Talk:Jerusalem

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

ARCHIVED TALK ABOUT JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL OF ISRAEL, HERE

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Sheesh

\\\\\Much of the discussion below could be avoided by noting that there is some question as to the legitimacy of Israel. If one accepts Israel as being legit, them there is a q of Jerusalem as a legitmate terrritory, let alone capital, thereof. Further anyone can say anyhing they want, like NYC is the capital of Israel, it certainly has claims upon the title, or Washington DC is the capital..., or Hollywood... but the more certain rules are by establishing a proper definition..., and authorities where the senses fail. Some say it's the capital because it once was, on the authotity of the Gaseous Invertrabrate War God Of the Bronze Age ( GIWGOBA ), that's good enough for many but not all. So J is a disputed capital of I, or I says J is the capital of..., or many Zionauts and fellow travellers say... etc is as far as one can go without sacrificing credibility to those who care about such things.////

To use a Middle Eastern expression, sheesh! All we need to say is:

Israel regards Jerusalem as its capital, although hardly any other country recognizes it as such.
The seat of the Israeli government is in Jerusalem.
The X, Y, Z & Q embassies are in Jerusalem, reflecting official recognition by those countries that it is Israel's rightful capital.
The other N embassies are in Tel Aviv, because these countries do not want to be seen as "recognizing" Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

We can also say:

Two elements fuel the controversy.
Many countries dispute Israel's claim to all of Jerusalem, regarding parts A, B & C as occupied territory. For these countries, to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's captial would be to legitimize Israel's claim on "occupied territory".
Some countries or nationalistic movements regard Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Palestine -- not of Israel. --Uncle Ed 12:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object to the first point in this proposal. It suggests that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is merely the POV of Israel, and that the question is disputed. As I succesfully argued above, this is not a POV issue, but a matter of factual accuracy, which should not be compromised. Saying "Jerusalem is the capital" would also eliminate the need for the second point. Details of which countries base their embassies where are not important enough to get in to the first pargraph. There's much (much!) more to Jerusalem than a list of embassies. -- uriber 12:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know any other way of putting it. Unless you want the more cumbersome:

According to Israel and 4 other countries, Jerusulem is the capital of Israel. In an odd turn of events, Israel is the only country in the world whose capital is not recognized by the world community at large. This is largely because... --Uncle Ed 12:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except this is, in addition to being cumbersome, also false. You assume here that any country not basing its embassy in Jerusalem actually does not recognize it as capital - which is of course not true (see the US example). Anyway, as I said (many!) times before, the first paragraph should not focus on the diplomatic formal concept of "recognition" (mainly, because there is no such concept when it comes to capital - see Zero's comments), but rather on the factual status of Jerusalem - namely, it being capital.

Once again, there is no dispute here. No-one, throughout this entire discussion has claimed that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is false (i.e., that it is not the capital), or even provided evidence that anybody on earth believes that it is false. There is simply no dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel - and therefore this fact should be clearly noted in the first few sentences of the article, as it is for any other capital. Isuues of "recognition", disputes about "legitimacy", and visions about the future should all be explained later, after stating the undisputed facts. -- uriber 13:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed replies: Don't get me wrong, Uriber. I personally believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But some Arabs dispute this, particularly those calling themselves "Palestinians".

Please provide at least one quote of anybody (be that Palestinian or other) saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", with reasonable justification. (People saying "Jerusalem should not be the capital of Israel", "Jerusalem being capital of israel is illegitimate", etc. don't count, ofcourse) -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) discovered that Harper Collins' 2002 reprint of their "Mini Atlas of the World" states on pages 136/7 that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite the fact that the UN and the international community has never recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital. [1] (http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/atlas.html)

The publishers have stated that it will add a footnote against Jerusalem where it appears in country listings, which will state "De facto capital. Disputed". [2] (http://www.mediareviewnet.com/Publisher%20agrees%20not%20to%20name%20Jerusalem%20as%20capital%20of%20Israel.htm)

This was brought up before (you did read the entire discussion before jumping into this, right?) Anyway - as I said when it it was first brought up, it proves nothing. Harper Colins' are commited to keeping everybody happy (and ultimately, to their sales figures) not to NPOV. -- uriber

This short article sounds neutral, but check it out and see for yourself: http://www.centerpeace.org/factsheets/fact-sheet-jerusalem.htm

From this article: "Jerusalem is [...] claimed as its capital by two peoples - Israelis and Palestinians." Is this even English? Anyway, it clearly deals with "claims", not with the current factual status of Jerusalem - so it is more-or-less irrelevant to the question at hand. -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Claims are entirely relevant to the discussion. It is not the place of Wikipedia to decide the factual status of Jerusalem, but the report the fact that one group claims X, one group claims Y, etc. That's exactly how Wikipedia:NPOV works. We can argue till we're blue in the face over whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is true fact, false fact, or opinion, but there should be no argument at all with the fact that "The government of Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital," and "Palestinians dispute the claim of Israel to Jerusalem." The fact that these people claim these things is indisputable and well-documented. Jdavidb 20:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and "sheesh" is not a Middle Eastern expression. To the best of my knowledge, it's an Eastern European Jewish expression. :-) -- uriber 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I provide enough baksheesh to the right party, can I make "sheesh" a Middle Eastern expression? Okay, you're obviously right about that. And I agree that Jerusalem is Israel's capital -- because I recognize any nation's right to designate any of its cities as its capital.

But did you know that a certain group (hint: starts with A) (a) disputes Israel's claim to Jerusalem (can't designate what you don't "have") and (b) has managed to get all but a handful of the world's nations to go along with them (clever devils, aren't they?).

None of them claim that Israel does not have Jerusalem. All they say is that Israel should not have Jerusalem - which is their POV and they are entitled to it. However the facts (as opposed to what should be) are not disputed - Jeusalem is Israel's capital. -- uriber 15:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, between you and me this dispute may sound as silly as the flat earth theory, but to be both accurate and neutral shouldn't we say something about the dispute? --Uncle Ed 15:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the dispute over the future of Jerusaelm is not silly. It is very serious. However, the dispute about the present status of Jerusalem (which is what we are concerned with here) simply does not exist. And I have no problem mentioning (and even discussing in depth) the disputes that do exist. But only after the facts are laid out. -- uriber 15:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like there are two issues here, which I conflated into one.

Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel -- a matter of fact
Whether or not various nations recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel --Uncle Ed 19:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you got it backward. Whether or not various nations recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a fact. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital is an opinion. anthony (see warning) 21:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Ed: Exactly! That's what I'm trying to explain to people here for the last couple of months. By treating those questions separately, we can give clear and simple answers to both of them: Israel is the capital of israel, but most governments don't recognize it as such. Now that you got it, will you help me set this straight in the article? -- uriber 21:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uriber, whether or not East Jerusalem can be considered a part of Israel is certainly disputed. As such, it is also disputable whether Jerusalem can be the "indivisible" capital of Israel... john 21:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I never suggested using the word "indivisible" in the article. So what's your point here? -- uriber 21:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the official position of Israel is that Jerusalem, not West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. No other country in the world recognizes East Jerusalem as being part of Israel. So Jerusalem (as opposed to West Jerusalem) can't be the capital of Israel unless we recognize East Jerusalem to be part of Israel. BTW, if you say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but most governments don't recognize it as such," then that means you're saying that those governments are wrong. How is that NPOV? john 23:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - I somehow missed this before.

I previously explained in length why saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does not imply that "all of Jerusalem is indisputably part of Israel". Go back to the archives, and read what I said.

"West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem" are basically historic concepts. None of them exists as a separate entity today, and therefore none of them can be capital of any nation.

If I would say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but most people think it is not" - than I would be saying that most people are wrong - which is obviously not NPOV. I explained previously in detail the difference between an individual (or a collective) holding a belief (or having a POV) on a subject, and, on the other hand, the formal concept of "diplomatic recognition" - which is unrelated, and does not imply any POV. Again - look in the archives if you want details. -- uriber 19:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can certianly believe I missed something, and if this has been brought up, forgive me, I don't mean to butt into the discussion, but Israel declared jerusalem something like its "Eternal and undivided" capital (I think in 1950). As far as I know, theres nothign to stop Israel from declaring western jerusalem as it's capital, it's the inclusion of the rest of it, the occupied territories part - that problematic, and denied by other countires. Datepalm17

Capital

The problem here is that nobody has defined capital. The page given is a circular definition (capital is the seat of government, seat of goverment is the capital). Define seat of government. Bensaccount 23:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seat of government is the location of the government. - Wikipedia

Now the real question is where is Israel's government located. Bensaccount 23:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To quote the article: "All the branches of Israeli government (Presidential, Legislative, Judicial, and Administrative) are seated in Jerusalem". Martin 23:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, capital is not identical with seat of government. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, but the seat of government is The Hague. john 23:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. Go to capital or seat of government. Bensaccount 23:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

God you're obnoxious. john 23:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm objective. Bensaccount 23:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel every book on countries i read since i was five years old stated that!--Plato 01:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Government

A government is an organization that has the power to make and enforce laws for a certain territory. - Wikipedia

Regarding Martin's compromise

I accepted Martin's suggestion ("under Israeli law") before. I deeply regret doing so - this is an awful solution, not much different than the one I was fighting against to begin with. However, I did accept it (what was I thinking?), and I feel it would be wrong of me to remove it now if it's put up again. However, this applies only to the exact phrasing as it was in this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jerusalem&oldid=3058572) edit - including the fact that the capital issue was on the first paragraph. I regard myself free to actively object to any other formulation (even if only different by a comma), and to replace any such phrasing by one which I find to be more correct. -- uriber 23:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the capital issue into the first paragraph. Martin 23:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in why you so deeply regret accepting my compromise. From what you said, I thought your only issue with it was wordiness? What have I failed to understand? Martin 23:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For a much better answer than the one I gave you below (a few hours ago), please see my response to Slrubenstein's suggestion, further below -- uriber 13:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because the convoluted wording sends a strong message to the reader that Jerusalem is somehow not "really" the capital - the same way e.g. London is. Think - would you accept "London is the capital of the UK under British law, and functions as capital"? It sounds silly, and makes you look for some hidden message ("why don't they just say it's the capital, then?"). Since Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in exactly the same manner that London is the capital of the UK, I can't really be happy about and formulation which I wouldn't find acceptable for London. -- uriber 08:33, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, the suggested wording implies (perhaps not as strongly as other suggested formulations, but still) that Jerusalem being capital of Israel is a matter of POV. Throughout this entire discussion, nobody actually presented evidence that "Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel" is, in fact, disputed (e.g., a quote from someone saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel"). What's the point of successfully arguing, if you then have to give in and compromise? I have a natural tendency to try and compromise when I'm faced with someone with obvious good intentions (such as you). But looking at the end result later, I realized that compromising on this issue (to such a degree as I did) was wrong. Goodwill should not be allowed to supersede good arguments - which those opposing to "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (period)" have none of. -- uriber 09:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One more thing - Uriber, would you consider "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (IE, reverse the order), or would that be as unacceptable as the "According to Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" phrasing favoured by Wik which you disapprove of?

I'm afraid I won't accept it. Just like "accordnig to...", it puts the emphasis on a phrase which appears to be limiting the sense in which Jerusaelm is the capital, instead of on the main fact - that it is the capital. This might look like a silly distinction, but since the "capital under Israeli law" formulation is already at very edge of what I'm willing to accept (actually, several inches beyond that edge), I'm not willing to move any further away from what I think is the most correct formulation ("Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."), which is also NPOV. -- uriber 08:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another thought that occured to me was writing "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel". I'm not sure how well that would fly - probably not so well. Martin 23:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As you suspected - this is even worse. The article isn't about Israeli law. It's about Jerusalem. -- uriber 08:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all your responses. Martin 21:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Capital is a location of lawmaker issue. There is no law I am aware of that says thay Jerusalem is a capital (prove me wrong). So you would not say "under Israeli law, its the capital", but rather "As the location of the government, Jerusalem is the capital."Bensaccount 23:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) (minor semantics really)

I disagree that location of the government is the sole determining factor for being the capital, in all senses of that word. Martin 00:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. If you want to discuss what determines a capital go to capital. Currently it is just location. Bensaccount 02:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mote, eye, log, eye. Martin 21:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's absolutely not what it says. Note: It may consist of or be separate from the actual seat of government. Thus, Amsterdam. No one would contest that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. john 23:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is an Israeli law which says that Jerusalem is its capital. john 23:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does it say that the government cannot legally leave Jerusalem? Bensaccount 00:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I may be back later. Bensaccount 00:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From the article, there is a 1980 Israeli law claiming Jer. as Isr.'s "eternal and indivisible capital". Martin 00:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What a ridiculous law. Bensaccount 02:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the phrasing where the disputed point about the capital is placed before the sentence on who actually controls the city. Whether or not Jerusalem is the capital is trivia compared to which country exerts control over it. But in the interests of getting a stable version of the beginning text, I'll leave it unless someone else edits it first. anthony (see warning) 10:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony. Martin 21:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposal by Slrubenstein

May I propose the following introduction to the article?

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim, Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is located at (31°47'N, 35°13'E) and has a population of 630,000. It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled. Jerusalem consists of an Old City, itself divided into Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Armenian Quarters; a New City; and a surrounding district. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Great Britain controlled Palestine through a mandate of the League of Nations. From 1923 to 1948 Jerusalem was the capital of Palestine. When the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State, it recommended that Jerusalem be an international city, although both Jews and Arabs claimed it. After the declaration of a cease-fire in 1948, Jews controlled the New City and declared it their capital; Jordan occupied and annexed the Old City. During the 1967 War Israel occupied the Old City. In 1980 Israel declared a unified Jerusalem its capital, although in Resolution 478 the United Nations Security Council censured Israel’s act and declared it null and void. Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital, but most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

I have tried to follow the format used in Wikipedia for other cities, while calling attention to Jerusalem's contested situation. Slrubenstein

I don't think you will have much luck with this paragraph due to the ongoing argument over the bolded sentence. It still has not been decided on this page what determines that a city is a capital. Bensaccount 13:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here's my take at the paragraph attempting to fix the bolded sentence, which some regard as a problem (thanks, Uncle Ed, for your sheesh post which suggested this change):

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים Yerushalayim, Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is located at (31°47'N, 35°13'E) and has a population of 630,000. It is the largest city in Israel, which regards the city as its capital, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled. Jerusalem consists of an Old City, itself divided into Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Armenian Quarters; a New City; and a surrounding district. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Great Britain controlled Palestine through a mandate of the League of Nations. From 1923 to 1948 Jerusalem was the capital of Palestine. When the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State, it recommended that Jerusalem be an international city, although both Jews and Arabs claimed it. After the declaration of a cease-fire in 1948, Jews controlled the New City and declared it their capital; Jordan occupied and annexed the Old City. During the 1967 War Israel occupied the Old City. In 1980 Israel declared a unified Jerusalem its capital, although in Resolution 478 the United Nations Security Council censured Israel’s act and declared it null and void. Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital, but most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

Meanwhile, let me again say that it is not for Wikipedia to decide what is and is not a capital, but merely to report the claims of various groups. Jdavidb 20:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've looked over the talk page and earlier versions of the article and see no explanation of why Jerusalem is not the official capital of Israel. What is your definition of "capital?" Do you propose changing the articles on Rome and Paris? Slrubenstein

You underestimate the importance of knowing what a capital is before writing about one. I have searched on google and I can't find any useful definitions of capital. The wikipedia definition is actually the best out there. (Britannica and Encarta have no page for capital). OneLook produces hundreds of dictionary entries that seem to all define capital vaguely as the "seat of government".

Wikipedia says that a capital is the seat of government but sometimes the seat of government is seperate from the capital. (huh?). Bensaccount 13:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, while I'm sure you mean well, I do not think that seeking a compromise solution is the correct way to go in this case (although I have cooperated with such efforts before - only to regret it later). Before we decide on exact phrasing, etc., we have to answer one question: Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel? This might have three different answers:

Yes
No
The matter is disputed, i.e. some people believe it is the capital, while others believe it is not the capital.

If we reach the conclusion that the correct answer is 3, then we should seek some formulation stating all POVs on the matter, or concentrate on laying down the very basic facts, avoiding the question altogether. This is where compromises might be useful. If, however, we reach the conclusion that the correct answer is 1 (as I believe is the ultimate outcome of the discussion going on here for the last several months), there should be no further objection to simply saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (while of course later describing disputes regarding sovereignty, diplomatic status, etc.) -- uriber 13:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Geez Uriber. Do you really think that everybody on earth believes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Well, let's end this argument here and now. I DO NOT BELIEVE JERUSALEM IS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL. There. Now I have proven that teh correct and logical answer is 3. I don't want you throwing arguments at me about why it really IS the capital, because you aren't going to change my opinion. The fact of the matter is, NOT EVERYBODY BELIEVES JERUSALEM TO BE THE CAPITAL OF THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL. If you really must say it IS the capital of Israel, we should say it is the capital of Palestine as well because Palestinians lay similar claims to the city as their capital. Hell, we even have an article regarding why some people think Kyoto is the capital of Japan instead of Tokyo, even though there are far fewer people who think that than people who believe Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. And, as mentioned earlier, seat of government is NOT the sole determinant of a nation's capital, eg The Hague vs. Amsterdam in the Netherlands, or cases where there is more than one seat of gov't such as South Africa (I believe Durban is the location of the judicial branch, Johannesburg is the location of the... oh crap, nevermind)... so HAH! - Node

But urbier, that's not correct. Wikipedia editors are not to concern themselves with deciding the facts of the matter, but only reporting the various views. Wikipedia does not need to decide if Jerusalem is or is not the capital; only what people's views are. So Wikipedia should report:

Some people (group A) believe Jerusalem is the capital
Why group A believes Jerusalem is the capital
Some people (group B) believe Jerusalem is not the capital
Why group B believes Jerusalem is not the capital
Why group B rejects group A's reason for believing Jerusalem is the capital
Why group A rejects group B's reason for believing Jerusalem is the capital
Group C's beliefs, reasons, etc. as above, if applicable, etc.
The fact that many Wikipedians are fed up with the whole argument. :)

There is no need to answer the question "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel," and, in fact, answering the question is irrelevant because you can't report it in the article. See Wikipedia:NPOV Jdavidb 20:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a capital is. Bensaccount 14:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally I believe "1," although my understanding of the UN resolutions is that the legal issues is not whether or not Jerusalem is the capital, but rather, what are the territorial boundaries of the Israeli city, "Jerusalem?" (in other words, the New city can be Israel's capital, but Israel has no right to annex the Old City). In any event, since many people dispute Israel's capital, an NPOV article must acknowledge what you have as "3." And this is exactly what I did in the part of my paragraph that Bensaccount bolded. Jerusalem is the capital; its status is unsettled -- these are both facts. So I do not see the problem, yet. Can you and Besnaccount be clearer? Slrubenstein

I don't think you know what a capital is. Bensaccount 14:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think you know what a capital is. But that is neither here nor there. This is an article on Jerusalem. I went to the Jerusalme webpage and it describes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I went to the Israel webpage and it says that it's capital is Jerusalem. I went to the webpages of Rome and Paris and London, and they all identify these cities as "capitals," so I know that Wikipedia articles are concerned with identifying "capitals." That is ALL that I need to know to write this encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should check the various community portal pages on what Wikipedia is and is not. This is not a forum for personal essays or primary research; it is simply not appropriate to depate political or philosophical issues here. Slrubenstein

In other words you are telling me to get lost because you want to fight with Uriber about something you both know nothing about. Bensaccount 14:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"In other words?" No, stick to the words I use -- I didn't say "get lost." I said that this is an article on Jerusalem, and should conform as best possible to other Wikipedia articles on cities. Wikipedia always mentions in the first paragraph when a city is a capital city. Jerusalem is Israel's capital city, so we must mention that. Since there are disputes concerning the status of Jerusalem, we should also mention that. You are concerned with "what a capital is." If you are concerned with this, great! Do some research on different kinds of capitals, and the legal traditions concerning the designation of capitals, and work on the article "capital!" Don't "get lost," I encourage you to do the serious research Wikipedia needs. But if you are interested in learning more about the idea of "capital," go work on the appropriate article!Slrubenstein

I dont care what a capital is. You need to, because you are arguing about it. Bensaccount 14:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean when you say "many people dispute Israel's capital". Does it mean "many people believe that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital (excluding people who believe this as a result of simple ignorance or misinformation)"? Had it been so, I would have agreed that the correct answer is "3", and that there is a NPOV issue. However, I do not think that this is what you mean. What you mean is that many people think something like "Israel has no right to have Jerusalem as its capital". That's a fair statement 9false, but fair) - however, it has nothing to do with the question I presented - and so it leaves that question undisputedly answered "Yes". And the fact that the UN resolution deals with territorial boundaries, not the question of capital, just goes to strenghthen my point about the capital issue being undisputed. -- uriber 13:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say the answer is 2. If the vast majority of the countries in the world don't recognize the city as the capital, then it's not the capital. anthony (see warning) 01:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How can you write about a capital if you havent defined what a capital is? Bensaccount 13:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Bensaccount -- interesting theoretical question, worth considering on some other page (where you can consider Wittgenstein and other philosophers of language). The fact remeans, people do talk about words without defining them, and manage to communicate quite effectively. If you do not understand how, take a philosophy or linguistics course.

You may use words without defining them but you definately do not communicate effectively. In fact you do not communicate at all. Bensaccount 14:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When I see you raising this point on the pages for Rome, Paris, London, etc., I will take you seriously.

For those pages the capital definition which I currently have created is sufficient. (see Seat of government). You cant argue that the meaning of words is not necessary for their use. Its absurd. Bensaccount 14:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Uriber, I understand your point and that you are trying to be systematic and constructive. nevertheless, I think you are going off on an unnecessary and onconstructive tangent. In my proposal, I wrote "It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled." Is this in your view a false statement? Slrubenstein

It is not a false statement. However, it is an incomplete one (because it only emphesizes Jerusalem's official status as capital, pushing off the very important fact that it is also the capital in practice to the very end of a very long introduction). I also believe that the factual correctness of information presented is not the only criterion by which a text should be judged, and that the manner in which this information is presented is important as well. If you systematically avoid saying "Jerusalem is the capital" (which is the standard wording on articles about other capitals), then at least some readers will get the impression that in some way, Jerusalem is not the capital (even if this is not explicitly said anywhere). -- uriber 14:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks -- this is a reasonable response. Does this mean that you would accept the paragraph I proposed, if I delete "official?" Slrubenstein

Yes, I would happily accept it. I have some aesthetic reservations regarding having so detailed historic information in what is supposed to be an introduction paragraph - but this is a matter of style, not something I'd go to war over. -- uriber 15:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Uriber, you dont have to answer Slurbenstein because he doesnt know how to communicate. Bensaccount 14:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You will have to fogive me for respectfully disagreeing with you, and answering Slurbenstein in spite of your giving me permission not to do so. -- uriber 14:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Slrub: "official" is ok, but I think it's a little vague. I prefer "under Israeli law", which is more precise. Also, where you write "Under Israeli law; it serves as the country's seat of government and otherwise functions as capital" - in this sentence, I don't believe the qualifier "under Israeli law" is required. I prefer the current formulation, all in all.

To Uriber: I think you're missing an option to the question "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?" My answer would be "It depends what you mean by that". It is the capital under Israeli law. It is also the capital in practice. It may or may not be the capital under international law (I don't think we ever got a firm answer on that). It's not the internationally recognised capital. It's disputed whether Jerusalem is possessed by Israel, as "capital of Israel" implies by use of the possessive tense. So there are many layers here, and it's not a simple yes or no answer.

By way of contrast, London is the capital of the UK under international law, is internationally recognised as such, and everyone agrees that the UK possesses London. So, for London it's much simpler, and thus "London is the capital of the UK" is trickier. Martin 21:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I moved around some of the sections, so that new readers will have a more pleasant -- and less jarring -- experience. If they want to use the Table of Contents link to skip down to the juicy, er, controversial part, they are free to do so.

Also, I did a word count, and the big "history of Jerusalem" section is roughly 50% of the article. Anybody want to move that to History of Jerusalem? --Uncle Ed 13:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the "rearrangement" is completely unacceptable. Mentioning that Jerusalem is capital under israeli law, etc. in the introduction paragraph was an important part the agreement I reached with Martin. -- uriber 14:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - that Jer. is (in many senses) the capital of Isr. is worthy of an early mention. Martin 21:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Summary

Uriber wants to write one thing about Jerusalem as capital. Slurbenstein wants to write another thing about Jerusalem as capital.

I find it interesting to see how these kinds of conflicts get resolved which is why I am here.

There are several pathways that are possible if progress is to be made:

One person steps down for no reason.
A vote is held
One of you proves your point of view by presenting your argument based on the definition of capital.

In my mind the only fair way is option 3. Bensaccount 15:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Example for option 3:

When King Solomon built the Temple on Mount Moriah, Jerusalem was sanctified and became the international religious center of the Jewish people. Solomon also built his palace, the city was fortified, treasure houses were built, as were markets and palaces for the king's wives. It was largely due to the many wonderful buildings that Jerusalem became one of the world's most beautiful cities during this period. Furthermore, economic prosperity during Solomon's reign consolidated Jerusalem's position as an important city, the capital of Israel in the eyes of many nations.

(Moving foreward by trying to define what makes a capital). Bensaccount 15:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not commit myself to that definition of capital by the way. Bensaccount 15:07, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your account above does not explain why Solomon built his temple on Mt. Moriah. Also, why is your account a better explanation of why Jerusalme is Israel's capital, than the fact that the Website for Israel names Jerusalem its capital? By the way, if it isn't clear to you, when the article says Jerusalem is Israel's capital it means the modern state of Israel, not the Ancient Kingdom of Israel! Slrubenstein

Again, this is an attempt to determine what makes a capital. So when you ask the question "why is your account a better explanation of why Jerusalme is Israel's capital, than the fact that the Website for Israel names Jerusalem its capital?" That is exactly the point im making, (what determines a capital).Bensaccount 17:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A capital is a center of important activity. In states, the most important activity is governance. However, in some states (e.g. some kingdoms) the "capital" is wherever the King's court is, and the king's court moves from palace to palace. In many states, especially republics, the political capital is fixed. Since law is a function of governance, usually only the political capital is official (this is the case with Jerusalem) -- the economic capital is evident (the city with the largest port, manufacturing, or financial sectors). Some countries have two capitals -- political and economic. In some states the political capital is divided (the representative branch is seated in one city, the executive branch in another (In Israel, all branches of government are seated in Jerusalem). In societies with official religions there can be a religious capital as well, although in many states the religious, economic and political capital are the same. So it varies from state to state and time to time. Slrubenstein

Well anyways it seems that it has been agreed upon that Jerusalem is the capital (Its too bad that the only result from all this discussion that points towards towards this conclusion, is what you just said, but I guess explaining after resolution is better than resolving and never explaining why. Just dont tell me it was never an issue.). If this issue rearises that last point you made will be the only outcome from this discussion that helps, since the still hasn't been formally defined in the article. Bensaccount 17:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, it has not been agreed upon. We cannot let the article become the basis for someone to say, "According to Wikipedia, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Because that would mean we were taking sides in a dispute.

I'm deeply saddened that you are still holding this view. You did not respond to my request to provide some evidence that such a dispute exists. I for one very much hope that the article will become the basis for someone to say, "According to Wikipedia, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Because that would mean that that someone had learned something from Wikipedia - something that is not disputed, but that a surprising number of people do not know. -- uriber 18:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm on the same side. But as an editor I have to acknowledge that there is a dispute. Don't try to sweep it under the rug. It makes the rug lumpy, and eventually it will start to rot and make a big stink. --Uncle Ed 17:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Ed, what do you think of the version I proposed above? You didn't comment on it (or haven't, yet).Slrubenstein By the way, Ed, even in jest don't say "crazy Arabs and their sick puppy friends." It's a very unconstructive attitude. Also, it is my sense that the only Arabs who do not recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel are those who do not recognize the State of Israel. The really divisive issues for many Arabs, including those who accept the existence of Israel, is not whether or not Jerusalem is the capital but rather Israel's unlawful annexation of East Jerusalem. Slrubenstein

I took back that crack. Sorry.

I like the phrasing of It is the largest city in, and official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled better than It is the capital of Israel. --Uncle Ed 18:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

largest city [...] in Israel? That's even worse! Now Wikipedia would REALLY endorse the view that the whole of Jerusalem is part of and/or belongs to Israel! -- a sick puppy friend AKA Dissident

Well, I thought that the context made your point clear. But how about "Including areas occupied by Israel, it is ...?" Slrubenstein

Take a look at the third paragraph. -- Dissident 19:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Talk)

Okay, but every other article on a major city has the population in the first paragraph. This seems reasonable, and in this case relative uniformity of style in an encyclopedia makes sense. Slrubenstein

Jerusalem as capital of Israel

Is it disputed that Jerusalem is the capital of israel? Its hard to tell (despite the endless discussion that seems to be about it).Bensaccount 20:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Based on what has currently been said (and what is given in Wikipedia), the following questions define whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Is Jerusalem the city or town that contains the government of Israel?
Is Jerusalem a center of important activity in Israel?

Bensaccount 21:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Based on what has been said so far,

Jerusalem does contain the government of Israel.
Jerusalem is a center of important activity.

Therefore the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. Bensaccount 21:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any faith in Wikipedia as a source on the matter. Anyone can edit it. Madness. Martin 21:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you dont have any faith in Wikipedia why are you here? Bensaccount 21:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because it won't always be this abysmal. Martin 21:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I dont see what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that some other source is used to define capital (politics) and this page be based on that? Wouldn't it make more sense to base it on something that is in Wikipedia? Bensaccount 21:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No one disputes that Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel. What is in question is whether it is its de jure capital; by Israeli law, of course, it is, but whether it is by international law is highly questionable. In particular, East Jerusalem has never formally been annexed by Israel (according to Christians for Israel: http://www.c4israel.org/articles/english/e-c-00-3-kort-judicialjerus.htm ), and thus remains not a part of Israel by international law (even independent of any questions about the legality of such an annexation.) This means that de jure, at most, West Jerusalem can be described as the capital; in practice, most nations' legal position is that Israel's de jure capital is still Tel Aviv. Of course, as Bensaccount suggests, this throws into question which factor should be taken as primary in defining "capital"... - Mustafaa 21:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa, nice to see someone new here. I'm afraid you are presenting the information from the article you provided in a somewhat misleading way. It is true that Israel does not officially use the term "annexation" for describing the change in the status of East Jerusalem in 1968 - because you can only "annex" something which formerly lawfully belonged to a different country - and Israel never recognized any foreign sovereignty over any part of what used to be the British Mandate on Palestine. So officially what Israel did was "applying the It's laws, jurisdiction and administration". However, by doing so, Israel brought it to the same official status of the rest of Israeli territory (including West Jerusalem). So the difference in terminology has to do only with the previous status of East Jerusalem (before the "annexation" / "applying of jurisdiction and administration") - not with its status afterwards. So De jure, all of Jerusalem can be described as the capital. -- uriber 22:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"De jure" depends on who has stated the law. Bensaccount 22:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Finally some progress.

Jerusalem contains the Israeli government and is a center of activity in Israel. Israeli law states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but Jerusalem is not stated as the capital of Israel by international law. Bensaccount 22:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that International Law deals with the question of which city is capital of what country. Please provide some reference to prove that it does. -- uriber 22:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Uriber. Please tell us an example of a city that is "stated by international law" to be the capital of any country. --Zero 22:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not here to research. If noone can state for sure how international law deals with Jerusalem as capital:

Jerusalem contains the Israeli government and is a center of activity in Israel. Israeli law states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Bensaccount 22:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I can't seem to find any references for international law affecting capitals per se; my assumption was that if the territory in question is not legally part of Israel, it cannot therefore legally be its capital, but I don't actually know of any legal principle explicitly preventing a capital from being, indeed, entirely outside the country of which it is the capital if it so desires - anomalous as that would be. That's not to say no such principle exists: IANAL... Unless someone does know the details of international law on that, I'm fine with the current compromise.Mustafaa 23:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Ben: well that's what the intro already says:

# Jer. is capital under Isr. law.

# Jer. is de facto capital.

Seems you're just rephrasing what we already have? However, what we already have is a somewhat fragile consensus, so I don't think it should be replaced without agreement (IE, I agree with Uriber again).

I realize thats what it says. It said that before it was decided why it should say that. I just filled in the reasoning. Bensaccount 00:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the point about international law and the position of the UN is important enough that we perhaps shouldn't say "Jer. is the capital", but not so important that it needs to be in the intro.

Personally, I have decided I would be willing to accept "Jerusalem is the Israeli capital (but see note)". I think "Israeli" (an adjective) is much better than "Israel's" (possessive tense). However, I can't speak for Anthony or Wik on this. Martin 23:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about "Israel made Jerusalem its capital, but..."? -- Dissident 23:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that has the possessive, which I dislike unattributed in this case ("its"). Also, I doubt that that will satisfy Uriber - it only deals with the de jure bit, not the de facto bit (both are worth mentioning, IMO). Martin 23:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital too?AndyL 00:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Change by Wik

Wik changed "under Israel's law" to "claimed by Israel". This is a step in the wrong direction, making the statement less clear. (Claim means demand capitals arent defined by demands). Bensaccount 01:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And yet, Wik is so pro-government when it comes to the Indonesian (Islamic) occupation of West Papua (Christian), he even disputes the known English name is West Papua and moved the article to Papua (Indonesian province) where it would be so easy to find (not), or confused with Papua the Island instead; not to mention how he keeps replacing the West Papuan Genocide with a re-direct. A new meaning to the term NPOV I suspect. ;-)Daeron 11:32, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Testimonials

Not bad, compare with [[3] (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572316/Jerusalem.html)]. Bensaccount 00:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uriber's version of 09:03, 7 Apr 2004 is an excellent compromise and has my support. --Zero 09:17, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can also accept the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law", but just barely. Consider this to be an extremely hard-fought compromise. -- Dissident 09:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You might compare this formulation to

China considers Taiwan a breakaway province, not a seperate country.

Even thought the ROC has been holding its own national elections for more years than I can count! --Uncle Ed 12:24, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, China may consider them to be provincial elections instead. :-) -- Dissident 18:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians and Jerusalem as capital

Do Palestinians really "aspire" that Jerusalem become their capital? Bensaccount 16:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Claim" really is more accurate AndyL

I note that different approaches seems to have been taken in other controversial cases: Laayoune is described as the "unofficial capital" of Western Sahara, Jaffna as the "cultural capital" of Sri Lankan Tamils, Taipei as the "provisional capital" of Taiwan, and "The capital of Somaliland is Hargeisa". Western Sahara strikes me as the nearest parallel, as Laayoune has been under Moroccan control and annexed by Morocco (under Moroccan law, at any rate) ever since Spain left. But "unofficial capital" doesn't have the right ring to it, to my ears; if anything, it's more the official capital (as enshrined in PLO declarations, etc.) than the unofficial one. Mustafaa 18:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How did West Germany describe Berlin before unification? Bonn was the capital of West Germany but Berlin was always considered the "real" capital but I foget the language that was used/AndyL

Was it "titular capital"? That sounds familiar... - Mustafaa 19:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "also" in this sentence is incorrect. Saying also requires similarity.Bensaccount 17:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Number of countries which dispute the sovereignty

Wik wrote, in an edit summary:

most countries dispute Israeli sovereignty over either the entire or the eastern part of the city

Please list (or at least count) these countries, and supply a source. --Uncle Ed 18:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See List of countries, minus Costa Rica and El Salvador. --Wik 18:13, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Do you think US and UK dispute Israeli de jure sovereignty over Jerusalem? Also, there's a difference between (a) "hasn't made a statement in support of" and (b) "has made a statement disputing". --Uncle Ed 18:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course they do, otherwise they would have their embassies there. --Wik 18:42, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that's the reason, considering the close alliance between the three nations. The reason, at least I think, is that Jerusalem is volatile enough, and many Palestinians would consider a U.S embassy there a serious affront. I mean, not like the U.S. cares what Palestinians think or say, but I guess it's just a fear of controversy and possible violence. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A newspaper article

A dispute over the future of Jerusalem is at the heart of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

Divided by barbed wire into Israeli and Jordanian rule in 1948, it was reunited under Israeli sovereignty as a result of the 1967 Six-Day war. Israel claims the entire city of Jerusalem as its eternal, indivisible capital. The Palestinians want at least the eastern part of the city to become the capital of a future state. Most countries of the world have never recognized Israel's right to Jerusalem. More than a dozen withdrew their embassies to Tel Aviv in protest in 1980 when Israel enshrined its claim in law. Only three Latin American countries now have their embassies here - Costa Rica, Bolivia and El Salvador. [4] (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200106%5CFor20010613b.html)

Just to make clear that West Jerusalem is almost equally disputed, I may note that even before the 1980 decision, only thirteen countries had their embassies in Jerusalem: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela. All of them moved to Tel Aviv after the UN Security Council resolution, although Costa Rica and El Salvador moved back to Jerusalem in 1984. --Wik 18:18, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

All of them, eh? What about Bolivia? According to the cns news article Bolivia currently has its embassy there. But you said "all of them" moved to Tel Aviv. Did you mean "all but Bolivia" or what?

The article is mistaken. Bolivia's embassy now is at Mevaseret Zion, which is a suburb of Jerusalem but outside the city limits. --Wik 18:40, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Why this issue is so hard

Each side wants to justify its own aspirations. Israel wants sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem. Various groups of Arabs want:

sovereignty over PART of Jerusalem
sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem

One may suppose that to concede (or "recognize") Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem would hurt Arabs' chances of getting ahold of it themselves. Refusing to recognize Israel's claim to the city is part of a public relations campaign aimed at getting other countries to pressure Israel into ceding control of it. (I think this strategy used to be called "land for peace", although I haven't looked at that article for a while.) --Uncle Ed 18:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are only about 20 Arab countries out there - a drop in the bucket compared to the 200 or so that don't recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. - Mustafaa 18:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is another quote about the sovereigty of Jerusalem. From the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE):

Even Jerusalem, the city Israel claims as its capital, remains an area of dispute. Predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since independence in 1948; Israel captured mostly Arab East Jerusalem in 1967. Israel has since claimed the entire city as its capital. However, the United Nations does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. [5] (http://www.nitle.org/arabworld/map.php?module_id=4&country_id=12)

Nobody's posted a comment here in two millenia, er, weeks! Does that mean the "capital" issue has been settled to everyone's satisfaction? --Uncle Ed 19:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The way this issue has been "settled" is completely unacceptable, and I'm anything but satisfied with it. My deep disappointment at this result, and the process that led to it, is the reason I've stopped making edits to Wikipedia for the last couple of weeks, and why I probably won't be coming back any time soon. -- uriber 21:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I inserted the NPOV note. As I said earlier, I consider this case a litmus test for WP. See what half-a-dozen of other encyclopedias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jerusalem/capital#What_do_other_sources_say?) say in the first phrase. Not a single compromise was acceptable here. So let's pick one option out of two: WP is either biased or neutral. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to vs Under

I prefer "Under Israeli law" to "According to Israeli law", as it is shorter, and makes more sense (laws have jurisdictions, hence "under", while people have opinions, hence "according to"). So I've gone back to that wording. Martin 21:41, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

"Under" is not restrictive enough. It suggests that Israeli law is all that is necessary to make it capital. "Under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Israeli law makes it so." On the other hand, "according to" makes it clear that it is just one view (according to Israeli law, it is the capital; according to others, it isn't). --Wik 14:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

OK - I can understand that, even if I'm not convinced myself. Thanks for explaining. Martin

I am really not convinced. We're back a step. Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel from Israel's point of view, but since Israel controls Jerusalem it is UNDER Israeli law a capital. The next sentence - about the disputes shows the other points of view. If nobody replies to my claim I am going to change the "according to" back to "Under".

FYI: British official position on the status of Jerusalem (http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1064571767798)

Occupied

Talk:Israel#Occupation is about whether the current situation should be described as "occupation", not the situation in 1948 and 1967. "occupied" is a good word choice. "gained control" is a clumsy alternative, in context. Martin 20:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Psalms

I've seen the translation of the Psalms under Importance of Jerusalem to Jews and Judaism change a number of times. I feel that the most recent, rather large change has been for the worse. Can we agree that the general meaning of the Psalm is more important than the literal translation, and that denoting what individual words are added by the translator to achieve the proper meaning is unimportant? If nobody objects, I'd like to change it back to before User:209.135.35.83 modified it. I see what they're trying to do, but I don't feel that they've added anything and the old version flows better.

I don't mind what translation is quoted, but it should be a published (and named) one, not one off the top of somebody's head. I agree that "cunning" has changed its meaning in modern English, but I don't think that's a major argument against the King James Version. In the original, the KJV does indicate words not present in the original, with italics; perhaps we could add those? - Mustafaa 18:33, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the King James and then saying it's the King James? It's prettier. john 19:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Good call on the using a published version. Looks good. Now do we need to get God's permission to use that text, or what? --Caliper 20:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Does you hand have cunning? Neither does mine (21st century). Words change meaning over centuries. The King James Version is near and dear to many; its what the Bible is suppposed to sound like....unfortunately meanings of many of the words using the KJV have changed. cunning has negative connotations that are not in the original...does it take cunning to play the piano...playing piano (that skill) or whatever skills or movements one has (typing?) are the meaning of the verse. There are other significant concerns and issues regarding the KJV that are either well known or easily accessible to one fluent in the original langagues. I imagine (certainly hope...well looks like that is missing from KJV page) that they are throughly discussed in a page on the KJV at wikipedia

United States position

I've clarified the section on the US position. Since the US Constitution grants only the President the power to make foreign policy it's misleading for us to write that US law makes Jerusalem the capital of Israel - no part of an act which is contrary to the US Constitution is US law. If someone can think of a short and non-misleading piece to go at the start of the current status section, that would be good - nothing succinct enough and still not misleading occurred to me. Jamesday 23:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Where does it grant the president exclusive power to make foreign policy? - Nat Kraus e 04:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. ? john k 04:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, not that it is worthwhile for us to debate this much, but I don't see how this says anything about foreign policy that it doesn't also say about domestic policy. - Nat Kraus e 06:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that that line is just a blanket statement so that when required, the President can respond to issues that don't have time to pass through congress and the senate. I suppose that insofar as there is no law concerning how the United States feels about Israel, this may be considered the president's perogative, but I don't think it says that anywhere specific. --Caliper 04:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the point is that there is a law, but that it has not been put into effect because the executive branch says it's unconstitutional. john k 05:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused by this line:

The United States Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed by Congress in 1995, states...

Was this bill signed into law by President Clinton? An act of Congress does not become law without presidential approval. Funnyhat 01:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

View of Jerusalem

why does it say in the wikitext not to change this to a thumbnail in the imagesyntax? It will look much better. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 21:35, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I consider the world to be given to ME by GOD, So get out of my world. The Rastafarians consider themselves to be the true jews and white people evil, so Jerrytown belongs to them, but then the Palestinians consider it Palestinian. Some say opinions are like 'a' holes, everyones got one, but one should avoid taking opinion, especially possesive (a hole), opinions as truth.

City of David

This article states that there is archeological confirmation of the biblical story of King David. But the article on King David states:

>Biblical minimalists hold that David and his united kingdom never existed, and that the stories told about his life were made up much later by Jewish nationalists. Others consider him a real historical figure, but like King Arthur, consider most of the traditions relating to him to have more myth than substance.

>The details of David's life given in this article come from the Hebrew Bible and are not corroborated by other historical documents. However, an ancient inscription found at Tel Dan is generally considered to refer to a king of the "House of David", providing indirect evidence that David did exist as a historical king.

--Sentience 00:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jerusalem in Christianity?

The article has a brief section on Jerusalem in Islam (and now, after an afternoon at the library, Mandaeanism), and a huge section on Jerusalem in Judaism; shouldn't somebody more knowledgeable about it than me add a section on Jerusalem in Christianity? It does have a certain religious importance to Christians, right? ;) - Mustafaa 23:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For one thing, most of the Torah, Tanakh, and Psalms section is also applicable to Christianity; possibly the section headings should reflect that - Mustafaa 17:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the following replacement text:

Jerusalem in Torah and Tanakh / Old Testament

Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Torah and Tanakh, or Old Testament, a text sacred to both Judaism and Christianity. In Judaism it is considered the Written Law, the basis for the Oral Law (Mishnah, Talmud and Shulkhan Arukh) studied, practiced and treasured by Jews and Judaism for three millennia. (List of Jewish Prayers and Blessings). In Christianity, it is considered as the account of God's relationship with His chosen people - the original covenant - and the essential prelude to the events narrated in the New Testament, including both universal commandments (eg the Ten Commandments) and obsolete or Judaism-specific ones.

For example, the book of Psalms, which has been frequently recited and memorized by Jews and Christians for centuries, says: (etc.)

Any thoughts, objections (since this is a controversial article after all)? - Mustafaa 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edward Said was NOT born in Jerusalem

See, for example, http://www.meforum.org/article/191, (full article mirrored at http://members.tripod.com/arabterrorism/FAQ/said.html). And at least try to come to talk and see if we'll vet your propagandistic lies before changing the article. Thanks! - Loweeel 15:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Edward Said article says that he was born in Jerusalem. I've left a note on that talk page for evidence of this, and have always thought it to be true. The consensus should be reached on that talk page rather than here. I reverted the change because it didn't make sense to contradict Wikipedia: either both articles should say he was born in Jerusalem, or both should say that he was born in Cairo. Gareth Hughes 16:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try looking at the talk section on his page (right above the section where you posted), as well as the articles I posted here. - Loweeel 16:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Er, yes. Even the obviously propagandistic article Loweeel links to states that "I discovered many interesting points: that Said was in fact "born in Jerusalem," but only because his parents feared hygienic conditions in Cairo hospitals after their previously born son died of an infection within days of his delivery." So this is certainly settled. - Mustafaa 08:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yerushalyim or al Quds first?

The article currently has the Arabic name (al Quds) first, then the Hebrew name (Yerushalayim). Since the Hebrew name is older, and is the origin of the English name Jerusalem, wouldn't it make sense for the Hebrew name to go first? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you: the Hebrew name should come first, followed by the Arabic name. --Gareth Hughes 21:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The person who made that edit said he was doing it because of alphabetical order. There was a similar edit on the Golan Heights article where you put the category "Geography of Israel" ahead of "Geography of Syria" because of alphabetical order as well. We shouldn't have a double standard here, either every thing is in alphabetical order or there's another way.Yuber 01:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitely Kuratowski's Ghost 22:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, the geography categories are not subject to these philological considerations and respective historicity. Drawing such linear parallels as standard of a measurement for npov, is likely to result in an awkward product, with a superimposed neutrality, leading and leaning towards inaccuracies. El_C 02:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. With the current claims and controversy over the city, alphabetization is an unassailable neutral methodology. --AladdinSE 15:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Historical age of the terms, and root of the English word, are also unassailably neutral. The consensus is against your unilateral change, please respect it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can appreciate your point, ASE, but I think, ultimately, it's a poor methodological approach: the risk of adhering to arbitrary models (such as alphabetization) is a pandora's box which would harm the quality of the final product (even though in terms of inter-editorial conflict and the rivalry of worldviews it can be seen as possessing great benefit). And, of course, this isn't to say there isn't a role for it to play when philological considerations are not an issue (such as the geography categories Yuber mentioned). El_C 03:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is all moot. The article's name Jerusalem comes first, and Names of Jerusalem is in chronological order of names (and, in each section, in chronological order of languages adopting a form of that name). Maybe it's better just to replace the names with a link to Names of Jerusalem, which was written with all this in consideration, along with comments. With a topic this complex with no simple answers, it seems like a wise move. - Gilgamesh 05:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, EL C, you lost me. Most of that was quite over my head. Once again, please, in language a mere mortal can comprehend :-) Alphabetization is an excellent standard in most cases and is especially significant in, as you say, inter-editorial conflict. Jayjg: Please stop claiming consensus in edit summaries. As you can plainly see there is division of oppinon and the matter remains under discussion. Gilgamesh: The Names of Jerusalem article is already named and linked in the article, it's important and appropriate. However mentioning different language spellings of names in intro sections is pretty standard in Wikipedia, I think they ought to stay. --AladdinSE 21:46, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The article is titled "Jerusalem" the name by which the city is known in English. The name comes from Hebrew so the Hebrew forms come first. The name of the city in most languages is a form of the word "Jerusalem". It is questionable if the anomalous Arabic name Al-Quds should even appear in the list let alone be first. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok that is just pure bias shining through clearly in your comment. The city is disputed between Arabs and Jews. Moreover Arab East Jerusalem is considered internatioally, and without exception, as occupied territory where Israeli annexation has been utterly rejected. Alphabetical listings are a good idea in any case, and in cases where there is dispute and controversy it is essential. --AladdinSE 00:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

The city is known as "Jerusalem" in English, this name comes from the Hebrew which is the main reason for listing the Hebrew name and its pronunciations. Putting Al-Quds first and then the Hebrew does not make any sense, because it isn't even a form of the name "Jerusalem" let alone the origin of the name. Al-Quds is mentioned only because of the significant Arabic speaking population who use this name which is unrelated to the name Jerusalem. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are now beginning to repeat ourselves. Putting the Arabic first makes perfect sense because it is alphabetical, which is especially important in a disputed setting. Your points about the root of the word is better suited for inclusion in the Names of Jerusalem article. --AladdinSE 08:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if we can clean this up a little:

Summary: For Jerusalem, Yerushalayim, al-Quds:

Historical order
Etymological consistancy
Ruling Government's self-identified name

For Jerusalem, al-Quds, Yerushalayim

Alphabetical

Aladdin, I understand why you argue that the name is controversial, which may be a reason to reject the third arugment above. Nevertheless, what are your objections to the first two arguments? Do you really think that the neutrality of the alphabet is better than the neutrality of the etymology, or of the historical names? Mikeage 04:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: "We were here first" is not a valid encyclopedic classification. Listing the Arabic and Hebrew spellings in alphabetical order does not alter the history of the city, which is clearly laid out in the article. It is not etymologically inconsistent to use alphabetical listing. It would be etymologically inconsistent if the Hebrew spelling/script was omitted. --AladdinSE 12:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add to Mikeage's list for for "Yerushalayim, al-Quds":

The name used by the majority of the city's population.

I think this is really the deciding factor here. The "native" names (those given in parenthesis after the English name of cities) should reflect the name of the city used by those living in it. If there is more than one such name, the name used by the majority should prevail. Political claims should have nothing to do with it. Cf. Shefa-Amr, where the Arabic name comes before the Hebrew one, despite the undisputed Israeli sovereignty. -- uriber 16:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that the legality of East and West Jerusalem as one jurisdiction is universally rejected by the UN and every nation in the world as illegal and null & void. The same universal consensus considers all Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem to be illegal, just as settlement in any territory captured in 1967 is considered illegal. Shefa-Amr is an excellent example of how alphabetical order is neutral and encyclopedic. --AladdinSE 05:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wish you would actually address my argument instead of getting into the question of "legality of East and West Jerusalem as one jurisdiction", which is completely irrelevant here. If you'd follow the history of the Shefa-Amr article, you'll see that it has nothing to do with alphabetical ordering. Also, you are clearly in the minority here, and I wish you'd respect consensus and stop reverting the article. -- uriber 09:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical order seems to be the rule of thumb around here (but maybe I'm wrong?), is there a policy page that formally says so (or not)--198 05:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the "alphabetical logic", the order in almost all the disputed places will have to be changed into Arabic first. I think we should be consistent. The historical order seems the most logical for historical articles. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ahh so where would this article fit? Alpha or Historical?--198 06:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, this is an article about a city of Jerusalem and its history. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually no, this is an article about the city of Jerusalem, the title says nothing about the history, nor in fact, about its transportation or infrastructure etc. The article is overlong, and it may be advisable to start creating some sub articles along those lines to reduce this article to code. The point is, history of the city is not the primary emphasis, and cannot be used to overrule a neutral alphabetical order of other-language scripts. Even if history was the emphasis, like in a proposed "History of Jerusalem" article (which currently re-directs to this Jerusalem article), alphabetical order would still be the prime neutral method of listing the non-English scripts and spellings of the name. Alphabetical is a good idea as a standard, it is essential in a disputed setting. --AladdinSE 08:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

This article and this city is all about history. "Alphabetical is a good idea as a standard, it is essential in a disputed setting." - as long as Islamic supersessionism comes out first. If we apply the principle of consistency throughout the WP (and I think we should be consistent), this new "standard" will change the order in almost all the disputes into Arabic first, except where preceded by Amharic. There is no dispute that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and only the 3rd in Islam. Why don't we go by that criteria? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You show your clear bias in this case, and illustrate better than I could have done why a neutral alphabetical order is essential. It's not about "holiest in Judaism" and "only third holiest in Islam." What about Christian Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem?? They don't matter at all to you I suppose. Religious connections and levels of holiness are all extremely subjective and divisive. You cannot determine an order of listing on that basis. --AladdinSE 22:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is it corect that Arabic word "Quds" comes from Hebrew "Qodesh"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You would have to ask a linguist. --AladdinSE 09:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there too much or enough real fight over Al-Quds-Jeruzalem-Yerushalyim in this world? Since 2003, I now and then follow this page, and the fight seems never ending. In many cases, as this Jeruzalem fight, it's about futile issues. Can't we just agree on things here? I think btw: alphabetical order seems fine to me.. and then I mean: alphabetical order of the name.. not the language's name or any other concept to make it more complex. Let's stick to the K.I.S.S principle people! --Ameer 11:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Being that this is the English version Wikipedia, it makes most sense in my view to first give the name from which the English name, Jerusalem, is most closely derived. That would be "Yerushalayim". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The sovereignty of this city is hotly disputed, with the entire world declaring that half of it is occupied, and that post-1967 Jewish settlement in that half is illegal. The neutral way of listing the non-English scripts is alphabetical. There is no reason not to include an etymological note about how the English name came into use, however. If that is your concern, insert one. --AladdinSE 22:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical is not "neutral"; rather, it is "abitrary" (and silly). There is a significant difference between the two; it does not escape notice that your version of "neutrality" would inevitably put the Arabic name of every single Israeli city first. As for Jerusalem, Yerushalayim is by far the older name, the one which the English name is based on, and the name preferred by a large majority of its inhabitants. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, listen to yourself, must every article become a soapbox? You make a statement that "the entire world" declares thus and such and then you really believe you are being reasonable and working toward consensus and neutral language in these articles? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't give a fig whether the order is alphabetical or historical, but I urge all concerned in this silly revert war to avoid reverting to Kuratowski's Ghost's unquestionaly non-neutral phrasing "(Modern Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim, Biblical and trad. Sephardi Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַםִ, known in Arabic as القدس al-Quds". - Mustafaa 23:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. That version is non-neutral; I hadn't noticed the change. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh please, there is nothing non-neutral about it, it makes more sense than listing al-Quds with Modern, Tiberian and Sephardi Hebrew forms of the word Jerusalem as if it too were a form of the word. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Tiberian etc. nonsense has been removed as well. An un-named editor went on a spree a few months ago, trying to insert the reconstructed "Tiberian" form of Hebrew into dozens of articles. At the time the battle to stop it wasn't worth it, but it is now slowly being cleaned up. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask about the other Hebrew scripts and their relevance and why they were being deleted etc, but that has just been answered. Now some quick responses, although we are now definitely repeating ourselves. "Majority of the inhabitants" does not apply in this case. Israeli sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem is not recognized, and Israeli settlement there after 1967 is illegal. To claim alphabetical order as silly is ridiculous, considering how widely it is used in all manner of listings. MPerel: Please note that this is a TALK section and no "soapbox" language has been inserted intot he the article, at least, not by me. Can you deny the fact that every nation in the word refuses to recognize Israeli occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem? Do you deny that the UN has repeatedly declared Israeli settlement in all post 1967 territories as illegal? What exactly is false and outrageous about those facts?

The last time we had a situation like this there was a flood and only the one guy in a boat with the minority position survived ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 10:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are central to rebut the reasoning that "majority of the inhabitants" use such and such name. If Jordan invaded and annexed Tel Aviv tomorrow, and moved 500,000 Arabs there and started calling the city "Arabpolis" or something, that doesn't mean it would stand and be accepted. Kuratowski's Ghost: Regarding your edit summary "I can keep this up all of eternity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=12903432&oldid=12902354) First, I'm pretty sure you are as mortal as the rest of us. Second, it's terribly counterproductive to turn this into a personal contest of wills. How about you assume I'm reverting as a matter of considered oppinon and I'll do the same for you. --AladdinSE 09:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

There are Ethiopian Jews in Jerusalem, since majority is secondary to alphabetic order I would like to see the Amharic name up there as well listed before Arabic. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Jordan invaded and annexed Tel Aviv tomorrow, and moved 500,000 Arabs there and started calling the city "Arabpolis", Wikipedia would probably list the city under this name. Here are are a few precedences:

Kaliningrad - invaded and annexed by the Soviet Union, and settled by Russians. "Königsberg" isn't even mentioned in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article.
Nablus - named thus after invaded and settled by Romans, then Arabs. Original Hebrew name only mentioned after Arab name.
Ho Chi Minh City - invaded and annexed by North Vietnam. Wikipedia uses the new name as the article title.

-- uriber 13:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One would guess that if Jordan invaded and annexed Tel Aviv tomorrow, and moved 500,000 Arabs there, they would probably start calling the city "Jaffa". Just a guess. The use of Nablus as an example is incredibly dubious - Nablus is not disputed, and has been called that for millennia now. At any rate, the situation with East Jerusalem is not the same as that with these other cities, because half of it is considered by every other country in the world to be technically part of a potential Palestinian state (or however you want to describe it), and its (legitimate) inhabitants call it Al-Quds. Another difference is that "Kaliningrad," "Nablus," and "Ho Chi Minh City" are all the English names of these cities. Neither Yerushalyim nor al Quds is. Personally, I'd say that Yerushalyim should probably be mentioned first, because it is the basis of the English name, and because there are, at present, more Hebrew-speaking inhabitants than Arabic-speaking ones, but, quite honestly, it really doesn't matter very much. What is unacceptable is Kuratowski's Ghost's attempt to treat the Arabic name as different in kind from the Hebrew name. john k 14:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So by Wikipedia's policy of non-bias I should've pretended that "Al-Quds" is really a form of the word "Jerusalem" along with the English form and Modern, Sephardi and Tiberian Hebrew forms even though in reality it isn't. If the legs are too long for the bed cut them off, if they're too short stretch them using a rack, as long as they are made to fit the bed :P Kuratowski's Ghost 15:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in agreement regarding the issue currently being discussed here (Yerushalayim or Al-Quds first). Given that, I'll spare you my rebuttal regarding Kaliningrad etc. -- uriber 15:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Magharba quarter / slum

The article originally mentioned the slum near the Western Wall that was demolished. The current wording of the article (by an anonymous editor 64.81.54.23 who has been consistently editing the article to downplay mention of Jewish sentiments towards Jerusalem) creates the false impression that this Magharba quarter was somehow an historically important area that Israelis destroyed without any regard. When I added in that the area was dilapidated this was reverted on the grounds that it doesn't jibe with descriptions of the quarter. How does "dilapidated" not jibe with the common description of the area as a "slum"? Kuratowski's Ghost 01:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Magharba quarter was, indeed, a historically important area. See Nur Masalha's description (http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/shaml7.html): "Its inhabitants, about 1,000 persons, were the beneficiaries of an ancient and important Islamic Waqf foundation originally established in 1193 by al-Malik al-Afdal, the son of Salah al-Din. Its obliteration in June 1967 also resulted in the destruction of several historic religious sites (including two mosques, two zawiyas and a great number of Waqf residences) which the quarter contained." The allegedly common description of the area as a slum appears to be exclusively used by Israelis in attempting to justify its destruction. - Mustafaa 20:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this is subjective, most of the old city still looks like a slum to people from my part of the world :) but perhaps the article should note both points of view. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so. - Mustafaa 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vague phrases

"The lives of some of the foremost rabbis (scholars and leaders) in the history of Judaism are intertwined with the gradual rebuilding of Jerusalem following its desolation at the hands of the Roman Empire." What exactly does this mean? I thought Jews weren't allowed back into the city until the 5th century, by which time it had long since been rebuilt. Perhaps a concrete example could be substituted. - Mustafaa 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means either, but I'm pretty sure Jews were living there again by the 4th century. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If so, Jerusalem#First_millennium should be edited accordingly... - Mustafaa 05:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going on memory here, but I think they returned unofficially in the 4th century, and legally by the 5th. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other Arabic name

Is Darussalaam can be regarded as an Arabic cognate of the Hebrew Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) as it means the same. Is this Arabic /d/ a reflect of the Hebrew /y/? Thanks! Meursault2004 20:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

How the state of isreal was formed?

I read the article and found the history part of Jerusalem very interesting. However, I felt there is something missing. I could not find anything about the history of the state of Isreal. The section simply ends at the british conquest in 1917. But later on in the article picks up again with the history overveiw of the UN resolotion in 1947 and the palestenians-Israely conflict in 1948. I would like to know more about the period in between!

"Jerusalem of Gold" (Yerushalayim shel zahav)

"written in celebration": Wikipedia's article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerushalayim_Shel_Zahav%2C_%28song%29_%28Jerusalem_of_Gold%29 and other sources indicate it was originally performed some weeks before the 1867 War. Michael

Most of the Christians in Jerusalem were UN officials???!!

the article stated that: Christian access to the Western Wall and the Temple Mount was allowed in many cases, but this was seldom in use, as most of the Christians in Jerusalem were UN officials running between the divided parts

This is not true, christians have always been residents of jerusalem and they have their own qurter too, Arab christians and arminians had and still make a significant portion of the residents of the old city in jerusalem, before and after 1948 and 1967 wars !! and claiming that (olmost) only UN officials were visiting the christian holy sites is so untrue! since the UN officials number couldnt exceed a couple of hundreds MAX , and nothing was mentioned about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest place for christians in this very paragraph !! This paragraph gives the impression that there are no christians in jerusalem or at least "very very very few"--Mayz 20:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes you make a good point. But I think what the author meant was West Jerusalem. I think these people you mention all lived in East Jerusalem (correct me if I am wrong). Meursault2004 07:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The majority of Arab Christians lived in East Jerusalem but quite a number lived in West Jerusalem too. There were also non-Arab Christians like Armenians. The claim that they were outnumbered by UN officials is ridiculous. --Zero 09:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In that case let's modify this sentence. Meursault2004 09:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it. We need a justification for even the first part. Since Christians don't have an extraordinary interest in the Western Wall or the Temple Mount, it is unclear why the issue is worth mentioning. --Zero 09:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The name "Jerusalem"

"According to the Book of Samuel it was given the name "Jerusalem" (Hebrew Yerushaláyim) by King David" -- Where in the Book of Samuel is this? I can only find the place where King David called it the "City of David". By the way, the "name" section is about to get replaced by something closer to encyclopedic standards. --Zero 08:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't find it either, seems that it is only in commentary on Samuel not in Samuel itself, so it should go or be changed to say that according to the book of Samuel he called it the City of David".

Do you know of anywhere in the Bible itself where a meaning or origin of the name "Jerusalem" is given? I know there are plenty of such places in later literature. --Zero 12:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "something closer to encyclopedic standards" be careful of outdated views and shoddy 19th century / early 20th century scholarship like the idea that it is named after an unattested Canaanite god of peace etc. or that the uru salim of the Amarna letters is the origin when in fact Uru does not match Jeru- phontically. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I spent most of a day reading research monographs and archaeology journals on these subjects, so I know what the scholarly consensus is. Shalem is very well attested as a deity in multiple ancient sources and I didn't find a single dissent from that opinion. Furthermore, the identification of Urusalim in the Amarna letters with Jerusalem is generally accepted as fact (again, I didn't find a single dissenter though there is an opinion that it wasn't really a city then). I can provide copious modern references. --Zero 12:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No one is denying that Urusalim is Jerusalem, the article says as much. The denial is that the "Jeru-" of the name "Jerusalem" comes from Uru in Urusalim. Shalim is attested as a divine personfication of sunset/dusk, not as a god of peace worshipped in Jerusalem who gave his name to the city as one finds in online factoids. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization (Again)

I attempted a reorganization of the history section, as the history of Jerusalem was scattered in different areas, and was a cause of complaint (see some of the comments above). I tried to be uncontroversial and made no real xhanges to the text. We still need to add to the history of the Mandate period, though. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I added the Mandate period and finished the history section -- no reverts, and a good edit from Mustafaa, so I am happy. I have also reorganized the rest (nothing was cut!). The idea was to make the headings sensical. I reorganized the religious importance of Jerusalem section, so it is now in order of the chronology of the religions (except Mandeanism, which I think should be trimmed, it is almost as long as the Islam entry!), this is because each section references the previous religions. I also added some short summaries to the demography and places section. I think it flows a lot better now, but am open to comments. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The religion section is definitely problematic. I suspect the "Rabbis and Jerusalem" needs looking over by someone better versed in the subject than I am, and I know the Jerusalem in Islam section needs expansion. However, I think the Mandaean section is worth keeping in full (though of course I would, having written it); it offers an interesting counterpoint to the other three, and Mandaeanism is, as far as I know, the only other religion of any significant age that gives Jerusalem a special role. - Mustafaa 02:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's fine on the Mandaeans, though perhaps you could cut out some scriptural references to the Ginza Rba? It seems unlikely that people will need to look up the details, and the article has a lot of scriptural references already (and is pretty long!). I agree that the "Rabbis and Jerusalem" section is incoherent. I'll let the article sit for a couple of days, and, if no one else does, I will take a crack at it. I am afraid of making any substantive changes to the text until I know everyone is comfortable with the reorganization. It would also be great if someone helped organize the Christianity section; its written clearly, and chronologically, but it feels jumpy and makes it difficult to understand the present significance, as opposed to the history, of Jerusalem to Christians. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll consider ways of improving the Jerusalem in Islam section as well - [6] (http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=508) will be useful there. - Mustafaa 22:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And a question - some sources I have read indicate that Jerusalem began to decline in importance during the Abbasid dynasty, not after the crusades, as in this example (http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/rennert/history_8.html). The argument goes that after the earthquake of 747, except for the Al Alqsa mosque, the city was never fully repaired and power shifted to Baghdad, though Jerusalem remained a pilgrim destination, it was also a backwater. I know there are quotes from Muslim travelers talking about Jerusalem during the Abbasid reign, but was wondering if you had any further information on what the status was during this period. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly power shifted to Baghdad from Damascus; however, "backwater" implies more than just a lowered political importance, and the three geographers mentioned in that section describe a proud and flourishing Abbasid town. Immediately before the crusades, under the Seljuks, Jerusalem became a particular centre for intellectual/theological activity, with Al-Ghazali writing his greatest work there, and Ibn Arabi studying there, among a number of other notable figures. - Mustafaa 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Jerusalem"