Talk:Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Jerusalem is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2007.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for Jerusalem: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Please add reliable sources for all of the information
  • Expand: Culture section: Please add East Jerusalem institutions and history
NOTE: ARCHIVED TALK ABOUT JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL OF ISRAEL IS FOUND HERE
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


Contents


[edit] NPOV problem

"Schools for Palestinians in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel have been criticized for offering a lower quality education than those catering to Israeli Jewish students."

I have a problem with this line. 1) It takes the POV that the Palestinians are a nation. While I personally do not really care as nor the Israelis or the Arabs speak English or really care about its definations of a nation. However, the NPOV policy dictates that statements can not be worded like this. 2) The sentence in inconsitence. It starts off with "for Palestinians..." then continues with "in Israel..." This is like saying "Schools for Chinese in New York and other parts of America have been criticized for offering a lower quality education than those catering to American Christian students."

I mean COME ON! 203.206.234.139 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the editor who inserted this sentence meant "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians". The bigger problem with that paragraph is that Jerusalem schools are covered only from the perspective of Jewish vs. Arab schooling, which is unacceptable for an introductory article on Jerusalem. Beit Or 18:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the excellent editors of this page, mostly Israeli, have done an excellent job in keeping mention of Palestinians to a minimum. In fact you'd be hard-pressed to believe that any of them lived in Jerusalem at all or that it was Palestine's capital from 1922 to 1948. Can I suggest that the photos of Jerusalem that contain the Dome of the golden rock be 'photoshopped' so that it is less shiny. It might otherwise give the impression that it is a key landmark in Jerusalem. To deny that Palestinians exist in Israel is an excellent way of dealing with them and if you do it enough they may just go away. I'm glad you've expunged any notion that they may be nation, even some Israeli historians are saying they used to live there which really gets my goat. I'm pleased to see that there are no external links to Palestinian websites on Jerusalem, or that the all the photos in the article are of the Jewish and Israeli landmarks, apart from the Dome of course but see my suggestion above. Keep up the good work guys! —Precedingunsigned comment added by Khalilgibran (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you're not making any actual suggestions, I can't comment to your rant, but two note:
  • Jerusalem wasn't "Palestine's capital", ever. Despite claims to the contrary, there was never a entity by the name of "Palestine", and never such a capital. The last time there was any sovereign nation in this region, was back during Roman times, when there was an independent Jewish kingdom here. Since then till 1948 it's been under the occupation of one empire after the other.
  • You claim: "all the photos in the article are of the Jewish and Israeli landmarks" - well, then. How about all the images under "Shifts in control" ("Capture of Jerusalem", "General Edmund Allenby", "17th century drawing of Jerusalem"). And after that "View of Jerusalem Forest", then "Safra Square, Jerusalem City Hall" (city hall - relevant to all residents). Later on we have "The main entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre", "Dome of the Rock viewed through the Temple Mount's Cotton Gate (Bab al-Qattanin)". Then we really get to the Jewish landmarks: "Kanyon Hadar shopping mall", "Ben Yehuda Street" and "Jerusalem's Central Bus Station", a well known Jewish holy place. Then we have two pictures of the Hebrew University (which has lots of Arab students). Yep. The facts sure do support your rant... okedem (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
At least my 'rant' has a sense of humour. Where's yours? "There was never an entity called Palestine"?? This flies in the face of the consensus of historians worldwide, including Israeli ones! Just because it was occupied since the Ottomans does not mean it does not exist. At least this comment exposes where you are coming from, rather than claiming to be objective and blinding people with Wikipidea 'rules' in an attempt to suppress any real objectivity. Can I make the following suggestions: Can I add some photos of Arab Jerusalem? Can I add some external links to Arab sites about the history of Jerusalem, or is there some obscure Wikipidea rule that prevents me from doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalilgibran (talk • contribs) 09:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, despite your claims, there has never been an entity called "Palestine". Ever since the last Jewish independent kingdom was conquered by the Romans, the area was always occupied by empires - Romans, Byzantines, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimites, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamelukes, Ottomans and British.
Now, if you actually want to contribute, instead of spreading patently false accusations (like your claim about the images) - that's great. Detail the images you want to add here, and we'll see if and where they can be added. About websites - we have very few links as it is, as this isn't a link directory. If there's an especially informative site (in English, as this is the English Wikipedia) - that might work. Note that we don't link to a single "History of Jerusalem" site, be it Israeli or Arab. okedem (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Despite your claims that Palestine has never existed, it is clear to most unblinkered scholars (again, including Israeli ones) that it did exist; a search of UN archives at the time of Jewish exodus into Palestine refer to it as such, again, whether it was occupied or not is neither here nor there, many consider parts of it still to be occupied, including East Jerusalem. I'm sure you have good psychological reasons for denying it's existence, any decent Israeli would find it easier to pretend Palestinians did not exist than to suffer the ill effects of cognitive dissonance at knowing they been usurped. I'm not going to get into an argument over revisionist Zionist history (Yes I've read my Benny Morris) but I'm content in knowing that I have alerted readers of this discussion to your stance on the matter of Palestine and your denial of its existence. It exposes the true Zionist bias of this entry and those that 'administer' it. Khalilgibran (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
My, my. It seems your own prejudice prevents you from actually reading what I wrote.
Let me say that again - the region has been called Palestine for a long time, certainly. Ever since the Romans changed the name from Judea province to Syria-Palestina (unifying it with the Syria province), after the Jewish rebellions. There have also been people here, of many different nationalities (including Jews), and many of them grew into the people now known as "Palestinians". However, no independent entity by that name ("Palestine") ever existed, and so no such entity had Jerusalem as its capital. By entity, I referring to a state, country, a political entity of that sort (that's the sort of things that actually have "capitals").
That is a simple factual matter, with no actual dispute over it. Is it clear now? If you can actually put aside your prejudice of Israelis, and read what I wrote, you'd find I'm correct. okedem (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear oh dear. How we twist and turn in the wind. It is irrelevant whether Palestine existed as an "independent entity". Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, - none of these were entities either. Remember that Israel was not an entity until is proclaimed itself as such in 1948. What matters is the status quo, which is East Jerusalem is occupied (this is an undeniable fact whether you believe it to be justified or not) and therefore Jerusalem cannot be recognised by the international community as its capital.
Please note that I know several Israelis and I am not 'prejudiced ' against them, many of them would agree with my POV. My objection is to the right-wing bias of the Israelis who seem to have a stranglehold on this entry. That is all I have to say on the matter, I will graciously leave the last word to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalilgibran (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You see, with this you completely change your original claim. You claimed that Jerusalem was the capital of "Palestine" - however, as there was no independent political entity there, Jerusalem could not have served as anyone's capital. (Israel indeed did not exist until 1948, so what?) Anyway, now you say it's "occupied" - well, that's a reasonable claim, and one I can agree to, with the qualification that as it was not captured from any sovereign entity (Jordan was not sovereign there), the word "occupied" is problematic. It is nevertheless close enough. Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital was not in discussion here, so I won't get into that.
As your claim regarding the photos in the article has been shown to be completely false, and as I have invited you to present any "Arab Jerusalem" images or links you want, I cannot see how you can speak of "right-wing bias of the Israelis who seem to have a stranglehold on this entry". Good day. okedem (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


DEFINITIONS OF VANDALISM: I changed the 'etymology section to 'Hebrew etymology', and the history section to 'Jewish history,' and the culture section to 'Israeli culture.' Why? Because each section talked explicitly about Hebrew etymology, Jewish history, and Israeli culture. And this was considered vandalism. I wanted to change the title of culture to Israeli culture since there was nothing about culture on the eastern side of Jerusalem. Until someone adds something about Arab culture in Jerusalem to the site (there is a famous theater and a few cultural/arts centers which are quite prominent as well), the heading is misleading. If someone does add something about the Arab population to that heading, then I think the heading 'culture' would be appropriate. The same goes for the other sections. For instance, the history section leaps from 1200 to 1500 in a sentence, then leaps a sentence later to the mandate period. 700 years in two sentences. Muslim rule between the 7th and 11th centuries gets 3 sentences. There is also a wee little bit about the Sasanids and Romans and the Crusades (and I suppose that that makes my title change slightly inaccurate) but other than that 90% of the article is Jewish history. Alright, what is going on with Wikipedia? Who is in charge of the Jerusalem section, i.e. who decides that something is vandalism? Whether one feels that Israel is that indivisible capital of Israel or the potential capital of Palestine or an international city, the fact remains that Israel's history is not simply Jewish, nor its culture.... Whether you like it or not Arabs live there too, and have, for quite some time, and the way they shaped the face of the place is highly relevant to wikipedia visitors wanting to learn as much as possible about this amazing city. 1 more point - I understand that I or someone else could add in the info that is missing. I am not an expert on Jerusalem. But I will be attempting to do so over the next period and I ask that people not vandalize my entries, as I have experienced a great deal of that in the short time I have been editing wiki entries, particularly related to our wonderful country, Israel. Thanks.1equalvoice1 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arab culture and history is under-represented here, but trust me, it's not due to anyone deleting information. It's simply that no one wrote about it... All the people who routinely come to this article claiming it's not NPOV, that it hides information, and so on - none of them bothered to write the text we need - more information about the Arab population. Shame.
The history section contains plenty of information not related to Jews, so you're exaggerating here.
By changing the headlines, you're in fact dissuading anyone from adding the information you say is missing. The history section should be about history, not just Jewish history, same for the others. The headlines define the scope, and changing them changes what people expect and write. okedem (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics: small maths problem

In the demographics section, we see a population figure of 743,000. At the end of that first paragraph, we see 180,000 households with an average of 3.8 people. Well, 3.8 times 180,000 equals 684,000, more than 60,000 less than the population figure. Any thoughts on how to reconcile the discrepancy? I assume that "average" here refers to the mean; if however it is the median, then perhaps the answer is that there is quite a bit of skew in the distribution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jews expelled from the Old City in 1948

I had placed this sentence under "history" which was then deleted:

"On May 28, the Arab Legion gained control over the Old City; all of its Jewish inhabitants were either expelled or taken prisoner."

No reason for the deletion was given; I don't see how this violates NPOV if that was the concern.

I reverted that edit and re-placed this sentence.

As I am a relatively new editor, I would appreciate feedback.

Drmikeh49 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
The best thing to do is to find a good source for that fact, and add it to the article (just like other facts are sourced). okedem (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name

what about the greek latin Hiërosolyma, where does it fit in the etymology section? Another thing is, does the Palestine state have a emblem or symbol for the city of Jerusalem? It looks rather Israelian in the article to me. Mallerd (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Greek: Ιεροσόλυμα, Ierosólyma or Ιερουσαλήμ, Ierousalēm; Latin: Hierosolyma; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds; official Arabic in Israel: أورشليم القدس, Urshalim-Al-Quds) is an ancient Middle Eastern city on the watershed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea at an elevation of 650-840 metres (about 2000-2500 feet). Jerusalem is Israel's official capital, although Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem).

Why are the Greek and Latin names omitted? Mallerd (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Mallerd. I do not recognize the source of the paragraph you quoted above; it does not appear to come from the current article. As for the Greek and Latin names, a better question might be, why should they be included? To the best of my knowledge, the three names present in the article (Hebrew, English, Arabic) are included because those are Israel's official languages; the English name would be there in any case by virtue of this being the English-language Wikipedia. Adding the city's Greek and Latin names would open the door to other languages, and where would one stop? Other names can be found in the separate article linked to, Names of Jerusalem. I hope this helps. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thank you, well this paragraph is from an earlier version of this article. I understand what you are saying, I guess the reason the Greek and Latin were in the article earlier was because they were part of the Roman and "Byzantine" Empire which had respectively Latin and Greek as official languages. Anyway, for cities who are in countries that don't have a language as official language, the name of another language is still used. For example, many cities in Romania, Czechia and Poland have German names as well. Perhaps this is due a large minority who speak German in those countries, but still. There are many Jews from around the world, perhaps there is one that is really significant. Just a thought, good night now Mallerd (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References to BCE and CE

I've noticed that most dates in this article mention BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. I'm not a Wikipedia pro, but it seems to me that this is inconsistent with most other articles in Wikipedia, as well as general usage. Why does the article use this notation? --Spacedoggie (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP doesn't favor one system (or style) over the other, or demand consistency of one article's usage with that of "most other" or any other articles. Only one system should be used within a given article. Once a system of dating is established in an article, a "substantial" or "substantive" reason is required for changing over. The exact policy is stated at WP:DATE (first two paragraphs) and WP:SEASON (under "Eras..."), and possibly discussed in a few other places. One system, of course (you guess which one), is more faith-neutral than the other, and less likely to offend anyone. That is why, I believe, it tends to be used in articles on Jewish history, and scholarly articles in general, more frequently than in what you term general usage. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the helpful info!--Spacedoggie (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

FYI, I opened a thread about Jerusalem's state as Israel's capital here. Imad marie (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make a small change to the first sentence re: capital status. Was told that 'consensus' had been exhaustively reached. I understand that after people have devoted days, weeks, months of their life to an entry, it's hard to see change. But is not the point that consensus fluxes, and that the definition of 'consensus' depends on what group of people one is in discussion with?
This is what it said:
"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized as Israel's capital, and no embassies are located in Jerusalem-proper." There was an existing section at the end of the intro. describing this point further, and I moved it to the capital section, thinking this made things clearer for the outside wiki viewer.
The explanation of the person who deleted sentence two was simply: "this is covered in footnote iii" Footnote iii cites an Israeli CBI Jerusalem Day press release (POI Jerusalem day, which was once a kind of local celebration of Israeli Jerusalem when I was a little kid, has become one of the main days of convergence for the right-wing nationalist settler movement) which said nothing about international recognition. Thus I will restore the edit when a little time passes.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You do seem to recognize here that changing consensus would require discussion here, as against making a change to the article unilaterally and expecting it to survive. Welcome to the talk page. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I do recognize it that's why I didn't just change it right back and chose to write this up on the talk page, waiting to see what people say. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You were looking at footnote 3, not iii. See under "Endnotes". For the discussions that have taken place, please see "NOTE: ARCHIVED TALK ABOUT JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL OF ISRAEL IS FOUND HERE", highlighted in red at top of this talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for re-directing me, that makes a lot more sense. The archive, I have looked at, though I suppose I could scour it further.
I understand that the endnote does indeed explain things clearly, and yes, academic-types (such as many wiki editors) do read endnotes, but I am also thinking of the uninitiated wiki reader who just scans through for basic info, and is not experienced with the inner consensus-reaching process for highlighting, or marginalizing, particular information. In my opinion, endnoting this marginalizes this fact, as does placing it at the end of the section. I think the way I worded things does recognize the fact of Israel's status as capital, and at the same time highlights that while capitals are generally the locus of diplomatic as well national decisionmaking bodies, in Israel this is not the case.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You might also want to consult Talk:Israel, where this issue comes up regularly. Part of the problem is that any change here would imply a change there (and in other articles as well); in practice, this is likely to mean that any change at all would be difficult to accomplish. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If we decide the right thing to do, then changes will not be difficult, a centralized discussion about this is happening here. Imad marie (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TELAVIV is the capital of Israel. Its where the embassies are. Jerusalem has no status as the capital period. So please delete the line that says it is. That is a lie. (Brian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.54 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAMERA Seeks 10 Volunteers to Submit Info to Wikipedia (Isra-pedia)

This discussion does not belong on Talk:Jerusalem, but on the WP:ANI noticeboard. <eleland/talkedits> 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This may explain the editorial bias of the majority of editors of this page. It may also explain the tactics used to challenge anything showing Israel in a negative light. [unsigned comment added 16 May 2008]


You couldn't make this stuff up.

It seems that a pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopaedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.

See the emails of the group here: http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf

Khalilgibran (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of editors here is highly inflammatory, and uncalled for. I remind you to Assume Good Faith, and understand that other editors are working for a factual representation, even if they have different views from your own. Claiming, or insinuating, that a "majority of editors of this page" are part of some conspiracy is insulting, and does nothing to help foster cooperation here.
I won't bother reading the whole thing. I don't really care what they say, though from what I read, they only want factual information. As every edit should be backed by sources, I don't see a problem with this. We all have different viewpoints, whether we act independently, or as part of some group.
Actually, I should have immediately deleted your comment. It has nothing to do with the Jerusalem article, is not actionable in any way, and is highly insulting and inflammatory. That said, I decided to refrain from deleting it, and reply, as deletion might fuel your conspiracy theory even further.
If you try discussing editorial matters in a polite manner, with credible sources to back up your claims, and using NPOV phrasing, you'll find editors here are very willing to cooperate. If you continue with conspiracy theories and accusations, you'll be ignored, and rightfully so.
This discussion ends here. Good day. okedem (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It might end here, but unfortunately it is continuing here. I agree that it is an incorrect description of current activity, of current editors on this page. But it might be something to worry about for the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've given my response in Talk:Israel. okedem (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A note, though. I've been reading/skimming the discussion you linked to, and it's very disturbing. Not the claims themselves, but the naivety shown there, and the emphasis on sanctions against CAMERA, Zeq, or anyone else.
This is not the answer. For every such effort "uncovered", there will be a dozen which will remain secret. We can't actually believe we'll always find out about these things. The focus should be on strengthning the system and procedures we have, to nullify the potential for damage such operations have. It's a shame all these administrators are wasting their time on trivialities like banning Zeq. okedem (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I very much agree with you, on every point you've made here (and I said as much there, that banning Zeq would be a side-show). If Camera is doing what they appear to be doing, I think however that it will be a big problem, and I'm not quite as confident that the normal methods will be sufficient. I think we're better off if editors here are aware of the claims that are being made (even if it works out they are false); they might seem insulting, and again I reject the notion that anyone active on this page is a Camera-inspired meatpuppet, but I think more is lost than is gained by deleting it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is why I didn't delete this section here, but only when it was posted also on Talk:Israel. However, had I known this sparked quite this much discussion, I wouldn't have deleted it there either. I agree that the CAMERA thing might pose a problem, as too many of our policies rely on assuming good faith of everyone, an unjustified assumption in many cases. Actually, I think that the major Israel related pages are in good shape, and less vulnerable to such operations. Being the focal points of so much dispute, every claim is well sourced, every word debated. Israel and Jerusalem are FA, and making even small changes to them requires lots of work. I'm more worried about the less-edited pages, where seemingly reasonable claims (not obvious vandalism) can remain for months, as there's no editor knowledgeable enough to challenge them, who's actually looking at the article. I'm not sure what to do, but it should be discussed. okedem (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for deleting the 'collapse' feature. It is not THAT extended a discussion and is a VERY relevant discussion and should be directly viewed/accessed when people check the talk page. It seemed, in my opinion, as if someone preferred the discussion was out of sight. 1equalvoice1 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, I thought I deleted the 'collapsing' feature. But I see no changes.1equalvoice1 (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI for those who don't know, this was posted on WP:ANI and so far has been resolved. Hopefully the problem won't return full force.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what "this" refers to. What is it you credit me with bringing back? Hertz1888 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New paragraph in "Palestinian Claims..."

This new paragraph in the "Palestinian claims" section raises some questions. First and foremost: which Palestinians are referred to in the second sentence? I doubt it is currently possible for any residents of the West Bank who are not already residents of Jerusalem to move to Jerusalem. So who are these 'migrants"? Where do they come from? We might add that under current law it is impossible for an Israeli who marries someone from the West Bank to bring that spouse to Israel as a resident/citizen. In general, we might try to keep in mind that newspapers don't always get it right: just because some idiot reporter writes something, it doesn't mean it can be treated as fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs some hard editing. From what I know of Jerusalem, it is nearly impossible for anyone to move to Jerusalem with any ease. They would have to hire a smuggler at this stage. I know of no one who would move to Jerusalem to make a land claim - they would try to get in there because they need work. People are so damn full of conspiracy theories.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
"...newspapers don't always get it right" — there's a great truism. If the paragraph, or some portion thereof, isn't factual, the paragraph, or the portion, should go or be heavily modified. I agree that hard editing is needed. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone explain to me please why this paragraph is relevant to the section? Why is Palestinians seeking jobs in Jerusalem relevant to the Palestinian claim of Jerusalem? Imad marie (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the question. But okay: there is a standard narrative that says the Israeli government tries to make life difficult for Palestinians in Jerusalem (failure to grant building permits, in particular, leading to overcrowded housing). Palestinian leaders, in response, encourage Palestinians to stay, to reinforce Palestinian claims to the city and to impede ostensible attempts to induce an Arab exodus. Again, I'm calling this a standard narrative, and I have real doubts that Arabs can move from elsehwhere in the West Bank to Jerusalem. But it would make sense if such migration were possible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, but all this is not clear in the section. Saying something like "Palestinians are attracted to the overall quality of life Israel provides to Jerusalem residents." is a humanitarian issue, not political, the way I see it, this sentence is not really relevant to the historical Palestinian claim of Jerusalem. Imad marie (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, making a claim effectively can have a practical dimension - facts on the ground, I think it's called. I don't see the problem with relevance in principle; I'm just not convinced that what is being asserted (or implied) is real. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The paper goes into details about the migrants. Some are pre-independence, and many others are Arabs from the West Bank who were able to migrate to Jerusalem (often by marrying Jerusalem Arab families) before the building of the barrier, and many others are trying to do so as it is being built. The paragraph can be moved to another section but it is not necessary to remove sourced information. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There are still a number of problems. I won't delete it again, though I do think some clarifications are needed. The paragraph speaks of Arab "migrants", implying (it seems to me) that these are simply people moving from elsewhere in the West Bank to Jerusalem. But the second half of the paragraph, in referring to people with residence rights, can only encompass people who formerly lived in East Jerusalem, went elsewhere in the West Bank, and have recently returned. It remains true, as I indicated earlier, that it isn't possible (and hasn't been for quite some time), for most Palestinians in the West Bank to move to Israel. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture section

Those who know: please add to East Jerusalem info to the culture section. I would add it myself but I only have the very basics.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lacks history

This article lacks history about the early Muslim Arab rule of the city, the Crusader rule of the city and the Mamluk rule. I added info on Umar's pact but without a reference. Also, why are the years put into the headings. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Do try to find a ref for Umar. This is an FA, and unsourced information cannot remain here. I agree we should have more info about the periods you mentioned - why don't you write something about it?
If you have any knowledge of the current-day Arab culture of Jerusalem, we could really use some info in the Culture section.
Why are the years in the headings? Don't know. I don't really care either way. okedem (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the ref and maybe in the coming days I'll some info on those periods. I don't know much about the culture of East Jerusalem, but yes it should be here. I'm going to remove the years from the headings, it just clutters everything. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

This article doesn't seem to have a "Communication" section. I think it would be a worthwhile addition. Just a suggestion.Bless sins (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Disputed Capital" as leading sentence.

Given that the leading sentence is designed to summarize the entire article, don't you think that 'disputed capital' is a better lead than simply 'capital of Israel,' given the highly contentious nature of this and that the lead tends to read like a nationalist disgrace.

Crum375 noted that 'A sovereign country determines its own capital -- it can't be decided or imposed externally.' but to simply lead with what a sovereign nation determines leads to the nationalistic lead that I and others have a problem with. A sovereign nation intrinsically relies on its recognition of sovereignty, both wholly and over certain territories for it to be a sovereign nation. Given that no other sovereign nation recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and many academic articles mention that in the UN's eyes Jerusalem is not even a part of [sovereign] Israel.

So Crum375, I wonder if the United States, as a sovereign nation decided that Israel was a part of the United States, if that’s how we would lead with the Israel article. Something along the lines of Israel is a suzerain of the United States of America. Clearly, sovereignty is given by and relies on external powers, none of which in this case have recognised the legitimacy of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Further, sovereignty does not intrinsically bestow its holder with the ability to decide the view of the international community on places and incidents within or outside of their territory. Why does Wikipedia lead with such a misleading opening sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You should follow the footnote at the end of the lead sentence, and see that it is the capital by Israeli law. There is no other capital, since that can't be imposed externally. Crum375 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is named as the capital by the CIA world fact book.[1] Crum375 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Except that particular Israeli Law is disputed by the International Community. Why can't we mention that? Just because Israel decided this does not mean we should ignore what the rest of the world thinks about it in the lead of the article on Wikipedia. That leads to a nationalistic article. You know perfectly well that the recognition of a capital is imperative to it being such. If the United States of America declared Jerusalem as its capital, then is that what we'd say on Wikipedia? You know it is intrinsically reliant on recognition of other sovereign nations. None recognise it as such. In fact, it is extreemly misleading of you to call Jerusalem (entirely) a part of 'soveriegn israel,' as it is hardly so. No nation, at least that I know of, recognises Israel's sovereignty over the entirerty of Jerusalem, and according to the UN Israel has no sovereignty at all over any of Jerusalem, as the sovereign of Jerusalem was decided much earlier. Sovereign Israel, as far as I am aware anyway, is the Israeli state that was declared in 1948 within the borders set to it by the United Nations. If it isn't that, then it must be the Israel within Armistice lines that seems to be so internationally recognised. So, again, if the U.K. decided Paris was its capital, is that what we'd just say on wikipedia? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Your example of the UK declaring Paris as capital is misleading, because no-one recognizes Paris as British territory, while virtually the entire world recognizes Jerusalem, at least its western and by far largest part, as part of Israel. So clearly Israeli law applies to its own territory, and they can declare their own capital anywhere they want within it. Also, on Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, and the most reliable and most often used source for such information is the CIA world fact book, which clearly states Jerusalem is the capital. We do add a footnote explaining the issue, and the issue is discussed at length in the body and in a dedicated article. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You can open any dictionary, and look up the definition of "capital". It's something along the lines of "seat of government". As Israel's government, parliament, supreme court, etc, are located in Jerusalem, and it has been designated as capital by Israel - its the capital. okedem (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not any more misleading than misleading readers into believing Western Jerusalem and Jerusalem are the same thing. Israel, as not the sovereign over the whole of Jerusalem, cannot declare the whole of Jerusalem its capital. Further, given that it is so heavily disputed, you have not answered my question as to why we cannot inform the reader of such in the opening sentence, especially given that according to wiki policy it is ment to summarize the entire article. Plenty of reliable sources will also highlight the disputed nature of this, and plenty of other reliable and academic sources will declare Israel has no sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. So why can this sort of vital information not be mentioned, or are you just looking to decieve people and pass crude nationalist propaganda off as fact? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Okedem, which side of Jerusalem are they located in? Just because its seat of government was built there, the fact it is unrecognised and disputed in legal terms as the capital by the rest of the world as the capital cannot be mentioned? I dont disagree it is the capital, but you canot however deny that it is - in the rest of the worlds eyes - a disputed capital, now can you? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Colour, if you look at CIA factbook, you'll note that they say Jerusalem is the capital, and then they follow it with an explanatory note as to the specific situation. We do the same, except our footnote is on the word "capital", whereas it may make more sense to have the footnote at the end of the sentence, past the period. In any case, our goal is not to fight wars on WP, but to follow reliable sources, and that's what we do here. Crum375 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
CITM, I am joining the discussion here in spite of your groundless personal attack on me and Crum375 in the form of a "metapuppetry" accusation and report to the authorities. The preceding discussion (which is very long) convinces me that "disputed" isn't even the right word. By conventional definitions of what a "capital" is, as Okedem has reminded us, Jerusalem is the capital. The world at large may not approve, but that does not modify the status as capital. The fact that exceptions are taken is set forth in the endnote (iii). This is the structure worked out at great length and with great effort. There is no consensus for the change you have been making. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We have an entire paragraph dedicated to the dispute right in the lead. It was added at the request of some editors, who felt the dispute wasn't obvious enough. We also have an entire section in the article body discussing this issue. okedem (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, a prior discussion is not definitive, and Okedem's points are not by any means well sourced, but are based on inferences from a dictionary. If you look at the BBC you will note that it formally apologized for using the expression 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel'. JONNY PAUL, 'BBC sorry for calling Jerusalem capital of Israel', Jerusalem Post, Jun 15, 2007. If the BBC and Encarta are very careful not to repeat what is a piece of patter reflecting the Israeli government's POV, there is good reason for it. To use that phrase means to espouse one view as objective, and deny other views as irrelevant. The BBC is a RS if any. The question is why does the NPOV standard in Wiki not observe what other global sources of reliable information observe in regard to this question. There is no iron consensus on this, as one can see from the exchanges at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of IsraelNishidani (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone using a word like 'jew crew' as Cush has just done should be banned from Wiki for several months. I hope he is reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the common expression on internet fora for followers of Judaism and citizens of Israel who push for certain issues to be seen their way.

The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is not the internationally recognized capital of Israel. Its status is yet to be determinded in negotiations with a future Palestinian-Arab government of an independent and unoccupied Palestine. The personal opinions of Jews or Israelis who want to depict the situation in a way sympathetic to them, for obvious reasons, cannot dictate the content of an internationally accessible article on wikipedia. This is no pro-Israeli propaganda platform and if they want to post their minority opinion they should mark it as that. Cush (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is notoriously anti-Israel. I cannot see ussing them as a definitive source here. I'm also wondering, if Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, what city is? IronDuke 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Israel is code language for any source that does not reflect Israeli government policy, and meaningless jargon. True it has to cater to the sensitivities of a large Muslim population, unlike Israel and the United States, the only two countries which agree on everything the Israeli government proposes, but that simply means that the simple reflection of a standard ideological, ethnically-biased, or occidentalocentric mindset is no longer accepted as 'neutral'. The world changes, and we are not living in the naive monocular world of yesteryear, where power dictated the way news was slanted to mass audiences.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Though your post contains a fair amount of venom, I can see no coherent point in, or reason for, making it. Did you want to address what I in fact said? IronDuke 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My two cents: So if I think that Fox, CBS, etc. are notoriously anti-Palestinian, what sources are we left with? We all need to compromise a bit here. All news sources exhibit bias in one direction or another. We need to trust that we are capable of filtering out the spin and extracting the fundamental facts remaining regardless. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I myself would not rely on Fox News to be the sole determinant of whether Jerusalem was or was not the capital of Israel. I see the BBC come up a lot in these discussions, and often it's because they're a rich mine of anti-Israel bias. And again I ask: is Israel a country with no capital city? IronDuke 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The capital of Israel is inJerusalem. It's that simple, and the novel wording is required to avoid violations of both legal reality and NPOV rules.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That is your private interpretation, which is WP:OR. The reliably sourced version is that the capital is Jerusalem, per CIA factbook. There there are issues about recognition or other disputes, and that's mentioned in the note. Both the factbook and WP handle it in the same way, which is how it should be. Crum375 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me. You are administrator and should know what the rules mean. I made a suggestion as to an appropriate linguistic form which would surmount the evident difficulty in the POV phrasing under dispute. This is not a 'private interpretation'. The phrase 'The capital of Israel is Jerusalem' historically always meant, from when it was coined in 1948 down to 1967, West Jerusalem, since in that period East Jerusalem was Jordanian. Nothing I have said is an infringement of WP:OR, unless informing oneself of the history of a subject on contributes to is WP:OR, in which case we should leave the drafting of wiki articles to people who know little about the subject (actually that's not far from the truth all too often). Sigh Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The CIA factbook is one source. The BBC and Encarta is another. When good sources are in conflict, one is biased to favour one over the other. One mediates for a compromise. To favour one source over another reliable source is to show one's bias, and politics.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nishidani, as an administrator my opinion carries no extra weight, but I do know that we operate by consensus. In this case, there was a prolonged discussion about this specific issue, and the current language reflects consensus. If you'd like to change that consensus, the discussion would need to be broad and include many people. If they all (or a reasonable majority) agree to the change, then that can be done. In my own humble opinion, the CIA factbook is a very neutral source, unlike the BBC, for example that is not. Crum375 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that the CIA Factbook - operated by the same people responsible for covert international operations, and controlled by a government that generally supports Israel is more neutral than the BBC or one of the many other news sources that could be found that dispute Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?Colourinthemeaning (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(r to Nishdani) I have never heard of a situation in which a building was itself the capital of a country, and I know of no RS's that support this thesis. All countries have some city that they designate as their capital. Israel designates Jerusalem. That some take issue with their choice doesn't mean they haven't made one. IronDuke 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That might be true IronDuke, but there are also not many other cases of a declared Capital being unrecognised by the rest of the world. This is surely a vital piece of information that needs to be mentioned, and summarised in the lead. Without it, its just a nationlist page. Wikipedia is not here to, as Richard Falk would call this 'create facts'. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Crum375 Unlike many I discuss problems at great length before pushing what I think onto the page. There is now a very lengthy discussion underway over at the Wiki Palestine page on Jerusalem, the discussion is broad and intense. The CIA factbook does not care for the fine distinctions historical study requires. It tabulates data according to a schema. All countries have a capital. Israel is a capital. The entry for capital is Jerusalem. I know young people like this kind of quick lookup format, but in many cases it proves to be misleading, because the format in which the information is classified excludes by its criteria the sort of close distinctions historians, specialists, political analysts make.- If the CIA factbook were reliable, why is it that the Bush Administration, the most pro-Israeli administration in American history, made a formal statement countering Obama Barak's declaration that Jerusalem will remain an undivided city? The factbook simply doesn't count as significant for its ends other facts, such as the fact that in world political language, and in the US., it is not acceptable to affirm that Jerusalem is a unified city (the basis for Okedem's defence of the phrasing), since that prejudices Palestinian claims that part of the city does not form part of the state of Israel, and therefore in so far as it is not part of Israel, cannot, as an Arab sector, be qualified as part of the capital of Israel. This is obvious, but rejected because the political advantage of having the phrase is enormous. Once more, wiki is not a RS. By the way, the CIA is not a reliable source, to judge from Tenet's memoirs. The BBC reportage on the road to war was far more informative than anything we got from the CIA :)Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nishidani, the point was made by others above. Every country in the world declares its own capital. Some (or many) countries have disputes over their territory and other issues. But each country has a selected capital, and it is never dictated externally, they just decide on their own. That there are disputes about this is clear, and we note those disputes in an extensive footnote and elsewhere. The point again is: if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, then what city is? Crum375 (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a silly point, a country can only declare a capital within it's own borders. Jerusalem is occupied (world court has ruled). Germany could not have declared Paris it's capital during the occupation. Israel cannot legally declare Jerusalem as it's capital. The lead sentence is grossly misleading . I doubt there is a consensus for it. It needs changing. The footnote is accurate and perhaps ought to replace the lead sentence Domminico (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC).
The current phrasing achieved wide consensus, considering the footnote and the whole paragraph dealing with the dispute in the lead, which were added as a compromise position. Not only that, but the article, with this phrasing, passed extensive discussion towards FA status, and was voted FA with this phrasing.
I won't repeat the entire argument, you can read it here, in archives, and in other pages, but the gist of it is that as Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and declared as capital, it is, by definition, the capital, regardless of the legal points regarding Israel's control. Other editors dispute this, offering alternative interpretations to the usage of "capital". okedem (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Re to Domminico: yes, in fact, Germany could have declared Paris as its capital if it had wanted to. There might well have been resitance to this idea in the rest of the world, but that can't change the facts, any more than wishing Israelis didn't live in Jerusalem can eliminate their presence. You mights as well go to the Israel article and say "Israel is a disputed country." IronDuke 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Jew Crew"

Cush, to quote you from above:"That's the common expression on internet fora for followers of Judaism and citizens of Israel who push for certain issues to be seen their way." I'm assuming you mean by 'their way' a Palestinian-disappearing perspective. I should not have to explain to you that "Jew Crew" implies that all Jews share the same perspective or are in cahouts with each other working always towards the same aims coming from the same perspective. How ridiculous can such an implication get? Do you have any idea how different Jews can be from one another? (I, for example, am a follower of Judaism and a citizen of Israel, yet most of my efforts involve re-inserting legitimate Palestinian history and perspective that has been omitted or deleted, to balance out an exclusive Jewish perspective {which leaves us with inaccurate wiki entries}). "Jew Crew" not only suggests that all Jews are the same but points quickly to 'world Jewish conspiracy' theories (which I should not have to mention led to the displacement of the Jewish population of Europe and directly impacted Palestinian national aspirations in turn).

May I refer you to the cartoon on RolandR's page: "Nazis, Palestine don't need you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamaLoLeshLa (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as the shrug: "that's a common expression" - really, don't you think your 'logic' is a bit lacking? I just worked quite hard to 'explain' to administrators that 'Arab Israelis' may be in common usage, but it is not accepted by Palestinians in Israel. Many of the Israelis who were opposed to changing the term used your same 'logic.' (We finally managed to get the category "Arab Israelis" changed, through efforts to conduct a respectful discussion which assumed nothing of people's views based on their baqckground). The 'N-word' was also once in common usage, but this in no way justified public acceptance of the term.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One should not reply to people who use that vile antisemitic slang, but simply report them. I would, if I knew how to.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree, I think it's important for people to have a chance to change their attitude/approach before censuring them. They should then be monitored and if they repeat the offense, reported. I also believe that while much of the attitude behind dissemination of "Jew crew" is deep-seated, sometimes people have never engaged these issues, have never had a discussion with a Jew who does not deny Palestinian claims. Not that one assumes that minds can be changed, but, the benefit of the doubt should be a guiding principle.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That is antisemitic jargon, and if you have any experience of antisemites you will know that they are not readily amenable to changing their minds. The contempt and prejudice runs too deep. Try to change their minds, and they will secretly think you are part of the 'Zionist racket'. The only way to deal with people like that is to show them the door, and boot them in the arse as they go out Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've given Cush his chance, and after seeing his unapologetic and equally offensive reply, I am working at trying to report him.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest city

'The city has a history that goes back as far as the 4th millennium BCE, making it one of the oldest cities in the world.[5] '

History =prehistory. Major construction only began in the Middle Bonze Age (11-111), which on a global scale puts it into a middle range.

Actually, it is not, as popular literature says, anywhere near one of the oldest cities of the world, and the ref. is not reliable. Aharon Kellerman in his Society and Settlement: Jewish Land of Israel in the Twentieth Century 1993 p.122 is closer to the truth in arguing that Jerusalem is probably the oldest among current capital cities around the world (Not quite true. It's roughly on a par with Athens. Damascus beats it by two thousand years. Jerusalem is 10th on the List of oldest continuously inhabited cities, which has huge lacunae), cf.Damascus. Archeologically, Jericho sets the pattern for this list with an establishment around 9000 BC. Jerusalem comes several thousand years after that, and there are a very large number of continuously inhabited urban areas all over the world going back thousands of years earlier than Jerusalem's first substantial settlement. I suggest someone looks into proper academic sources to get this right.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the criterion is not how far away it is from the oldest, but in what percentile it lies among current cities. My guess is that it is easily within the oldest one percent of the total among larger cities, which would justify calling it "one of the oldest cities in the world." Crum375 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In what way? There are hundreds of cities known to predate Jerusalem. They just do not exist anymore. Calling it "one of the oldest still existing cities in the world." would be more accurate. Cush (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure where you get the "hundreds" of older cities. FWIW, it's number two on this list.[2] I am sure there are better sources, and they should be used, instead of our own speculations and hand waving. Crum375 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Egypt and Mesopotamia, and even the Levant, are full of older cities. They are just all gone now. And can I please see the evidence that puts a settlement (not city) there into the 4th millennium BCE? I would be surprised if there is any real evidence for it predating 2500 BCE or so. Cush (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


And googling around, you can see numerous reliably published references to Jerusalem as being one of the oldest cities.[3] Crum375 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Guesses are not appropriate. Check your google sources, book by book. Most are not up to snuff as sources on what is an archeological designation.Wiki, particularly on the links both you and and I posted, which are lamentably ill-informed, is not a Reliable Source. No hand-waving at all. Just a note that a ref. in there reflects a common cliché (not restricted to Jerusalem. Many seem to like the idea of calling their city, one of the oldest in the world. I've removed this kind of statement from at least one other page before). Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We are only claiming one of the oldest, not the oldest. So the burden of proof is much weaker, and is not well defined. For reasonable persons, if there are lots of references in published books calling it that, it would suffice. If you can find a good reference countering those claims by saying, "contrary to popular opinion, Jerusalem is not one of the oldest cities at all", then please provide it. Crum375 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kathleen Kenyon in her classic book Digging up Jerusalem only found, not a city, but an area of 4 and a half hectares on Mt.Ophel attesting to settlement around the Middle Bronze Age (11 and 111, to be exact). That's about 1800 BC, pretty late in Middle Eastern history. To get an idea, Hazor in the Galilee was almost 20 times bigger, and older. It's around that time that Jerusalem shows evidence of the beginnings of a walled city, much later than the early work on the Athenian acropolis, to note just one. Recent research shows that this flourished due to favourable climatic changes for some centuries, and then collapsed. For some centuries, as Israel Finkelstein and others show, the town was emptied, again because of environmental factors which mader ekeing out an existence there possible. It only began to revive as a small population centre around the Ist millenium. The 'oldest city' stuff is all out of 19thj century travel guides and religious.travel literature from the 19th century, that's when it started. Look at Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, India (some time back a sunken city dated to 7500 BC was found in Gujarat's Gulf of Cambay), China and Japan and you will find a good many sites that had a far earlier occupation, and are still occupied. Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Assuming all you say is right, it may need to be updated in the History section. Also, to remove it from the "one of the oldest" list, you'd have to show it's not within a reasonable percentile (a few percent tops) in age, or that there are reliable sources calling that common classification false. Again, the issue is not the specific age or how far down the list it is, but the percentile grouping, i.e. whether or not it is among the oldest X percent of cities, where X is small. Crum375 (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. A statement was made that is poorly sourced. The statement, being a technical statement of an archeological kind, requires grounding in some authorittive source from that discipline. It is not my burden to disprove what is dubious. It is the burden of those who would push this fragile and empty assertion into the text to provide a decent source. You talk of percentiles. That implies that there is a RS (and not just arbitrarily tweaked Wiki lists or amateur compilations one googles) which has actually looked into the argument, and made an appropriate analysis. Bring it up, if it exists. All sources I have consulted, for some months, are obviously full of lacunae, and therefore making percentiles based on dubious sources is a meaningless exercise. The argument can only stand if some authoritative source with archeological competence has drawn up a comprehensive up-to-date list on this theme. If you can point me to one, I'll examine it. In the meantime, what the Jerusalem article states is not sourced adequately to any informed authority.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
By your definition, any source that is not an archaeological authority would be dubious for this. I am not necessarily disagreeing with that, nor with your assertion that we don't have a reliable source showing the age-ranked list of cities of the world. But even if we did have such a list, to be reliable by your definition, every one of the entries would have to be certified by a recognized archaeologist, making it less likely to exist. So it boils down to common sense: We know that there are numerous sources that consider it among the oldest, and we have none that say it isn't on that list. Until we get a reliable source refuting all the other sources, it makes sense to accept them, especially since the term "among the oldest" is not scientific or well-defined, and effectively means "very old". Crum375 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We're writing an encyclopedia. Traditionally encyclopedias were written by experts in their field, and by people who didn't use commonsense, but a long competence in what constitutes good and bad sources, relevant from irrelevant information. Wiki is written by anonymous nobodies like myself, but we must keep in mind that the competition out there is what is written, in the Enc Brit. and elsewhere according to much superior standards, and by much more learned people, who actually know their subject, are trained in writing articles of quality at any level. That, at least for me, places us under an obligation to look at the best available documentation. In many of this area's articles, this is not done. People cite their favourite national story versions, newsprint by journalists, etc.
In one of those lists each city (a very selective list) is referred to a reliable source written by an expert, if I remember correctly. The Jerusalem entry is given as 2800 BC., and sourced to a general handbook puished by Eerdmanns. But in my own several decades of reading ancient history (my background is primaruily ancient languages) I have never met that figure anywhere. And I have, from memory read of many cities that do not figure in that list. It is eurocentric, for example, and ignores the Far East. So we have a poor source here, an apparently academic source for the list on Jerusalem, but I can't find any confirmation in the literature I know to corroborate it. I've employed the googling system youngsters enjoy, and only come up with highly generalistic remarks in middle brow publications. So there is no reliable source for the claim. It therefore should be on the agenda to find such a source. Otherwise the claim is just hype. As to 'among the oldest', many editors, with whom I agree, have often chucked out language like that though defended by a paraphrase, as a weasel word. Either one has a good source for a specifically formulated view, or one leaves the remark out of the text. Unless we do that, Wiki will remain an amateur's playground (and contionued to be banned as a RS for university student papers), and not a serious source.Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't disagree with most of your points about professionalism and I agree that we need to strive for the best possible quality. But I think in this case, adding the generic phrase "one of the oldest cities" is harmless. If you had a specific reliable source refuting it, by showing it is a hoax, and that actually it was founded in the middle ages, we would need to deal with it. However, given the fact that even by most conservative sources it is thousands of years old, and there being no known refutation to the widely repeated claim, I don't see a problem in keeping it. If you do care about this issue, I suggest you collect more sources and improve the history section. Crum375 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, it can stay or be chucked out at whiom, because there is no adequate criterion for saying whether it is pertinent or not. WP:RS establishes the only worthy criteria, and I can't see how the source given lives up to those. I note an extreme leniency in these matters. Try to slip in a poorly sourced generic statement that might endeavour to give a noble patina to Palestinians and their deep historical origins, and you have endless battles over RS. One more example of the systemic bias. But all I have done is drop a note on what I remarked on reading this article a year ago, but never troubled to comment on. I'm not surprised no one, among many well-informed editor.researchers, troubles to fix the formal defect. Why should they. High antiquity looks good, makes you feel good. So I've made my point, and will leave it at that, glancing in everynow and then to see if someone who edits here takes these things seriously. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page temporarily protected because of the edit war

Please discuss below this line. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For those who propose to change the lead: may I suggest you spend some time reading the archived discussions about this issue. It might then be difficult to sustain the claim that this intro section insufficiently reflects the concerns of those who reject "Jerusalem = Israel's capital". I doubt there will be consensus for a change on this issue; fortunately, it's a pretty good article and I don't think it will be harmed by a long period of protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
As you will, it's not that bad by Wiki I/P standards, but just the section on etymology is a complete mess, and inverts the normal practice for analysing etymologies, which in this case means (1)Egyptian hieroglyphic 19th-18th centuries BCE (2)Akkadian 14-13th century (3)Assyrian transcription 8th century (4) Hebrew assimilation. The folk etymologies are cute, but are hopelessly provincial and unscientific. The effect is to prioritize Jerusalem in Hebraic tradition, which cramps what little modern philological knowledge bearing on the etymology survives the ethnic folklore, so that the most important piece of evidence, from Egyptian hieroglyphic, attested more than 1000 years before the town name was assimilated into Hebrew, is given a line at the bottom of the section. Apart from these technical aspects, most of the Christian and Islamic history consists of a sparse set of dates and figures, sandwiched between the biblical and Israeli narratives.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I do wish someone would take the time to write about Jerusalem during the Islamic and Christian eras. The Hebrew Wiki just had a great FA about Jerusalem during the time of the Mameluks, and had I the time, I would have translated it. okedem (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)