saxophonemn (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Saxophonemn, my point exactly! Recognition or lack of recognition by other countries in such matters has nothing to do with reality, its just a political way of patting on the back or sticking ones tongue out at the United Nations typically for sycophantic reasons that do not represent the majority view of citizens. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonemn has a point, we could simply list "West Bank". Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost apparently simply keeps refusing to "Get It". KG, a country is only a country if it has international recognition as being sovereign over a certain territory. Israel does have international recognition, but not as having sovereignty over the West Bank. This is extremely relevant if you want to claim some city is "in" some country. Claiming that East Jerusalem is in the State of Israel is like claimomg that Sukhumi is in the "Republic of Abkhazia", while stating that Jerusalem is in the West Bank is uncontroversial, like stating that Sukhumi is in Abkhazia. Can you appreciate the comparison? Now, this is simply about a measly table cell in an article completely unrelated to any of this. Can we please just say Jerusalem is in the West Bank and move on? dab (𒁳) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * However a giant chunk of Jerusalem is in Israel, it's not so cut and dry, so I added an asterisk to the Status of Jerusalem page.  The part of Jerusalem captured by the Jordanians was essentially the old city section, which was walled, yet the rest is indisputably Israel.  KG's point is valid on the international community, the status of the place was corrupted by the UN who were freaked out that Israel was doing so well.  That war if allowed to progress to a normal peace treaty would have of course have been more solid in terms.  So there are the two reasons, 1 mostly in undisputed Israel and 2 the reason the other part is in disputed territory is a fluke of the UN's idiocy.--Saxophonemn (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And once more let me remind that the UN is not a world government and has no more authority over a country than what that country is willing to give it, Israel which de facto controls the whole of Jerusalem does not give the UN any authority over the matter. Abkhazia is de facto independent i.e. the Abkhazians control it and will kick the butts of any Georgians, UN representatives or wikipedia editors who go over there and try to tell them how to run their lives :) Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'd like to ask that you guys stop WP:SOAPBOXing about how you think the stupid evil (at least you didn't say antisemitic) UN is out to get Israel. It's irritating and it's irrelevant. The question "what country is territory X in" is a question of international law. Unless we talk about international law the question has no meaning. If you don't like international law, good for you, and I'll let you in on a secret: I'm not crazy about it myself. However this is not a forum for us to talk about what we think the world ought to be like, we are just here to record what the relevant authorities say. So for one last time: is anybody going to address the issue of what authorities in international law say about the sovereignty of Jerusalem? Is anybody going to try to argue with the point I've been making all along, which is that the authorities overwhelmingly describe those areas of East Jerusalem which were under Jordanian control, post-1949, as being Palestinian territory occupied by Israel? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because there was never a Palestine, so it couldn't be Israeli occupied Palestinian Territory. That angle negates the HIstory of how the Jordanians kicked out all of the Jews in the area in 1948, used the Jewish cemeteries as rifle ranges and latrines, and stole jewish homes.  The territory after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire became British and then ownerless. --Saxophonemn (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so that I understand your argument: You accept that authorities on international law nearly all consider East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory, but you think that they are wrong, because they fail to consider the unique history and special importance of your favorite ethnic group. This is correct, yes? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, this article is about the Bronze Age city founded around 2800 BC. This city was located on the hill which is now fully within East Jerusalem. Well, yes, the government of Israel has full de facto control over East Jerusalem. What are you, KG, a Social Darwinist? There is no such thing as unlawful force, because might makes right? This opinion would make you fit in perfectly in the Bronze Age, but it makes you a loony extremist today. The relevant authority for international disputes is the UN. I am sorry too that we don't have anything better than that, but we don't. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the UN as the be all end all is asinine this isn't a WIKI POV of the UN. There is one Jerusalem, and the city of antiquity wasn't completely under Jordanian occupation.  The border was the wall.  Why the UN is the most inept organization for world peace, the only major conflicts solved post WW2 were done via a NATO.  The UN is inherently anti-Israel by it's shear lopsidedness on resolutions against Israel.  How many resolutions on Tibet are there?  That's why the POV of stating that it's not in Israel is stupid, because it is in Israel de facto.  There is an asterisk to clarify for those people who are anal in details.  Making the city an international city is an absurdity as Jerusalem is the eternal capital of only the Jewish people, and Israel is the Jewish state. --Saxophonemn (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, last time: stop referencing your personal opinions of the UN as if they have any relevance to writing this article. They don't. Yeah, we get it, you think that Jerusalem ought to be under Israeli sovereignty, and everybody who disagrees is biased and anti-Israel. Good for you, now be quiet. We don't care. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Israel is recognized by 170 out of 191 member states. That hardly betrays an inherent "anti-Israel" bias in the UN. At least as compelling a case can be made for a pronounced pro-Israel bias in the UN. But as eleland just said, we should not even be discussing this here. If you care so much about this question, go and edit an article that discusses it. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, citing the UN as a reference as to how Jerusalem is against Israel is asinine. That was the point, I went on to further exemplify the problem that ensues. The arguments against the Tag for Israel are based on two smear campaigns.
 * 1) That Jerusalem is a divided city, this is a flat out fabrication caused by the 1949 illegal occupation by Jordan. It's amazing how a city that existed for over 3000 years is divided for 19 and then never considered whole again.  Because 19/3000 is a drop in the bucket.
 * 2) Since there is no real division of Jerusalem aside from a small period in which it was cut up, then it is in Israel because the bulk of the city exists in Israel's recognized borders. The division becomes a dubious distinction.

For these two reasons the tag should remain Israel, it's quite straight forward, the POV against requires a very problematic statement, since you have to rely on documentation from places that institutionally attack Israel (comparing recognition of the state to the capital is a game of numbers, wait until we don't use oil anymore and see how the tide turns)! --Saxophonemn (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to take this as an answer to my question above. You agree that most authorities regard Jerusalem east of the 1949 ceasefire lines as occupied territory. You just think that those authorities are wrong. That pretty much ends the discussion, as it's clear you have no policy-based argument here. You just want WP to better reflect your own personal political views. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Eleland is quite right. Ergo, Sax, please stop wasting our time. Moreschi (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not about wasting time figure this - is truth based on consensus or accuracy? Does reality matter? Have any of you actually been to Jerusalem? Comparing it to South Obsetia is asinine. There is an entire page dedidcated to the status of Jerusalem, the table should very well point to it, but the table doesn't need to have the most awkward field to demonstrate such. --Saxophonemn (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally I see a bias in based upon a few of the users edits. Logically we all know Jerusalem is Jewish, "ergo" a part of the Jewish state.  To pull out Jerusalem from Israel you need an army or a "fire sale" PM, seeing that Olmert is leaving soon, not very likely.   So using a POV devoid of reality is a disservice to readers.--Saxophonemn (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This change makes sense, it acknowledges reality and that sections of Jerusalem are inside the Green Line, walk the city some time you'll see.--Saxophonemn (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What you think "we all know" is hardly a basis for Wikipedia editing, especially when it relates to an irrelevant and irrational claim which isn't even true (some 30% of Jerusalemites speak Arabic, self-identify as Palestinian, and refuse Israeli citizenship - in the Old City it is more like 85%.) "Israel and West Bank" is OK with me, even though the ancient part of Jerusalem is entirely outside the Green Line. It is not clear to me why edit warring and talk-page vitriol over several months should be necessary to change "Israel and Palestinian Territories" to "Israel and West Bank," either. But I think we are (finally) done here. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for "Israel and West Bank". The previous version was fine. People throwing fits on talkpages is no reason to change any article. This is a matter of principle. People must understand that creating Wikidrama doesn't affect content. --dab (𒁳) 06:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny it's throwing a fit when I discover the eternal capital of he Jewish people wasn't in the Jewish State, I'm sorry if I found that messed up. Funny how a contribution is a fit, because the original one was rather offensive. -- Saxophonemn (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * you know, feel free to stuff your "eternal capital" chauvinism somewhere private. So you have an opinion in the Middle East conflict. Congratulations, so do millions of people. And not all have the same one: that's what makes it a "conflict". Sheesh, how difficult can it be to read and understand WP:NPOV? --dab (𒁳) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Factually point out any thing stated which is not true. The basis of the hostility is based upon Arab rejection of the Jewish state. The status of a city that became famous as the capital of the Jewish people is only in question because outside meddlers have changed the course of natural history of how wars are resolved. Recall Israel won the Six-Day War, yet the UN put on the breaks, ensuring that the broken 1949 Armistice would be null, yet being extremely vague on Israel's liberated territories. By then the UN transformed from the alliance of WW2 to a body full of rogue nations that had too much clout against Israel shifting consensus. (Statement seems opinionated, but it can be backed up by perusing Israel at www.un.org and observing how its attacked out of proportion eg China's treatment of Tibet, Darfur-Sudan, Arabs in Iran, etc.) Strangely Israel is the only country that has a valid claim to Israel. The Palestinians who have a capital in Ramallah seem to request Jerusalem to take it pull it away from Israel, despite never being an Arab capital EVER. Call it as you see it, I see it as reality, something that doesn't exist at your computer screen thousands of kilometers away.--Saxophonemn (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OH MY GOODNESS are you still on about this? You are nothing if not persistent. I would love to respond to your general views on Zionism and the Arab-Israeli conflict, really, I would. It would be enjoyable in a certain sense. But this is not the forum for it. Bottom line; you have said nothing of relevance to the question at hand. I refer to you my comments of 18:42, 4 September 2008 and 18:31, 5 September 2008 and leave it at that. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Delhi
Just when we pacified the Israeli pov pushers by inserting "Israel and" after pages of vitriolic rants, up comes a Delhi pusher. With references as solid as Dayananda and Mahabharata. Wow, that makes Judges look dry and factual, doesn't it Saxo. This used to be a nice article for ancient history geeks. Then the nationalist trolls discovered it :o( --dab (𒁳) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't know anything about the subject, but after reading up for twenty minutes or so it would seem that you are correct. A religious/literary tradition holds that Delhi was founded on or near the site of a marvelous yet ruined capital called Indraprastha. If any city even remotely corresponding to the one described in the Mahābhārata ever did exist there, no convincing traces of its grandeur have survived. There are, however, various scatterings of pottery shards and so forth which indicate (if you are an objective historian or archaeologist) that humans did live in the general area or (if you are a Vedic mystic or Hindu nationalist) that the entire story is clearly true. The funny thing is that even if you accept the religious tradition as fact, Delhi was still founded on or near empty ruins and was not "continuously inhabited" before the accepted date. So yeah, it's more crackpottery, if you'll forgive the pun. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

that's right. there are "traces of habitation" all over the place, that doesn't make for "city", let alone "continuously inhabited". We have oldest city for oldest known walled cities regardless of continuous habitation. This could be expanded further. But even there we couldn't list Indraprastha, it being a purely legendary city. Delhi can be considered continuously inhabited since about 300 BC (see History of Delhi, an article that astoundingly hasn't yet been trolled, but I suppose it will now I mentioned it). --dab (𒁳) 06:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * in fact, we could also extend the scope of this list. "Older than Rome" makes sense in the Mediterranean region, but 300 BC is still very old in a South Asian context, so that Delhi may actually deserve to be listed as a foundation of the late Indian Iron Age. --dab (𒁳) 06:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! Some Wikipedians after making thousands of edits start thinking of themselves as credible historians and show utter disregard for sources provided. Or rather, they regard other Wikipedians as minnows, or worse POV pushers. Read reference # 8 of page 250 of the source provided. Again, source which mention Delhi has been continuously inhabited since 6th-century BC: . Another source says 4th century BC and I can provide numerous more sources. And the very fact that the only "trolling" which has taken place in the past couple of days was the addition of that "dubious" speaks volumes about who is the real troll and POV-pusher here. POV pushers don't provide legitimate, unbiased sources to back what they write. --Dilli Billi (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And regarding Delhi not being a city back in 600 BC, first of all define "city" especially in the context of 600 BC population figures. Secondly, this list does not explicitly mention that the earliest date that would be considered would be the year that the concerned city actually became a major settlement. Thirdly, if someone decides to explicitly mention that rule for inclusion of cities here, remove all those cities for which sources are not provided about the year they actually became a "city" and have been continuously inhabited since. --Dilli Billi (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * why the excitement? Are you from Delhi or something? Oh wait, of course you are, and Delhi is the only city in the list you care about. And by "care", we of course mean "pick the earliest date at all possible". So you conclude I am the troll and the pov pusher who "doesn't participate in discussion". Well, then let's see your dedication, and show us your efforts in building this article in respects other than Delhi. Regarding the 600 vs. 300 BC "dispute", that's just peanuts. Your source says "at least the 6th century BC". 300 BC is being on the safe side, 600 BC is perfectly possible, "6th century" would suggest 500 BC, and I'll be happy to go with that. Now please calm down and either contribute constructively to the article topic (as opposed to throwing fits about Delhi in particular), or find some article more in line with your particular interests. --dab (𒁳) 11:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm from Delhi and the only particular topic I'm concerned about here is regarding the year Delhi has been continuously inhabited from. So, does that mean I'm not allowed to edit this article? And your lack of knowledge is reflected by your statement "6th century" would suggest 500 BC". FYI, 6th-century BC refers to the period between 600 BC and 501 BC. But 500 BC is fine with me because I don't want to see prejudiced people like you crying. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

you are obviously not interested in a bona fide estimate for Delhi, you are only interested in the earliest date at all defensible. Because, it has long become clear, in nationalism, "older is better" for some reason. Which also goes to explain why an article with "oldest" in its title, however harmless in scope, will be a troll magnet. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! Nationalism?! When you couldn't refute my points you accuse me of nationalism? Not that nationalism is a bad thing in IMHO but still, this accusation definitely gives you a high moral ground. If you are well versed with English you should know that "at least 6th-century BC" suggests 600 BC or older. And if you are still confused, stop wasting my time by showing-off your IQ here. And the very fact that I haven't reverted your edit, and neither do I plan to, speaks volumes about who is the real troll here. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * so I am "the troll", and "showing off my IQ" while you keep this "discussion" alive even after you ceased to have any issue with the article revision. Speaks for itself, I think. Anyone looking through the article history will agree that I am the party that is steadily improving and expanding the article as a whole, before a background noise of stray edits pushing the antiquity of some people's favourite town (in your case, Delhi). If you had any actual case, you would not need to vent spleen at me. Now please go and try to do something constructive. Fwiiw, "at least 6th-century BC" would mean "501 BC or earlier" (your celebrated footnote btw doesn't have "at least" but "only from"). 500 BC thus represents the date for which we may assume there is reasonable consensus, notwithstanding possible (uncited) claims of earlier dates. --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * dab, you are a dirty untouchable that worships a dead-jew bastard (jesus) on a stick. so whatever you claim or say is utterly useless, just like you are. so just shut up and go sit in a corner you vile mleccha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.34.159 (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

List scope

 * Perhaps we ought to segment this into a number of lists grouped by civilizational wellspring or urheimat; but then the article already skirts the edge of WP:OR as it is, and I don't know that adding an extra layer of complexity would be a great idea. On the other hand it would be nice to know what is the oldest Japanese city, Russian city, etc. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * we can still do that. I don't think we should section the list any further, "Old World" vs. "New World" is sensible, but anything else would be arbitrary. But yes, we can just remove the "older than Rome" requirement and start listing younger "oldest cities". --dab (𒁳) 06:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that extending the temporal scope will flush the list with Hellenistic cities. These are legion, and they are in no way "oldest" in anything. Maybe we ought to require that the city listed can be argued the "oldest of something" (such as, oldest in Russia, Japan, Scandinavia etc.) --dab (𒁳) 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Turku
Can someone explain why is Turku in this list? The city was founded around 1250, but there are older cities in Europe that are not mentioned here. For example:

1. Berlin - ca. 1192 2. Uppsala - at least since the 1100s. 3. Krakow - 7th century 4. Wroclaw - 10th century 5. Gniezno - 8th century 6. Kalisz - 9th century 7. Poznan - 8th/9th century 8. Trencin - 2nd century 9. London - 1st century

Norum (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yerevan, Armenia
I don't know why DBLachmann deleted my entry for Yerevan.

Yerevan is one of the oldest cities in the world and last week celebrated its 2790th birthday. This means it was created in 782 BC, thus making it one of hte oldest cities in the world and worthy of being on the list.

Please put the city on the list rather than ignorantly deleted the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAKingsFan24 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nijmegen, the oldest city from the Netherlands
What about Nijmegen? It is considered to be the oldest city in the Netherlands and celebrated its 2000th year of existence in 2005. The first mention of Nijmegen in history is in the 1st century BC, when the Romans built a military camp on the place where Nijmegen was to appear; the location had great strategic value because of the surrounding hills, which gave (and continue to give) a good view over the Waal and Rhine valley. By 69, when the Batavians, the original inhabitants of the Rhine and Maas valley, revolted, a village called Oppidum Batavorum had formed near the Roman camp. This village was destroyed in the revolt, but when the revolt had ended the Romans built another, bigger camp where the Legio X Gemina was stationed. Soon after, another village formed around this camp. In 98 Nijmegen was the first of two settlements in what is now the Kingdom of the Netherlands to receive Roman city rights. Peter Maas\talk 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

London
Hi, the wiki entry for London states that it was founded ad50, and has been inhabited ever since. Surely it should be in the list? there are younger old world cities listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.81.81 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the article about London, the first major settlement (founded in AD 43), Londinium, lasted for just 17 years. In AD 100, the Romans built the city again. Younger cities appear on the list; I think London should be added. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article isn't entirely accurate. London was burned to the ground about AD60, but was rebuilt within ten years, and the site remained occupied and under the same name through out the rebuilding period, so I would suggest that this constitutes continuous occupation from AD43. It is outlined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London, I also have it in several book I can reference if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.157.18 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Greek Towns
Here are some cities from Greece that are not listed here.


 * Thessaloniki founded 315 BC
 * Patras founded just after the Mycenean period (1580–1100 BC) around 1100 BC
 * Heraklion founded in 824 AD
 * Ioannina founded in the 6th century
 * Kavala founded in the 6th century BC as Neapolis
 * Rhodes (city) founded in 408 BC
 * Serres first mentioned in the 5th century BC as Siris
 * Chania founded around 1400-1300 BC as Kydonia
 * Chalcis founded before 1200 BC
 * Trikala founded before 1200 BC as Trikke
 * Lamia (city) first mentioned 424 BC
 * Veria first mentioned 432 BC
 * Corinth founded before 1200 BC. In 1858, the city of Corinth was totally destroyed by an earthquake. The new city of Corinth was founded six km northeast. Can we count this?
 * Mytilene founded in the 10th century BC
 * Corfu (city) founded 734 BC
 * Livadeia founded before 5th century BC
 * Edessa, Greece capital of Macedonia up to 6th century BC
 * Argos I didn't find an exact date. Seems before 1200 BC.

Can't find much more about them:


 * Rethymno founded around 5th century BC
 * Megara I didn't find an exact date. Seems before 1000 BC
 * Chios (town) founded around 1100 BC --Yangula (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem
Israel claims sovereignty over the whole city, and undoubtedly controls it, but I don't think the claim to even West Jerusalem is clearly accepted, shown by e.g. the fact that most embassys are in Tel Aviv. The Vatican does not send letters to the president of Israel addressed to "Jerusalem, Israel". PatGallacher (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Israels sovereignity over west jerusalem is internationally accepted but as a protest to Israels annexation of East Jerusalem most countries moved their embassies out of Jerusalem. West Jerusalem is undisputedly in Israel even though is capital in away is disputed and.
 * This makes it clear that the UK does not recognise Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem.

PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One country is not representative: United States position. The fact is that the majority of the International community accepts Israels sovereignity over all land within the green line including West Jerusalem and some parts of East.

can we stop discussing this please? This isn't the right venue. All that needed to be said for the purposes of this article has been said several times over. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Samarkand
Surely Samarkand, Uzbekistan should be listed? It's a UNESCO Heritage site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarkand

"Samarkand is one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world, prospering from its location on the trade route between China and the Mediterranean (Silk Road). At times Samarkand has been one of the greatest cities of Central Asia. Founded circa 700 BC by the Persians it was already the capital of the Sogdian satrapy under the Achaemenid dynasty of Persia when Alexander the Great conquered it in 329 BC (see Afrasiab, Sogdiana). Samarkand has been one of the main centres of Persian civilization from its early days."

I think there are more cities in Central Asia that were prominent until the Mongols. Bukhara and Tashkent are ancient trading cities, and even Khiva was founded before some of those Scandinavian settlements.

St John's
Water Street, the first street in St. John's (Newfoundland and Labrador) started to become developed in the 1540s, therefore the date of 1497 that was placed here is completely inaccurate. 1497 was the year the area was first visited by Cabot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.236.10 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

CONTINUOUS habitation
seriously, am I the only one watching this article? We keep getting drive-by editors adding some "ancient city" of their respective home countries, never mind if they are prehistoric ruins.

Any source presented here must first and foremost be reviewed regarding, does it mention any continuous habitation (as in, like, this article's title). The best of sources establishing "habitation in 10,000 BC" is worthless if habitation isn't claimed to extend continuously into the present or at least into historical times. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, continous!!
This statement is to the core of this article, people are adding cities willie nillie. In some cases, any old sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.132.34 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Peshawar Missing
Even though Peshawar has roots going back to India's Mythical age. It is commonly believed to be the first city to be inhabited by Aryans coming into India and before inhabiting any other city in it. This would be around 7th or 8th Centruy BC. However there is empirical evidence for its existence since 100 years before Christ. It was Summer capital of Kushans in 1st and 2nd CE. It has to be in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.68.110 (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Precision on Quebec City
I would like to append this to the current description : ", and oldest French speaking city in North America" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EtienneLabonte (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Colonialist attitude
Figures that the colonialist attitude still thrives in this day and age. "Old World"? "New World"? Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.1.177 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

colonialism is a historical fact. This article is about history. We report on history, we do not make judgements on whether a historical period was "good" or "bad". The historical fact is that the Atlantic was crossed east to west at some point in the late 15th century. Deal with it. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tønsberg, Norway
If Skara and Lund in Sweden are listed, then Tønsberg in Norway should also be listed, seeing as it is older. Founded in 871 AD, according to Tønsberg Municipality (Norwegian) and Snorri Sturluson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.67.114 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Patna
Patna/ Patliputra in India is continually inhabited since 500 BC. Please this to your list

--> History of Bihar Archaeological sites--> Kumhrar·Agam Kuan

Names :- Pataligram, Patalipattan, Patliputra, Pa-lin-fou, Palibothra, Kusumpur, Pushpapura, Azimabad

Jerusalem
My patience with the Israeli/Palestinian pov-warriors (actually, just Israeli, so far nobody seems to be removing the "Isreal" reference) is wearing very thin. We have discussed this at great length. This dispute is offtopic. Take your anger to some article where it is pertinent at least. This is an article on prehistory, and I will not accept its being bogged down over 20th century political bickering. The Bronze Age city is entirely in East Jerusalem, which isn't part of Israel according to any UN resolution. The territory is de facto under Israeli control, but de jure territory under UN administration annexed by Israel.

If this edit war continues, I will simply replace the links to modern states in the "Location" column by geographic coordinates. If you cannot muster the grace to admit "npov" in cases where your own allegiances are affected, how are you going to justify requiring "npov" from others? That is, how are you going to consider yourselves Wikipedia editors in good standing? "Npov" is cheap when you don't care. In cases where you do care, you either need to excuse yourselves from editing, or you need to muster some character. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well obviously no one is going to remove the "Israel" reference since a big part of the city is recognized to be in Israel; by Israel, the UN and the PNA. And yes this dispute is offtopic, so we should then look at how other articles have resolved this dispute or? Then I can tell you that the articles I have seen about localities in East Jerusalem are said to be located in just Jerusalem while West Jerusalem localities are located in Jerusalem, Israel, for example the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Great Synagogue (Jerusalem).


 * Secondly I don't think it matters that the Bronze Age city is entirely in East Jerusalem, since West Jerusalem is still a part of Jerusalem. For example imagine that during arab rule 48-67 they had blown up the entire old city and not just the entire Jewish quarter, then the old city would not be continuously inhabitated but only entire Jerusalem including West. And actually Mount Scopus is 100% Israeli and located in the eastern parts of the city. And East Jerusalem is not under UN admnistration but I get your point. Fipplet (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just have both Israel and Palestine, since east Jerusalem is considered as part of the occupied territories of Palestine by the international community and west is considered as part of Israel? -- 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)
 * Because there's no state called Palestine and the International community position is not fact.Fipplet (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is a place commonly known as the Palestinian territories and Israel's position is not fact either. (and there actually is a State of Palestine recognized by ~100 countries, though it does not control any territory.  nableezy  - 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a state of palestine or not is another disscussion. Let's say there is, then Jerusalem still is not located in Palestine. How about Israel/disputed? Since East Jerusalem is not under palestinian sovereignty nor recognized as Israeli territory? Fipplet (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories. There is not much of a dispute about that.  nableezy  - 14:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying it is in the Palestinian territories implies palestinian sovereginty which is untrue. Secondly you compare a region to states. Fipplet (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is ridiculous. Saying it is in the Palestinian territories implies that it is located in the Palestinian territories. And it is not a region, it is a territory under occupation with recognized borders. East Jerusalem is within those recognized borders.  nableezy  - 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So far you have no sources backing up what you say. The palestian territories consist of West Bank and Gaza and according to for example NY times and Reuters East Jerusalem is not in west bank. Israel captured the eastern part of Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day war The Wall in the West Bank and East Jerusalem ...the internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territory of the West Bank. Here's a source calling it a disputed area. No source saying it is in the palestinian territories. Fipplet (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? You want sources on this? OK. Palestinians in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967., Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, The plight of Palestinian children in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, In a ruling read out in the Hague by its president, Judge Shi Jiuyong of China, the court found that "Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated.". Want more?  nableezy  - 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. First source does not say East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories. Secondly the UN position is not a fact, you said it yourself, and your 3 last sources is the UN position. On the other hand I have reliable sources calling it disputed and never refering to it as in the palestinian territories. I will soon change it back. Fipplet (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first source says it is included in the West Bank.  nableezy  - 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a source calling it a disputed area. No source saying it is in the palestinian territories. Jeez, I recorded this as a perfect example how a nationalist logic can concoct utter weirdness in a lame attempt to prove their point. Last time I checked, "disputed" means that two or more sides claim something. The side other than Israel are probably Martians, I gather? Or, in your logical system, something can be disputed by only one side? No such user (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Golan Heights and Palestinian territory in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem remain under its control to this day., the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory—the West Bank (including Palestinian Arab East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip (requires registration), the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and many many more.  nableezy  - 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the same discussion afflicted List of World Heritage Sites in the Arab States until the debate was settled by this source from UNESCO[http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&l=en&&&mode=table The situation of Jerusalem is an exceptional one in that there is no general political agreement as to the status of the city, certain states declaring that they abided by the situation defined in the 1947 United Nations partition plan which considered Jerusalem as a corpus separatum located neither in Israel, nor in Jordan. The site of Jerusalem was nominated in 1981 by Jordan, it being agreed at the time that inscription should in no way be regarded as a means for registering political or sovereignty claims by any State.] Further, UNESCO's website lists the Old City in the "Arab States" regional group, but does not specify which country it belongs to. UNESCO lists entries for sites in Israel as being part of the "Europe" regional group and they are clearly marked "IL" for Israel.  T i a m u t talk 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy your first source does not say that Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories it says palestinian territory in Jerusalem. The second source is a medical journal and I am not sure that it is a reliable source when it comes to the political status of Jerusalem. The third one I don't know if it is reliable or not but let's say it is. Ok it says West Bank including East Jerusalem. But I showed you several sources saying West Bank and Jerusalem. It's definitely not clear if Jerusalem is in the West Bank or not. That's why disputed is the most true. السلام عليكم 13:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. I showed you that there multiple states and organizations that list E. Jerusalem as part of the oPt, I show you multiple reliable sources that do, I show you sources that include E. Jerusalem as part of the West Bank. Why are you so obsessed with removing mention of Palestine from this?  nableezy  - 13:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And you really are saying "Palestinian territory in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem" somehow means that E. Jerusalem is not Palestinian territory?  nableezy  - 13:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You said yourself that the UN position is not a fact and it is even less a reliable source. Yes you showed me some sources that include E. Jerusalem as part of the West Bank but I showed you sources that exclude E. Jerusalem from the West Bank. It is obviously a big dispute about this and that's why the word disputed is a good way of solving the dispute temporarily here on wikipedia. "Palestinian territory in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem" according to my interpretation means that there exists palestinian territory in EJ, not that all of EJ is part of the palestinian territories. And palestinian territory could mean anything, for example land owned by palestinians not neccesarly the palestinian territories. Fipplet (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The link Palestinian territories does not go to a listing of all territory owned by Palestinians. And the word "disputed" itself is a POV term used only by the government of Israel, the rest of the world says "Palestinian territory" (usually with the word "occupied" preceding it). What will make you accept that E. Jerusalem is considered a part of the Palestinian territories? The sources that say it is apparently are not enough for you, what is it you want me to produce to prove this to you?  nableezy  - 22:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there's a difference between Palestinian territory and the Palestinian territories. The Israeli government considers East Jerusalem to be Israeli and not disputed, so the term disputed is completely neutral just as it is described in the source that I provided. I haven't seen a source saying EJ is in the palestinian territories so that would be a good start. Fipplet (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fipplet, you and other editors were asked umpteen times, mostly by Dbachmann (see above), not to bring the Jerusalem status dispute to this article. You're now grasping for straws to apply the twisted logic that Jerusalem is "disputed" between Israel and the Side That Shall Be Unnamed. All that readers need for the purpose of this article is to know is that the dispute between Israel and Palestine, however you want to call them, exists. I'm really tired of this Civil POV pushing of yours, and don't feel there's anything to discuss about the issue. Nobody agreed with you here, especially neutral editors like Dbachmann or myself. I'm asking you to drop it; the amount of words wasted on this very page on this trifle issue is enormous. Like I said, WP:AE is my really next stop. No such user (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to bring the dispute here then I suggest we look at other articles dealing with this issue. Positions on Jerusalem (nothing about Palestinian territories except when citing NGO position), East Jerusalem (Nothing about Palestinian territories), Old City (Jerusalem), (nothing about Palestinian territories), Al-Aqsa Mosque (nothing about Palestinian territories) etc. You're right, this is not the right venue. Since we should not discuss it here, we should do the same as other articles do. It's either that or discussing. I see no reason writing Palestinian territoris based on nothing, neither discussion or how other articles have dealt with this. Fipplet (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You are playing at WP:IDHT. This is like nursery school for chrissakes. "Israel" is the Israeli position. "Palestine" is the Palestinian position. 'corpus separatum under UN administration is the UN position. What about this is so difficult? UN resolution 181 makes very clear that The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The UN considers the Israeli control over Jerusalem an illegal occupation. We can state "disputed, de facto under Israeli control", but it would be simpler just to say "see positions on Jerusalem" instead. There is no way that Israeli control over Jerusalem, which is unanimously condemned as a violation of UN resolutions, is going to be presented as in any way legitimate on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with that, go to the UN and ask it to revise its position, this isn't something under Wikipedia's control. --dab (𒁳) 17:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, "See positions on Jerusalem" is a good solution. However, Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem isn't disputed. Not by the UN neither the PNA so unless there's reliable sources stating otherwise I'm gonna write Israel/see positions on Jerusalem since West Jerusalem is undisputedely in Israel. Or maybe Israel (western parts) /see positions on Jerusalem (eastern parts) or something like that if it isn't clear enough. Fipplet (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understand that this is just a prototype really. We never stop and say "now this is perfect", wikipedia can alway improve. This is an attempt to improve it. If this doesn't improve it it can lead to improvment. Fipplet (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The way this was done looks terrible. Put a footnote after the "Palestinian territories", then in that footnote put a brief summary of the dispute, and a link to the positions on Jerusalem article. ← George [ talk  ] 07:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reasonable solution is to only list "See positions on Jerusalem", without mentioning Israel or the Palestinian territories. Certainly the Palestinians who reject the existance of any Israel would dispute the status of west Jerusalem as well. If you're going to reject one sides majority opinion, you might as well reject both. ← George [ talk  ] 07:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the PNA, the official representant for the Palestinian people, recognizes Israels right to exsist and doesn't even claim west Jerusalem. But guys we have been told umpteen(!) times to not bring this discussion here. So we should look at the Jerusalem article and do as they have done, which is: Country:Israel. If you are not happy with this, discuss it at the Jerusalem talk page and leave this poor article alone! Fipplet (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It also has Cities in the West Bank. Which is a subcategory of Cities in the Palestinian territories.  nableezy  - 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * indeed. I can live with the present compromise solution, and I suggest we let this end right here. Note that West Jerusalem doesn't even enter into this, since the Bronze Age city is located in East Jerusalem entirely. --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarsus
What about Tarsus (city)? Add?

What about Tbilisi (1500 years old) and Mtskheta (2500 years old) in Georgia? Should not they be added to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.59.4 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine
I would suggest to add Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi to the list. The town is on Ukrainian territory. It is 2500 years old (founded ca 506 B.C.), it is still inhabited (ca 50000 inhabinants now). Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, is about 1500 years old. OCake (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this. Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi (name changed numerous times) was inhabited constantly throughout its history, and is certainly one of the oldest still-existing cities in continental Europe. 194.44.31.194 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Magna Graecia
This list seems to miss several ancient Greek-founded cities, including: Croton (c. 710 BC), Marseille (c. 600 BC), Taranto (c. 700 BC) and Syracuse (c. 730 BC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.240.236 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Byblos (revisited)
I've removed the dubious tag next to Byblos (which didn't have an associated discussion), and added a much more reliable source than what was there before. This book states that "Archaeological excavations at Byblos indicate that the site has been continuously inhabited since at least 5000 BC." I don't think it can get any clearer than that. ← George [ talk  ] 21:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcham, England
According to its article, Thatcham is the oldest continually inhabited place in England - but it is a Town, not a city, and its not included in this list. However, the distinction between a town and city is sometimes hazy at best. Should this article be limited in this way? I42 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Amman, Jordan
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amman this city has been around since 8500 BC, possibly making it the oldest city in the world. This should be on the list somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.100.8 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this is relevant here or not, but the the article is specifically "by time of continuous habitation". I42 (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

what about Aleppo and Arwad?
according to the latest discoveries,human lived in Aleppo back to 5500 bc and in the wiki page back to 5000 bc so i wonder why it's not in the list....beside the island of Arwad which is a city as well dated back to 2000 bc and it's continuously inhabited till this date by the what is called the purist Phoenicians hence its families who lives in the island don't mix with others unless if they move out..

Mecca
According to Islamic tradition, the history of Mecca goes back to Ibrahim (ابراهيم, Abraham) when he built the Kaaba with the help of his son Ishmael (יִשְׁמָעֵאל, Standard Yišmaʿel Tiberian Yišmāʿêl; in Arabic: إسماعيل‎, 'Ismā‘īl), around 2000 BC. The inhabitants were stated to have fallen away from monotheism through the influence of the Amelkites. Historians state that the Kaaba later became the repository of 360 idols and tribal gods of all of Arabia's nomadic tribes. Until the 7th century, Mecca's most important god would remain to be Hubal, having been placed there by the ruling Quraysh tribe.

Madina
The first mention of the city dates to the 6th century BCE. It appears in Assyrian texts (namely, the Nabonidus Chronicle) as Iatribu. In the time of Ptolemy the oasis was known as Lathrippa. The first people to settle the oasis of Medina were the tribe of Banu Matraweel and Banu Hauf who trace their lineage to Shem the son of Noah. They were the first ones to plant trees and crops in the city. When the Yemenite tribes, Banu Aus and Banu Khazraj, arrived there were approximately 70 Arab tribes and 20 Jewish tribes in Medina.

Jeddah
According to excavations made in the old city, Jeddah was founded as a fishing hamlet in 500 B.C years ago by the Yemeni Quada tribe that left central Yemen to settle in Makkah. . Jeddah first achieved prominence in 647 A.D., when the third muslim Caliph, Uthman Ibn Affan (Arabic: عثمان بن عفان), turned it into a port for Muslim pilgrims making the required Hajj to Mecca. Jeddah has ,since then, been established as the main city of the historic Hejaz province and a historic port for pilgrims arriving by sea to preform their Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca. The city's strategic location as the gates of the Holy city and a port on the Red Sea caused it to be conquered many times throughout its history.

Varanasi
Mindmatrix and Dbachmann, the question is not whether Varanasi belongs in the same league as Damascus, Byblos, Jericho. That's not what the statement in the article implies at all. The statement reads: "Several cities listed here [...] each popularly claim to be "the oldest city in the world". Caveats to the validity of each claim are discussed in the "Notes" column." Now, as it happens, Varanasi is precisely the city that most vociferously bills itself as "the oldest city in the world". I fully agree that it cannot be compared to Damascus, Byblos, Jericho, as well as many other cities in the Ancient Near East, but that's beside the point. The statement implicitly calls attention to popular claims whose validity may be dubious. By including Varanasi in that statement, the article in no way endorses that city's claim. To the contrary. I fail to understand how you could miss that nuance. Pasquale (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

baghdad was founded on the 30 of July 762...can we mention it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.161.40 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)