Tariq, congratulations for pointing out a fundamental flaw in the anti-capital argument. It is a flaw that illustrates the level of prevarication and subterfuge of both sides of this argument. 

 It is absurd to say that using a dictionary definition to justify a lead is original research. It isn't (unless the editor is also the author of the dictionary). On the other hand, it is certainly a very flimsy justification. Dictionaries are not references that give in-depth analyses of all the linguistic, political, and legal ramifications of a word. The laconic dictionary definition of "capital" - "seat of government" - doesn't come near to defining all the constituents that make up a capital. 

 The anti-capitalists certainly know this. The trouble is that there is no clear policy against flimsiness, only against OR. So they have, completely artificially, attached the OR standard to the dictionary argument. For most of those arguing on this page (I hesitate to say all), this appeal to an irrelevant standard is simply a way of promoting their own political agendas. 

 The pro-capitalists are no better. They are perfectly aware that the dictionary definition does not capture the complexity of the term capital. Otherwise, why are they so adamantly against using what the dictionary considers synonymous - "seat of government"? The reason is clear: they believe that if they say "capital" loud enough and long enough, it will somehow become true. 

 No, it is clear that both sides are using specious arguments of policy to grind their own political axes. The complete lack of dedication to the principles of neutrality, as Wikipedia dreams of it, is glaring throughout this discussion. 

 If the sides could, for a moment, put aside their political zeal for a moment, the issue, I believe, could be easily resolved. But it seems that is asking too much of mere mortals.    

 :I'd like to request that you not repeat the characterizations and suggestions you made in your last two paragraphs. There are no doubt, I'm sure, people who hold their respective positions because of political zeal, but there are no doubt people who hold their positions because, after reading the opinions presented by those who disagree with them, still believe they're correct. 
 :Your own description of the two sides seems to more clearly get at the problem here. There is nothing in the dictionary (or in the general definition of a capital) that makes recognition a prerequisite for a city being a capital, but there's also nothing in the dictionary saying it isn't. Likewise, there is nothing in the dictionary (or in the general definition of a country) that makes recognition a prequisite for a region being a country, but there's also nothing in the dictionary saying it isn't. Yet, in the latter case, I'm sure most here would agree that without recognition, a country is nothing, and really is not a country at all. Does the same apply to capitals? Well, we have limited situations in which this is even a question, and unfortunately the primary situation is this one, coming in the context of a bitter, and ultimately stupid, conflict. I personally think the same standard does not apply to capitals, as there is something physical (e.g. government institutions, place of residence of the head of state) to denote the capital. But if one operates under the belief that a state (and we all agree Israel is one, right?) can be without a capital, then maybe one can believe that recognition is a pre-requisite for capital status. Okay. I don't believe that, but go ahead.  ''''''  

 A general question: is there any precedent for (which would justify) deleting the disputed sentence from the Lead, leaving the (undisputed) description given in the body of the article to explain the status of Jerusalem, until a more generally accepted form of wording is agreed on?      ←