Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Jerusalem

 * Peer review, First FAC – restarted by Raul654 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination The Jerusalem article is comprehensive and very well-referenced, fulfilling all of the featured article criteria. There was some objections over some material in the lead during the previous FAC, but since then those matters seem to have been straightened out and the article stabilized. The article presents the city of Jerusalem in a neutral light with "brilliant" prose. The article does not use any fair-use images and it does not appear to violate any standards set forth by WikiProjects and Wikipedia in general. Before anyone gawks at the length shown when hitting the edit this page link, I would like to note that there are only about thirty-four kilobytes of readable prose; that is well within the "rule of thumb" established by Article size. --  tariq abjotu  04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support- well referenced and good use of free use images. I think there could be some sections that could be trimmed a little, but that is not a major flaw. Thunderwing 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think some of the statements with multiple refs that are not used elsewhere can be consolidated into one ref which carries the multiple citations. As you've done on ref [4]. See: [45][46], [62][63], [67][68][69], [96][97][98] and [100][101].-- Z leitzen (talk)  16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I took care of one of the triple references. The other one included a reference used somewhere else in the article. I left the double references alone as they're not really a huge problem. However, I would not make a big fuss if someone were to combine them. --  tariq abjotu  21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Object I am not sure why I am supposed to repeat the objections raised during the previous nomination, but I will. The lead does not conform to WP:LEAD, as it does not adequately summarize the article; for example, the history is condensed into one, largely meaningless, sentence; the third paragraph smacks of recentism, many sections are not covered at all, while the description of the Old City is given undue weight and so on and so forth. The section of history is replete with POV and errors, as already discussed. Possibly, it is the result of the section relying mainly on one website, which appears to be wholly based on Britannica (a note at the bottom says "Source of written material: Britannica.com"). In general, the quality of sources is nowhere near what is required of a featured article: there are literally hundreds of supreme quality books and acholarly articles on Jerusalem, but none of them appears in the article, which is mostly sourced to miscellaneous websites and newspapers. I could point out further inaccuracies, especially in the "Religious significance" section, but I don't think it's worth the trouble at the moment. Beit Or 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to please everyone on the intro, as seen in the previous FAC. However, note that the intro does not need to cover every single section of the article. It is, however, permissible to cover the current state of the city (using current population figures, the fact that it's the capital of Israel, and its disputed status as capital of Israel); I'm not sure how that's recentism. I can't see how you can say "The section of history is replete with POV and errors, as already discussed."; you have not said anything about what you see as the section's bias. During the last FAC, you claimed the section was not comprehensive enough, and we pointed you to History of Jerusalem. You pointing out one thing about the Pact of Umar. After we changed it accordingly, you alleged that was not good enough, but refused to reveal your issue with the piece. You are wrong that any information comes from ; it comes from, a different location which does not mention Britannica at all. Not all of the information comes from that source anyway. I have had enough of this now Beit Or; unless you start listing some specific, real objections, I'm just going to ignore this. You have made it quite clear that there is nothing in the world one could do to satisfy your objections to this article; we change one thing, you complain about another. I'm not going to bend over backwards for you. --  tariq abjotu  20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well spoken. During the last FAC, Beit Or refused to acknowledge any changes we made based on his advice.  He spoke only in generalities, and refused to mention anything specifically wrong, or offer his own version of what things should look like. nadav 05:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tariq, your threat to ignore my objections rings hollow, since this is what you have generally done; any changes that were made did nothing to improve the article or to address my concerns. When I say it's unacceptable that the history of Jerusalem is jammed into one, mostly meaningless sentence in the lead, you dismiss me for not raising any "real" issues. Sorry, but I'm afraid this discussion has become pointless. Beit Or 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind if I join your discussion; the lead has been discussed very extensively, much work has gone into balancing the details and IMO it is now an acceptable compromise. With a topic so hotly debated, one cannot expect anything better without running the risk of reigniting the flamewars. Kosebamse 04:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Well-written, well-referenced, nicely illustrated with free images, good size, and it manages to steer through the contentious issues with an even hand. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Rlevse 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Well-balanced article. Axl 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Given a complex and contentious topic with millennia of strife and discord, this interesting and informative article presents a good summary in a balanced and neutral fashion. Crum375 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom. nadav 05:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, it's a great article (disclosure - I've been a minor contributer to the article). okedem 09:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Very balanced. JFW | T@lk  15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * SupportSumoeagle179 19:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, since it appears that objecting is a waste of time: What will we learn when the article, once featured, will become a POV battleground? I hope I'm wrong, but I anticipate that it will be locked within hours of being featured and will probably not get stable for months.--Leifern 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said objecting was a waste of time? If you have an objection that can be addressed, you are free to bring it up. However, you cannot object just because the name of the article is "Jerusalem" and it sounds like there might be an edit war in the future. To be honest, there is very little about this subject that's controversial. It's a city. With documented history. Etc, etc. The problem is that articles like this one tend to attract people who can see bias in the number three. Ultimately, I think you're being too pessimistic. --  tariq abjotu  20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Proabivouac is right - objecting is a waste of time, because the article was relisted mostly - it seemed - for the benefit of those who support its being featured. My view is not speculative - take any article that touches on the Arab-Israeli conflict - even tangentially - and there is huge controversy. I am all for recognizing well-developed, stable articles by featuring them; but not if having them featured is likely to lead to the article being less stable and subject to even more contention. I certainly appreciate the ambition of wanting it featured, and as I said, I hope I'm wrong and ultimately too pessimistic. But if the amount of noise created by the first FAC is any indication, I'd be remiss in not issuing a warning. --Leifern 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ..the article was relisted mostly - it seemed - for the benefit of those who support its being featured That notion is completely unfounded. --  tariq abjotu  18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not trying to make an argument here. I have some minor issues with the article but not enough to make a stink about it. My point is that - no matter how good the article is - this is a topic that invites controversy, and featuring it will invite even more of it. I'll support a Good article nomination, will gladly give you and other kudos for your contributions, but I must warn against the fallout of featuring an article that has ongoing, current, and vitriolic controversy. Maybe you think that's beside the point, but I think it's relevant. --Leifern 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to Leifern's previous comment here Raul654 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...which is a bad faith response, as was the accusation of vandalism. In any event, I have noted my response here and would hereby like to register my dissatisfaction with the way Raul654, who has been entrusted with an important responsibility, is handling this issue. --Leifern 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A bad faith response? No... not at all. You downgraded your statement to merely a comment here, but on the previous reincarnation of this FAC, you objected "simply because the article - like the city, it sadly seems - will never be entirely stable, and will never be free of NPOV arguments and partisanship." You have not raised any objection to the article's current state, and I get the impression that you do indeed believe it is of supreme quality (given that you said you'd "support a Good article nomination, [and] will gladly give [me] and other kudos for [our] contributions". Thus, your "objection" is in direct violation of the FAC rules: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. You may not have exactly said "this article can never be a featured article because..." but that's clearly what you're essentially saying. Don't go throwing spurious accusations of "bad faith" and removing the comments of others because you can't understand that kind of objection is invalid. --  tariq abjotu  15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you know now, what I can and can't understand? And that isn't bad faith? The objection I noted was specific and addressable. As far as I can tell, there is no policy or rule that says that any article can and should be featured once all the objections are met. Now, I could have been less upfront and more obstructionist by listing all kinds of shortcomings in the article; but instead I raised an issue that we should earnestly confront, which is whether featuring an article about a highly controversial topic is wise, considering the involved risks. I think this is a valid concern, if our objective is to a) promote Wikipedia as a stable and informative source of information, and b) we should avoid inviting acrimony. --Leifern 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it addressable? I can see no way of "fixing" the fact that this is a controversial article. Raul654 01:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * [The following was incorrectly posted on the archived page in response to Raul654:] First of all, I never said "this article can never be a featured article because..." so I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Second, I think it would be in good form to not direct people to ignore others' opinion. You may disagree with my point, but to discard it without further consideration is an act of bad faith. Third, we may have an unwritten policy that any article, if written well enough, can be a featured article, but I certainly think it's legitimate to raise the risk that featuring it might lead to its degradation. --Leifern 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose the notion that objecting is a waste of time comes from the fact that this was immediately relisted after the last FAC.Proabivouac 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess for the restarting of the FAC was that it had been unclear whether the objections raised had been satisfied and threads were very lengthy. Let me clarify that Raul had merely blanked the FAC and started it anew. I merely split the histories to two different pages (with Raul's permission). So, it may not be entirely correct to say one FAC failed, and another was created immediately afterward. I will ask Raul for the rationale behind his move, but I seriously doubt it was because he just wanted steamroll over objections. --  tariq abjotu  18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I noticed was that the first FAC was quickly overrun with the same kind of debate you'd see on an article related to this subject. --Leifern 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Object—1c. Unnecessary Israeli bias has not been addressed. Tony 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for having to take this approach again, but this is just becoming increasingly obnoxious. People keep saying there's bias in this article, but no one will state where that bias is. Instead, they point out obscure segments of the article and claim bias based on misinformation about what a capital is, simple differences in word choice ("extends" vs. "may be found"), or the fact that certain information meant for other articles is not mentioned here. Quit inventing bias, and provide real examples. --  tariq abjotu  04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Tariqabjotu brings up a good point - POV is subjective, so people objecting that it's POV should be prepared to present compelling examples. Raul654 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support succinct, comprehensive, well-written. Is neutral enough for me. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Probably needs a good scrutiny to check that WP:MoS issues are ok. The very first sentence is structurally wrong. A "nbsp" (or the use of Template:Convert) is missing when the area is mentioned. A number followed by an unit should have an non-breaking space (unless the said template is used). During thr first FAC, edits were done in the body of the article so that nbsp or the convert template is used. It's not good to see same mistake in the lead during the second FAC. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the non-breaking spaces, as you requested. Was that all you meant by "structurally wrong" or was there something else? If you believe there are more violations of the Manual of Style, please point them out (or just fix them). --  tariq abjotu  18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant the lack of nbsp by "structurally wrong". I read the whole article during the first FAC. Have not read it now. So do not know if there are more such instances. But an incorrect structure in the very beginning (after a long stay in the FAC) gives an impression that the article needs one thorough scrutiny for such issues. In case I come across such deficiencies, I'll definitely fix them. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that the MoS is not mandatory ... SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind also that the non-breaking space MoS violation is not the most glaringly obvious, I think the "impression that the article needs one thorough scrutiny for such issues" is a bit presumptuous. But a double-check would be nice anyway. --  tariq abjotu  19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes MoS is not mandatory. And non-breaking space MoS violation is not the most glaringly obvious, probably that's why it was missed. It is a very tiny issue. However, "A featured article exemplifies our very best work" and Featured article criteria 2 says that the article should comply "with the manual of style". Anyway, I have read some portion of the article, and it seems to be perfect.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Great article, well developed deserves the status. Flymeoutofhere 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It is a good article that is as much POV free as any I have seen regarding the Middle East.  All of my issues had been addressed in the last peer review. --יהושועEric 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Very interesting and informative read, I see no problems, meets all criteria.  Cricket02 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a few more citation problems I found in this article that I tagged with . I would like them to be sourced before this article becomes featured.--Sefringle 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You tagged some trivial and well known facts, like that it's the location of several holy sites, or what towns surround it. Not every single word needs a specific source. okedem 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is so trivial, add a source. But if this is to be a featured article it should be completely verifiable. Trivial stuff should be sourced as well. Otherwise it is origional research.--Sefringle 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be writing new policy here. Not every trivial statement (like location - every Israeli knows that the statement is true) needs to be sourced, and certainly not statement which are easily verified (and sourced) if one just reads the linked articles. okedem 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where in the policy it says non-trivial stuff doesn't need sources? According to WP:NOR, "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."--Sefringle 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, are you trying to claim that saying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is in Jerusalem is original research? Almost all the things you tagged are well known facts, and have been published in numerous reliable sources. The very link you provided says what "counts as original research", and the things you tagged do not fit the description. okedem 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle, that's a misinterpretation of the policy. I agree that some of the items may have needed a source, but we don't need one for every trivial statement. Do we need a source that says Jerusalem is a city? Or that we spelled Jerusalem correctly? No, of course not, and "common knowledge" can also be applied to a few more situations. --  tariq abjotu  21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Well developed article, POV free. FA material, Good work for Wikipedia to show off. Max ╦╩ 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Object As before, a number of POV specifically relating to the conflict:
 * Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital[iii] of Israel and its seat of government. As i've mentioned before, simply referring to it as seat of government will suffice in the intro for npov. However, its status as capital should be explained within the context of the conflict. This is a controversial issue people, and I cannot imagine any credible encylopedia introducing Jerusalem in such a way as this article does. Just look up Brittanica and Encarta for examples.
 * Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem (captured as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial since it is seen by Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a proposed Palestinian state.[8] Thus, the status of a united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital"[9][10] is not widely recognized by the international community. - "particularly controversial", this seems a bit weasily to me. Why is it controversial? What are the most signficant points surrounding its controvery. I understand this is just an intro, but this wording seems to sidestep the issue. Also, "not widely recognised" is again too general. I suggest mentioning "Palestinians and the United Nations" instead as the two most signficant.
 * Any description of why Palestinians dispute Jerusalem's states is severely limited throughout the article. All we are repeatedly told is that it is "seen by Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a proposed Palestinian state" (intro) or "However, East Jerusalem has been seen by the Palestinian Arabs as the future capital of a Palestinian state." (State of Israel) or "the Palestinian National Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state" (Palestinian claims). Nowhere are we given any depth to these 'claims' or how Palestinians 'see' it. Why do they dispute it, how signficant are their claims, who supports them? etc. I'm not saying devote a whole section to this conflict, just that the article does not try to sidestep it through vague and ambigous descriptions, or minimise the scale of the dispute surrounding the city. I believe what I highlighted is as Tony stated, part of the subtle and not so subtle pov issues which run through this article. --A.Garnet 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll address your objections on order:
 * It is the capital. This has been discussed many times on the talk page. I'm sympathetic toward your desire to mention the capital conflict earlier; I thought we reached a compromise on this earlier. In particular, I like the last suggestion in the compromise section. Regardless, I don't think removing capital is a good idea because Jerusalem is Israel's capital regardless of what the UN says (likewise, Isreal is a sovereign state regardless of what [insert one of several Arab countries] believes). See also: Positions on Jerusalem, linked in the footnote.
 * I added the United Nations as an example, as you requested. Regarding the controversy, see Positions on Jerusalem, linked in that sentence.
 * See Positions on Jerusalem, which I just added as a main article under #Palestinian claims. --  tariq abjotu  02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Good even-handed summary, well-written. I see 2 objects which boil down to it being too "pro-Israel", and 2 objects which boil down to it being too "anti-Israel", so it has probably hit the exact right balance. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. It does well on a Gaussian function then! JFW | T@lk  04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support overall well written and would make a good featured article.--Sefringle 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One very minor quibble: East Jerusalem is already in the intro and should therefore not be linked again under "see also". A note: ignore the complaints about a perceived future lack of stability, it's impossible to please everyone here. A FA stamp would be great as it provides a reference point for any future debates. Another note: don't fiddle any more with the lead, it's a good compromise now. Otherwise, congratulations to all the patient editors. Support. Kosebamse 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; smooth authoring style and interesting, well-written content; almost certainly worthy of the status of one of the encyclopedia's best productions ~ AGK  18:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment to my objection on the basis of 1c (POV): the prose needs a thorough audit to be awarded a gold star. For example, in the lead, my eyes fell on the following issues at random.
 * The first sentence is a problem: "Jerusalem ... is the capital[iii] of Israel and its seat of government"—the capital of Israel and the capital of its seat of government? Can easily be fixed (there are two simple ways of doing so), but how this has escaped previous reviewers who've gushed about the writing beats me.
 * I have fixed the grammar issue. --  tariq abjotu  14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out already that "storied history" is a problem, but was brushed off by one of the main contributors on that one. The word "history" is cognate with "story", and indeed contains the word within it. Not only is there semantic repetition, but phonological. Very poor. Most readers will not know what it means. And what history is not full of stories? Absurd construction.
 * I have changed this to "extensive". --  tariq abjotu  14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why "10th" and then "nineteenth"?
 * I've fixed that. --Dweller 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * POV: let's take something obvious—the order in which the races/cultures/religions are placed within the lead. The Israeli thing occupies the entire first paragraph, and thus occupies the powerful point of departure of the whole article. The rider to the Israeli claim is relegated to a position right at the bottom of the lead. In between, the text is constructed around five lists. In all but one—the briefest—the Jewish/Israeli claim is given first position.
 * The holiness of the city to each religion. Judaism is the first of three.
 * That one at least seems reasonable, as it's the holiest city in the world for just one religion. --Dweller 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sections of the Old city: Jewish is the third of four.
 * Sites: Jewish is the first of three.
 * Sections of the modern areas: the Israeli is the first of two, and framed in terms of national ownership, with extension outwards towards "the country's" other urban areas; by contrast, the Arab section "can be found" somewhere.

Some of the arguments supporting this angle appear to draw on the notion that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Wikipedia should not, IMV, be endorsing this by promoting the article. Tony 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are reading too far into the order of the religions. In the second paragraph (and much of the article), the religions are mentioned in chronological order of their creation – Judaism, Christianity, Islam (I have changed one of the lists to match the order of the others). This same order is used at Abrahamic religion, among other locations, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The list beginning with Armenian... is in alphabetical order. Other parts are merely arbitrary, perhaps done for flow and reasonable transition. --  tariq abjotu  14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Object until Tony's valid criteria concerns are addressed. LuciferMorgan 11:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, Tony, but I laughed when I read these comments. It was the only reaction I could muster. Let me address your points as I see it.
 * It takes a lot of effort to misinterpret this sentence the way you wrote. As is usual with pronouns, the its refers to the last noun, which is Israel in this case. There is no ambiguity. The reason no one caught this "mistake" til now is because nobody has thought of this creative misreading.
 * I have fixed this; it was bad wording even though we all knew what it meant. --  tariq abjotu  15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the life of me, I just don't understand what you have against the word storied. I suspect you were just somehow unfamiliar with its usage.  I already pointed out this definition.  It's a very common word.  As per your more esoteric objection of "semantic repetition", storied here is used to indicate that the city's history has been retold and celebrated in may books, narratives, treatises etc.  As for the phonological repetition, as you call it, to me it sounds poetic.
 * I'm tired of having to deal with this minor "issue", so I just changed it to a different word. --  tariq abjotu  15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10th/nineteenth - you have a point here
 * This point was addressed before discussion was restarted. You are reading way too much into it when you make these comparisons in the lists.  Note that the city is the holiest city in Judaism, whereas in Islam  it is third, so it is sensible that Judaism be mentioned first in the first list. Regarding placement of the annexation, this has already been discussed at length.  I got the impression that many think that since the controversy requires a rather long treatment  to be comprehensible, it would be too recentist to place that whole issue right in the first couple of lines. nadav 11:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You should resist your urge to laugh at a reviewer—I find it offensive. Was I rude to you? There's nothing in your attempts at rebuttal that I can agree with, and I hold to my original critical examples. I will return with further objections, which you should take seriously and respond to substantively rather than by resorting to personal criticism, such as "you are reading way too much into it". Tony 12:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comments:
 * I don't think anyone will read it as you have, but let me remind you that the "seat of government" was added due to objections about having the word "capital" there, raised in the first FAC discussion. Anyway, it can be easily solved - just call it capital, and be done with it.
 * "storied" is a fine, often used word, and I see no problem with it. It is not repetition, and even I, as a non-native English speaker, had no problem with it.
 * "The Israeli thing occupies the entire first paragraph" - No, it occupies a part of it (the other part being the location and history). It is under Israeli control, and serves as the capital. The "Israeli thing" should definitely be first. When comparing reality, and demands for some future changes - reality wins.
 * Judaism should be mentioned before the other religions, for, as others have said before, Jerusalem is the holiest city to Judaism, and not the primary for the other religions. Also, it was the center of Judaism, and was home to its temples long before the birth of Christianity, and very long before Islam.
 * Jerusalem is part of Israel, and so that's the way it's written. It's claimed by Palestinians, but not by any sovereign state, so what do you want us to say? You work so hard to read political content into everything, but don't even suggest another way to phrase it. okedem 12:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A main issue, Tony, is that if we change the order to some other system, someone else would just come along and say now it's pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, pro-Muslim. There's only so far we can go; if an order sounds logical, it most certainly can be used (even if it will mean the Jewish or Israeli perspective will often come first). --  tariq abjotu  15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, if you change the order of one or two of those lists, it will be a good gesture towards a "balanced" treatment, where the orders are mixed. It's a minor, but significant way of being more inclusive at the top. I think the last bit should come after the first bit, as the end of the opening paragraph. As I've implied, possession should not be regarded as nine-tenths of the law here: the topic is unique. Tony 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

strong support, there are only minor issues here. Remarkably well done for a controversial article. Here are my minor quibbles with the article. My main concerns are with the occasional use of footnotes to prove the point to other editors. A common problem on controversial articles... and so perhaps I'm a bit too picky, but please recall that my vote here is "strong support". I don't mind if all my objections are completely ignored, I'm still voting strong support. The rest of the article seemed almost flawless, and nicely balanced in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't have much more time to pick on any more details, and since I'm not opposed this activity is perhaps just adding noise here. Good luck with this FAC. --Merzul 13:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Footnote 4 and 5 are very long and they are only backing up a very simple claim. Are the quotations actually that helpful? They seem more addressed to fellow Wikipedians than to a reasonable reader of the article. Convincing other editors is fine... on talk pages, and one can use HTML comments in the article body to direct editors to relevant discussions in talk archive X, but this should be hidden from the reader. The article text should only have the footnotes that helps a reasonable person verify the information, and it should be genuinely helpful to him. Here, I think this has gone to far.
 * You are far from the first person to say this. See this. There is one person in particular who just will not tolerate someone removing references, even though you must be the fourth or fifth person to say they're excessive. --  tariq abjotu  15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can fully understand what and why he thinks that way. It's a deeper problem with how Wikipedia works, and not a problem with this article. I just wish it were sufficient to post all the evidence on the talk page, but the world isn't perfect. --Merzul 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We had a very similar situation with the definition of atheism, but I very brutally trimmed it down :) I think situations like this is what Citing consensus is trying to address. --Merzul 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Thus, the status of a united Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital"[9][10] is not recognized by the United Nations and much of the international community." The footnotes are redundant. There is a note early on, when the capital is first mentioned, where this is discussed. Currently, there are two refs about the statement, and no refs about it being disputed my most of the international community! I think there should be no refs at all here. Collect all such notes in the endnote about the capital, or in the section about the capital status. (You can add more HTML comments to avoid "citation needed" tags).
 * 2) Three footnotes on the name of Jerusalem, again... what are they supposed to tell me? One would be enough to verify the fact...
 * 3) Please remove all retrieve dates for books. I don't care when you looked at the book :) It doesn't change, it doesn't go off-line. This information is redundant and confusing.
 * Retrieval dates for books (and all media) are standard in referencing styles. --  tariq abjotu  15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Actually, that's not correct. If you want the retrieval date removed from the cite book templates, I would suggest proposing its removal on Template talk:Cite book. --  tariq abjotu  19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the examples at Template:Cite book, it looks like the accessdate field is optional and should only be used for books with an online version, and where the online version was the one consulted. This makes sense since the online edition might change or be updated with time (though the paper edition obviously won't). nadav 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I looked at most of the books I cited through Google Book Search (I'm not sure if that counts as "online"). Another thing I notice is that the accessdate, according to the template, should not be shown unless the url field is entered. I could go fix that, but I'm unsure if the pre-requisite was intentional. --  tariq abjotu  19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the template. --  tariq abjotu  19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would venture that Google books is not really an online version, since it is just a scan of offline books, so you don't have to include the accessdate. But I don't think it can hurt in any way to include it. nadav 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The alternative etymology of Jerusalem seems to lack a secondary source, the footnote links directly to the Bible. I'm not sure if this is standard view or our own original analysis. It probably isn't original, as the second paragraph below is repeating this view, or a view very similar too it.
 * I added an additional secondary source and reworded the relevant sentence. --  tariq abjotu  15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I really couldn't see much in terms of NPOV violations. There is one small phrasing problem, and it's the statement "The non-binding United Nations Security Council Resolution 478..." Now, adding the phrase non-binding gives me the impression of a bit of a POV, because it is perhaps too dismissive. In what sense is this less binding than any other UN Security Counsil resoulution? I understand the article on that very resolution answers my question, but I think using non-binding as the single description of the resolution is perhaps too dismissive of it. Perhaps, a more nuanced explanation of what non-binding means would be good -- a footnote or endnote would be nice.
 * I'll agree with that. Certainly gives an appearance of POV. --Dweller 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6. Non-binding is the accurate term, to differentiate it from binding resolutions, which carry the threat of sanctions against the offending country (like the resolutions about Iran's nuclear program). It's just a technical term, I don't know how else to phrase it. okedem 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As Okedem said above, I'm not sure how this could be a biased term. It was a non-binding resolution, which is why El Salvador and Costa Rica have maintained their embassies in Jerusalem for twenty-six years since then without the UN caring. --  tariq abjotu  15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok... I'm probably not familiar with the legal terminology, and so since I didn't know what non-binding specifically meant, I thought using it there without explaining might give the wrong impression. There is a simple solution: wikilink to Non-binding resolution, then the blue link will indicate it is a technical term, and not a POV-assertion. --Merzul 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone tell me what meaning "storied" adds to "history", in the lead? What does it mean? It's in a prominent position, and I don't believe this is a logical or idiomatic usage of the word. So: "history" vs "storied history". Difference please? Tony 22:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably means the same as it means here, and what it means in these books. That it is a history with many events worth recording? --Merzul 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed this had been solved, sorry. --Merzul 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Very well done. Nitpicks:
 * "David's reign ended around 970 BCE when his son Solomon became king of Israel" - Add "according to the bible" at the beginning of the paragraph. It must not be confused with the truth.
 * I thought this year was generally accepted. If someone does not get to it first, I'll search for a source to corroborate that (or add the qualifier if that is not the case). --  tariq abjotu  15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there's basically no evidence for the existence of Saul, David, Solomon, or the whole Unified Monarchy other than the bible. There is evidence for the Jews/Hebrews/whatever, but not detailed enough, and they don't mention the Unified Monarchy. There is good evidence for the successor kingdoms, by the way. okedem 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant thing to read is Davis. Historians generally agree that there was a Hebrew king called David who founded a dynasty. However, the bible is the only source for the year of his death, so I agree with the change.  nadav 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "In May 2006, Jerusalem had a population of 724,000, of whom 65% were Jewish, 32% were Muslim, and 2% were Christian, with a population density..." - Change "with" to "and" per subsequent sentence.
 * This change is not grammatically correct. --  tariq abjotu  15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "With" is already used in the subsequent sentence, and appears to be a poor connector in this context. Michael as 10 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "...with nearly three quarters of them arriving from the United States, France, and former members of the Soviet Union" - "former members of the Soviet Union" isn't a country.
 * Yes, "former members of the Soviet Union" isn't a country... but how is that a problem? --  tariq abjotu  15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, misunderstood "members". Michael as 10 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "In 2005, the total number of residents in Jerusalem grew by approximately thirteen thousand (1.8%) — also well above the Israeli national average" - Remove "also".
 * I don't think this change is necessary. We mention another "well above the national average" figure at the conclusion of the previous paragraph (hence the also in this section). --  tariq abjotu  15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "New York City, USA (1993)" - Remove bolding.
 * I have removed the bolding. --  tariq abjotu  15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael as 10 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Great work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my objection above on the basis of 1a, I provided only examples of problems throughout the text. There seems to be little concern among the contributors for weeding out bad prose. Why is it easy to find issues such as the following at random, sprinkled through the text? These examples come from a small window I happened upon in the middle of the article. Please don't just fix these alone. Find someone distant from the text to do an audit.
 * "Sieged"—it's not a verb.
 * Why is the simple year "1917" linked? Leads to stuff about the Royal Bank of Canada and an anti-prostitution drive in San Fransisco. There are many high-value blue links in the article; please ration them to reduce the untidy scattering of blue and avoid this dilution of high-value links. Check whether the other year links have anything to do with the topic; I'm sure they don't.
 * Redundancy: "the construction of new garden suburbs"—why wouldn't they be new?
 * Redundancy: "the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in 1925"—Choose "establishment" or "founded", but not both; rationalise the wording. "The founding in 1925 of ...". Tony 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "siege" is also a verb, per this.
 * 1917, or any year, being linked, can give the reader an easy perspective of what was happening around the world at that time - it doesn't have to be a 'related topic', in fact it's more interesting when it isn't.
 * "the construction of new garden suburbs" - it could also be renovated - this implies 'brand new'.
 * "the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in..." - this is fine as it is - it implies "... which was founded ...".
 * Crum375 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is a verb. Coming off storied isn't a word, I think it's time you update your dictionary, or simply look online. --  tariq abjotu  23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an error, but a matter of preference. From WP:DATE: Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. In this case, I don't think every single year is even linked.
 * Again, this is not an issue really. There's nothing wrong with the sentence; rather, it's stylistic preference, per Crum375.
 * Not an error; a stylistic preference at best. In my opinion, your proposed wording is awkward, especially because it comes in the midst of a sentence, not the beginning of a sentence as you make it seem here. I don't see this as an error.
 * --  tariq abjotu  23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you use a more widely accepted dictionary than dictionary.com, which is pretty crappy. But have it your way. My advice is that "seiged" is ungainly.
 * dictionary.com is based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, a very reliable source. And do you also dislike [Merriam-Websters]? Really Tony, this is too much. nadav 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling sieged is only acceptable in American English (it's not in the Cambridge Dictonary, for instance). On the other hand, I believe besieged is used in all dialects of the English language and means the exact same thing. --  tariq abjotu  03:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not link every word then, if you want to provide unfocused, "interesting" diversions? Every single word. Smearing the whole thing with lots of blue makes it so easy to read and attractive on the screen.
 * Brand new garden suburb? Brand makes no difference—you don't construct existing suburbs. Remove "new" or use a more descriptive eptithet. Otherwise you're wasting the readers' time.
 * I repeat, "establishment" and "founding" should not both be used. Choose one, or say here what additional meaning the use of both adds.
 * Your last two points are impossible to understand—which examples do they relate to?

If you're going to take a belligerent attitude, we'll have to fight it out through every sentence of the article. Will take a great deal of time. I'm not at all satisfied with your rebuttals. Tony 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, I am not sure if you are referring to my response or not. In any case, I was not trying to be 'belligerent' but to respond to your points. I think that dictionary.com is a pretty widely accepted resource. A language is what is actually spoken and written, not what is specified in some old rule book. As far as the year, I think that linking years provides a nice service to our readers to easily gain a world-wide perspective. Linking every word as you suggest would be an overkill and would create a messy clutter. Clearly we have to use common sense, and I think linking years is well within most people's common sense. As far as "establishment" and "founding" - I think it is clearly a style issue. The first is generic and talks about all institutions, whereas the second refers to a specific instance. Yes, the words are similar in meaning (though I can see some distinctions), but that is really a matter of style and I see no harm in it. Regarding the garden developments, there is a point being made about 'new' as in 'brand new' vs. 'new' as in possibly renovated. The verbiage used implies 'brand new'. Thanks, Crum375 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.