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