Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 3

message: The name "Jerusalem" simply means "City of Peace".  I don't know why there is such an extensive discussion on this.
--steveajg 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Etymologically, it kind-of does (whether it ever will in any other sense is moot). However, the first element of the name does not just mean city, and when it does it is nuanced. Then there's that lovely possibility of a dual ending. These little things make the simple city of peace claim a little wobbly, not untrue, mind. --Gareth Hughes 15:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See an incomplete article on this at User talk:Zero0000/temp#Etymology of the name Jerusalem. --Zero 03:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the "Shalem" component of the name is probably derived from an old Canaanite deity's name. The "Yeru" component is unclear. It could mean "city of" in some ancient Semitic language (not in Hebrew, though, where the word is /`ir/ with Ayin), or it could mean "founded by". The resemblance between the name Shalem and the Hebrew word Shalom was probably the cause for the later popular etimology: "The City of Peace". drork 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yawn* we've been through this over and over. Shalim was an Ugaritic god so unlikely. Yeru doesn't mean founded unless one goes out of ones way to twist a verse in Job. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Inheritance of Peace" or "Complete Inheritance" Valley2city 16:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "Jerusalem" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Quite a few that I have read state the capital to be Tel Aviv. Ender 08:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Change by Wik

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

text: Was it "titular capital"? That sounds familiar... - Mustafaa 19:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinians and Jerusalem as capital

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. 
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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Why this issue is so hard

message: 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)
thread_title:  Occupied 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Psalms

message: 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)
replies: text: Where does it grant the president exclusive power to make foreign policy? - Nat Krause 04:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Krause 06:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  United States position 

message: 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)
thread_title:  City of David 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Edward Said was NOT born in Jerusalem

message: 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)
replies: text: The Magharba quarter was, indeed, a historically important area.  See Nur Masalha's description: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Maybe so. - Mustafaa 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Magharba quarter / slum

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  If so, Jerusalem#First_millennium should be edited accordingly... - Mustafaa 05:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vague phrases

message: 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)
thread_title: Other Arabic name

message: "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 1967 War.
Michael
: My first time here, please excuse any mistakes or problems... Part of the song is a lament
: for Jerusalem as it is under Jordanian rule - "the market square is empty" etc., and more was
: added later after the 6-day war. This much is pretty much general knowledge here and can be
: seen to some extent from the lyrics.
: Rachel/Athaclena --192.115.26.123 09:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jerusalem of Gold" (Yerushalayim shel zahav) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: In that case let's modify this sentence. Meursault2004 09:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Most of the Christians in Jerusalem were UN officials???!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Reorganization (Again)

message: Hi, it would be cool if someone could load up a map, where one can see what "Jerusalem" means for Arabs or Israelis - ergo: where are the boarders (pre and post Jerusalem Law), which nationalities live where, where is the fence/wall... I unfortunately wouldn't know where to find sources. Thanks--128.139.226.36 11:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Let's not talk about it; let's simply vote. We know the whys and wherefors, and we know that MoS does not say anything definite about this yet. Let the consensus here be binding until MoS has a guideline. The question: should this article use BC/AD or BCE/CE?
*BCE/CE --Gareth Hughes 19:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on era 

message: Don't lecture me.  6SJ7 03:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL :) Ramallite (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Ramallite 

message: To shorten this long article without affecting its quality, I'm thinking of moving this list into either a List of people born in Jerusalem or :Category:Born in Jerusalem. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I'd favor a category, but a list would be ok too.  --Zero 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against moving the list. This article is too politicized. It should have more content as this. I suggest keeping the names in the article reorganizing it in two columns. I favor the category. gidonb 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in Jerusalem 

message: I have again edited the last sentence of the first paragraph (the one about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, which it is) to acknowledge that there is a dispute about Israel's right to have its capital there, while removing the irrelevant information about what other countries recognize or don't recognize.  I have also deleted the sentence about the "law" supposedly passed to declare Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state.  Reading the article cited as a source reveals several discrepancies with the sentence that was in the article.  Once it is corrected, a place could be found for it lower down in the article.  A fact that is this trivial does not belong in the introduction.  6SJ7 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro section 

message: I am requesting that the History section have its own page. The current Jerusalem page is over 70kb long; moving the History section to its own page would cut down on the size of this article. joturner 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Give it a short lead in the Jerusalem article, and split it off.  Tomertalk 10:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the section has been spun off to History of Jerusalem (whence it appears much of the content actually was at one point)... Please touch up my "intro".  :-)  Tomertalk 06:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split to [[History of Jerusalem]] 

message: Given that the article is twice the recommended upward article size, I'm recommending that this section also be spun off.  The Jerusalem article has sufficient potential for growth on its own, and both the History of Jerusalem and my proposed Jerusalem in Religion splits have the potential to grow to 32k themselves...  Given the size of both of the current proposed "split-off" sections vis-à-vis the size of the present article without both of them, I think this additional split proposal will give all 3 articles the ability to grow for some time without much editorial conflict or repetition.  Gedächte?  Tomertalk 10:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, the section has been spun off to Religious significance of Jerusalem ... Please touch up my "intro".  :-)  Tomertalk 06:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split to [[Jerusalem in Religion]] 

message: The BBC website is more impartial than the other 3 in the section 'Status of the city'. It is relevant and was removed without reason by User:Rich Farmbrough. If any websites should be removed from this section, the 3 'biased' ones should go, not this one. Discuss. MP   (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC website - Status of the City 

message: I've removed the sentence which people seem to be fighting over. The issue is discussed in more detail in the article. MP   (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem (capital or not) 

message: I had previously moved this emblem to the section "Status as Israel's capital" where I gathered it would be more neutral/relevant, since the status of all this is disputed. It has been moved back. Do people really think it's neutral  to have it at the top? Just curious.... Ramallite (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that would be a better position. Also, I have edited the intro to mention Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. Palmiro | Talk 14:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to further national and international politization of this article, by all parties. This is a symbol of the local governement in Jerusalem. The article is already far too political and tells very little about the city and its people. gidonb 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a city is contested between two parties, putting the municipal symbol adopted by one party (or, if you like, the symbol of the local government established in Jerusalem by a party whose right to do so is contested) at the top of the article is itself a pretty political act. If you do indeed object to the politicization of the article, I would suggest that taking it out or moving it to a more appropriate location would be a good first step to combatting that. Palmiro | Talk 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you are missing the point. Just because one side controls Jerusalem doesn't make its symbolism neutral. Palmiro | Talk 14:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: Among the "another few things" the municipality does is routinely demolish Palestinian homes because of lack of permits  (sorry, you won't find these stories on CNN). The municipality is responsible for issuing building permits, and routinely (and admittingly) denies them to non-Jews. It is responsible for the overcrowding of the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem because of denial of new housing permits, and the lack of basic services (including shit-piping) to Palestinian homes already built. It has also been criticized for not having any Palestinian council members, but that is because most Palestinians don't vote in municipal elections precisely because they do not recognize its authority over them which has done more harm than good. So those who want to argue that the emblem at the top is NPOV also need to think of a better reason to do so. Ramallite (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See also the comments by 6SJ7 below. The article in its current state is a disgrace for Wikipedia. It is all about international politics, hardly about Jerusalem. gidonb 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - this conversation was only about the neutrality of the municipal emblem at the top of the article, nothing more. I have no objection to anything you said above, but it's off topic to the heading of this section. You actually ignored the topic of the emblem entirely, so I gather you think it is NPOV where it is? I was just responding to your sentence "Therefore its symbol is an excellent description of the current situation in Jerusalem" - because it is not exactly clear what you mean (nor is saying "The City of Jerusalem demolishes illegal structures built by Jews and Arabs" fair because permits are denied to non-Jews routinely but to Jews very rarely). But I digress - it would be nice for this article to be more about the city itself (although doing it neutrally will be a challenge due to constant POV stances). I must say that I do take slight offense to your stating "I am sure that in every chapter you will add the criticism..." - am I known to you for filling up articles with criticisms??? Maybe it is you who have me mistaken for somebody else?? No, the reason I became active at Wikipedia is to add some humanity to these articles (especially to the Palestinian side which is severely lacking) but I am not in the business of demonizing the Israeli side as many do to the Palestinian side. You'd have a perfectly nice article on a Palestinian city with history and culture and them some knight in shining armor will come and drop in a WHOLE section taken from a deceitful propaganda web site about how that city is infamous because Ahmed the klezmer-hating narcoleptic ice cream vendor was caught at an Israeli checkpoint outside the city carrying a home-made rectal device that can blow up army tanks with high frequency sound waves AND was also carrying two-dozen leaflets calling for a holy war against the Israeli manufacturers of aluminum-plated toilet paper holders. Sorry, I don't do that. Not me. I will NPOV any political / nationalistic Palestinian or Israeli rhetoric I see, and I will also add the Palestinian perspective where it is lacking. But I do not normally go around looking for places where criticisms are warranted and add them; there are plenty enough people who do that sort of thing, and I prefer not to get involved. Ramallite (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you convinced me that you have the same objectives, now lets convince the others that this article really needs a change. With everyone's permission I am going to toss around some texts between the main article and sub-articles. gidonb 23:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Municipal emblem at the top of the article 

message: The article currently states: "The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as the capital of a future Palestinian state. In 2000 the Palestinian Authority passed a law designating East Jerusalem as such, and in 2002 this law was ratified."
I am not sure as to the basis on which "East Jerusalem" rather than "Jerusalem" is cited here, and it doesn't seem to be borne out by either of the sources given. Certainly, the Palestinians have laid no claim to West Jerusalem and their negotiating position has entirely related to East Jerusalem, but all the legal references are to an unqualified "Jerusalem". Can anyone offer any thoughts/clarifications? Palmiro | Talk 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian claims/aspirations 

message: I have reverted or altered most of the entries that occurred over the past few days regarding the Palestinian position:
*"which has been administered by Israel since 1967 and has large Jewish and Arab populations". This is misrepresentative, as there was a purging of indigenous Palestinian Jews and Arabs from eastern and western Jerusalem by Jordan and Israel respectively. In 1967, there were no Jews in most of East Jerusalem, and those that have since moved there are considered settlers by the international community. Rather than go into all this in the intro, better to just leave it out.
*This talk about the 'official' Palestinian position being that the Palestinian capital should be in the Jerusalem 'urban areas' is mere opinion by a few and not an official position, and I have modified it to be more accurate and NPOV. There is no official (or even unofficial) Palestinian position that excludes the relevant parts of the Old City.
*"reflecting a general aspiration among Palestinians to establish their capital there" is redundant language as it is already mentioned in the sentence before it. 
*The paragraph beginning with "Since the late 1990s, a consensus has been developing in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion...." is inaccurate. There is no such consensus that leaves out the Old City at all. This is partly why the Camp David summit on 2000 failed. It is absolutely incorrect to refer to, among other things, the construction of the separation wall within Palestinian areas as reflecting some sort of 'consensus' between the two sides as opposed to a unilateral act by Israel. Nobody disputes that!  I have modified this paragraph, deleting a large part of it.
Ramallite (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits regarding the Palestinian position

message: The intro of this article has been turned into a terrible mess.  I am not necessarily blaming any particular person or any particular "side" (partly because I do not feel like delving into all the different versions and figuring out who made the edits that brought us to this point.)  I do not see why it cannot be something much more simple, such as this version [] or this version. []  Both of them were compromises.  Either would be much preferable to the current fiasco.  I hesitate to just do the edit myself because I know it will just be reverted or otherwise edited by one of the many POV-mongers on this issue.  6SJ7 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, further to 6SJ7's points and the discussion with Ramalite I have made some changes in the intro and in virtually all chapters of this article. We still need many more texts for the article to be about Jerusalem and not about the Jerusalem question. I have dumped these texts temporarily in the article positions on Jerusalem. I am sure that many more discussions on a better name and structure will follow. This is just the beginning. gidonb 09:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not climb on the wall by the deep movements of texts out of the article, I would like to move some texts back, also on the status of Jerusalem (religious, capital, territorial) and the history of Jerusalem. For the history chapter I have not moved anything in or out, as the history article is a mess. Perhaps I will find some better texts for the current status over there. gidonb 10:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have added some more neutral content to the intro. Please do not revert, but continue editing where I stopped. I worked already many hours by now. Further tomorrow. gidonb 10:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and other new texts

message: I removed the "Israelis" Template from the front of the article because 
1. It is large in size and consumes a large part of the introductory space.
2. It provides no information related to Jerusalem.
We better have a small link to Israel portal or to this template at the front, or put large things somewhere in a proper place down. --Thameen 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a common template for Israel. Surely it belongs to the article of the State's capital. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is and I agree 100%. I do not mean offense. But as I said. It is big and in this big frame I do not see any information about Jerusalem. It serves only as a link, so we can put a small link to the Israeli portal there. But to put all this big frame on the chest of the article is no good formating. I do not agree to it staying there. --Thameen 22:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you explain exactly what do you mean "no good formating"? Does it break format? Only in this article or everywhere it is included? Or you just don't like it here? Sorry, only questions this time. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a good will gesture, I have moved the template down to section Jerusalem#Jerusalem as Israeli capital. I've also rearranged the images into galleries (and added some more) in hope this would improve the formatting. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you very much. Thats very nice indeed. Ur way of doing things makes me like wikipedia. --Thameen 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Israelis Template 

message: I've read that the Alstom Citadis will be operating on the new system when it is opened, was a French Tram chosen for political reasons?Myrtone@Jerusalem.com.au
:Why would Israel choose products from a country that treats it horribly as part of its foreign policy? What kind of sources do you have to back up your suspicion? JFW | T@lk 16:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light-Rail/Tramway 

message: I copied these out of the concise history section where they do not belong. Perhaps they can be used elsewehere. The texts are not mine. gidonb 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Positions on Jersualem

message: There is a sentence in the History section that says:  "According to Jewish mythology and tradition, Jerusalem was founded by Shem and Ever, ancestors of Abraham."  In the separate article History of Jerusalem the exact same subject is rendered as follows:  "According to one Jewish tradition, it was founded by Abraham's forefathers Shem and Eber."  Even assuming that "mythology" is an appropriate word to use in connection with an existing religion, I do not think the use of "mythology" here is correct. (Other than that, although they are worded differently, the two sentences mean exactly the same thing, though there needs to be one spelling of Eber/Ever, and since the title of his article is Eber, this article probably should use that spelling as well.  Also, I don't think the word "one" is necessary in the other article.)  "Mythology" (again assuming it would ever be appropriate in this context) implies something theological, supernatural or mystical, which is not the case here.  We are talking about two human characters in the Bible, and whether they founded a city, which is apparently what it says in the Midrash (or at least that's what's implied when I click on "tradition" in both sentences, and it takes me to the article on "Midrash.")  Shem and Eber may or may not have actually existed, but "mythology" incorrectly implies that we know they didn't.  I suppose the word "legend" could be put in there instead of "mythology" and would be slightly more accurate, but I think the word "tradition" handles the issue well enough on its own.  "Tradition" tells the reader that we don't really know whether the events described later in the sentence actually occurred or not.  So I will either just delete "mythology and", or replace this sentence with the one from the other article, without the word "one," unless anyone objects.  6SJ7 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for housekeeping purposes:  This comment has been addressed.  The day after my comment, someone made an edit that removes "mythology" and streamlines the whole sentence, which is appopriate given that people wanting more detail can read History of Jerusalem.   6SJ7 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Jewish mythology"

message: I just want to explain my edit of just now, that removed a mention of the Jerusalem as capital of Israel from the lead paragraph. Few people have been as insistent as I have that the first paragraph of this article state that Jerusalem is the capital.  However, there is no need to say it twice in one paragraph.  Whoever keeps putting this fact into the first sentence, please note that this fact is already in the lead, a bit lower down, as part of a sentence that I believe I wrote, which acknowledges that there is a dispute over this designation, while at the same time containing a clear statement that it is the capital.  I edited this into the lead months ago as a compromise, and it has help up fairly well.  Although a few people have tried to unbalance the sentence, it has always been reverted to its balanced form, usually not by me.  The assertion that it is the capital, without acknowledging a dispute, while well-intentioned, always seems to invite a lot of nonsense that results in the fact not being in the lead at all.  So I think it's pretty good the way it is right now.   6SJ7 03:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital 

message: You have put that Jerusalem is the holiest city to Jews, with a special segnificance to Christians and Muslims. Jerusalem dousent just have a significant role in Christianity, it is the holiest city in Christianity.
::For this article to be taken seriously something must be said about Jerusalem's importance to Christianity. Unfortunately, the fact that this information was not included from day one indicates a complete lack of respect by not only the writers of the article, but Wikipedia in general. I've noticed errors on this site before, but this is rediculous.--MedievalScholar 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem is the holiest city in Christianity 

message: Should there not be an article for 'West Jerusalem' in its own right? Surely even irredentist israelis would acknowledge that there existed between, say 1949 and 1967, an urban entity seperate from East Jerusalem? The example of West Berlin suggests that there is a precedent for mainting the historical record for such an entity even after unification (by whatever means). Boldymumbles 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How was it a separate entity, other than the fact that there happened to be an armistice line (a temporary one, as it turned out) running through the city?  West Berlin is a bit different not because it was a separate entity, but because of the historical events concerning it.  If the Soviets had not built the Berlin Wall, and there had been no need for airlifts, and JFK and Ronald Reagan had not made their famous speeches there, and the Soviets/East Germans had let people cross the border freely, I doubt there would even be a separate article on West Berlin today.  Approaching 20 years after reunification, the former separation of the city would probably rate a paragraph in the article on Berlin.  6SJ7 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It was a separate entity because it was adminstered by a different legal authority (the Israeli state), and effectively existed separate from East Jerusalem as there was little or no traffice or trade between the east and the west. This is correct? Additioanlly, in legal terms the two 'halves' of the city are of different status in international law. While East Jerusalem has, subsequent to 1967 been 'annexed' by Israel (I know there is some debate over the actual technical/legal procedure), and is de facto treated as a part of Israel by the Israeli state, the status of the west of jerusalem is not disputed in the same way. Thirdly, does west jerusalem not deserve its own entry even as a specific part of jerusalem with its own character and peculiarities, much like any other sub-section of any other city in the world? It seems that there is an ideological, non-neutral pov logic to not provide an entry for west Jerusalem, i.e. if no difference is acknowledged then the Israeli claim to the entirety of Jerusalem is presumed.Boldymumbles 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding your question, West Jerusalem was not the controlled by Jordan. That point makes us little bit confused that Jerusalem is whether capital of Israel or Palestine. In my opinion, East Jerusalem is in West Bank which is Palestinian Authority, although East Jerusalem is dominated by Israel now. So, Israeli still argued about East Jerusalem to make their own land cause they don't want that city is separated. Before Israel was established, Jordanian occupied West Bank include East Jerusalem. But Palestine is not promised land. But They still have to make compromise on Jerusalem. Which means They need to negotiate with each other(Between Israel and Palestine). But, They have no idea what West Jerusalem is called. Anyways, East Jerusalem is Israel's land I guess. *~Daniel~*  ☎ 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever happened to that place called 'West Jerusalem' or 'western Jerusalem'? 

message: According to the Israel page Jerusalem is Israel's largest city but in terms of population Tel Aviv is larger...could this be clarified?--Vihrea 05:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is talking about the amount of land it takes up.  tel aviv take up 50.6 km² while Jerusalem takes up 123 km².  Jon513 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, You are right. Jerusalem is largest city in Israel. But many people live in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem. *~Daniel~*  ☎ 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When refering to the population of Tel Aviv, it is important to distinguish between Tel Aviv itself, and the whole metropolis, known in Israel as Gush Dan, and abroad simply as Tel Aviv. I think that in some foreign publication the population figures refer to the whole metropolis. Drork 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying "Jerusalem is Israel's largest city" states that Jerusalem is in Israel - this does not represent a worldwide view. Jebus1 06:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you're wrong. saying jerusalem is israel's capital and largest city is a fact and should be the opneing sentence like every capital in the world in wikipedia's article. whether that fact fits the international law wishes or not is a seperate question. Amoruso 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. Jebus does not have the right or authority to deprive Israel of its sovereign right to establish its capital wherever it wants. There is plenty in the article and elsewhere about the controversy surrounding Jerusalem. --Leifern 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nicely said, I think that settles it. Also IMO this is simply a matter of style. I looked at almost every capital article on wiki (!) and it all has that opening line of "capital of" and includes "largest city" if it is indeed so . There's no reason to deprive this one article of wiki style on capital articles. Amoruso 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Should we change the wording so there is no implication of greatest population. And Jebus, just because it may be considered controversial, doesn't mean that it isn't fact. Other people may make claim over the city, but the fact remains that the sovereign State of Israel is currently (and God-willing eternally) in control of an undivided Jerusalem as its eternal capital. I can be as biased as I want in talk pages, right? Valley2city 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest City?

message: Really unhappy about the POV that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it the introduction. I don't think this represents a world wide opinion as only a few countries recognise this (Israel, El Salvador, Costa Rica and US being the only ones I can think of). I therefore believe the strength of the sentence should be reduced to something like Jerusalem is considered to be the capital of Israel or Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city (as worded by the UK foreign office:
[UK FCO page on Isreal]) --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of the definition of Capital does Jerusalem fail to meet? Jon513 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being actually in the country, but my point is that most of the world does not recognise Jerusalem as the capital and therefore this is an opinion (I'm not saying that it isn't the capital nor am I saying that it is - I am saying that is is an opinion that Jerusalem is that capital) --Ptclark 11:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been debated to death. Pls. see archives. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Except for those that say Israel has no right to exist, does anyone claim that west Jerusalem is not part of Israel (that is west Jerusalem has been part of Israel since 48)? Jon513 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is irrelavent, if you read the link I put up above (as an example) you will see that the UK doesn't recognise Jerusalem as the capital and therefore it is a POV that Jerusalem is the capital. As Humus says though, been debated to death and we will never reach a consensus. --Ptclark 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerusalem, or at least its western part, is definitely the de facto capital of Israel. Jerusalem is the venue of all nationwide political and administrative activities. Foreign embassadors and delegates have to drive all the way from Tel Aviv (where their embassies are located) to Jerusalem in order to deal with the Israeli government. I think the only exception to that is the Minisry of Defense which is located in Tel Aviv. This reality is not recognized by the international community, which is why the foreign embassies are based in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan and Mevaseret Tzion. This is the reality and this is how it should be described in this article. It is a bit like the status of Northern Cyprus - no country but Turkey recognizes it officially, but no one can deny that there is a functioning state there. drork 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed - but worldwide opinion should be notedJebus1 07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Please see Israel-Venezuela relations and Israel-New Zealand relations. They could both use the perspectives of Israelis. There appears to be a revived movement to merge the Israel-Ven relations page into Foreign relations of Venezuela so I urge other users to vote against this. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This message belongs to Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics, not here. I took the liberty to copy it over there. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations pages

message: The article says that the official Israeli name in Arabic is أورشليم Urshalim. This is not accurate. The name Urshalim is the one used in the Arabic translations of the Bible. The official name in Arabic used by Israeli authorities is أورشليم القدس Urshalim-Al-Quds, i.e. a combination of the Judeo-Christian name and the Muslim name. You can see the use of the official Arabic name here, in the official Arabic site of the Jeruslaem municipality. Drork 21:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I assume that this silence means agreement to the change? Drork 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should list both Urshalim and Al-Quds. I agree to that. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't my point. My point is that Urshalim is simply alternative name in Arabic, which is not common except in certain texts. The official Israeli name in Arabic is Urshalim-Al-Quds (see the official municipality website in Arabic I brought above). This coalesced name is indeed unique and used only by Israeli authorities and Israeli official media. Drork 03:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urshalim vs. Al-Quds 

message: The actual meaning of the Hebrew name Yerushalayim is not known. There are several speculations about that. The most convincing one is that the city's name was originally derived from the name of the Canaanite deity Shalim. This way or another, if we wish to avoid speculations, then the interpretation "heritage of peace" or "heritage of Shalim" is very unlikely. Indeed the Hebrew word Yerusha could mean "heritage", however, the name was not coined in Hebrew (it is too ancient), and this "clip-compounding" morphology (allegedly: Yerusha+Shalim >> Yerushalim >> Yerushalayim) is alien to the Semitic morphology. Drork 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pronunciation as Yerushalayim is late from the time of the Masoretes, Greek and Latin transliteration suggests that it was pronounced Yerushalem earlier. Yerusha + shalem becoming Yerushalem is very plausible especially if this was a deliberate invention. The name in the Amarna texts was Urshalim which is understandable as cognate of Hebrew Ir-Shalem - City of Shalem / Peace. The later Yerushalem would then be a deliberate alteration or reinterpretation of the name and when names are deliberately altered as opposed to evolving normally any sort of weirdness can happen - just think of English nicknames. Similar deliberate changes to the name are seen later in the Greek form Hierosalem instead of Ierosalem where Iero- has been reinterpreted as Hiero- meaning sacred. And again in Norse Jorsala where -salem has been been reinterpreted as -sala meaning temple/hall again changes that are not normal grammar or evolution. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of "Yerushalayim" 

message: Setting aside for a moment the utter illegality, flagrant immorality, and blatant antisemitism of denying Israel its right to designate its own capital, it is certainly accurate to write that it is Israel's capital, then follow it up with mention of the controversy. The implication of doing otherwise would be to imply that Israel has no capital, which may be the intent of some people, but not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Leifern 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the offical new intro template for capitals - I changed Tehran too. Iran does not maintain diplomatic relations with either the United States or Israel and has disputes with several more countries, therefore soverignity is disputed. Amoruso 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital and largest city 

message: Jebus1, quit your vandalism right now. Jerusalem has 724,000 inhabitants; Tel Aviv 379,000; Haifa 267,800; Beer Sheva 185,500. 65% of Jerusalem's inhabitants are Jews. Meaning we end up with 470,600 Jews in Jerusalem. So even then, Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel, both in population and in surface. Stop your vandalism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a nonsensical argument: there are 470,600 Jews in Jerusalem therefore it is in Israel. Does this mean that New York is in Israel too?Jebus1 09:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you simply write: "According to Israeli definitions, Jerusalem is the biggest city in Israel, otherwise Tel Aviv is the biggest Israeli city"? drork 13:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need. There is a motive for confusing definitions here and it's not needed. Whether or not Israel controls Jerusalem according to international law or not is irrelevant. International Law is an interesting sphere but it's not to be over rated in every single sentence. It is an ambiguous sphere and it doesn't change facts on the ground. Israel controls Jerusalem and has population in it, and this is a fact. Any discussion on politics or law can involve the question of recognition and so on, but not a basic fact written in introduction of a city. Amoruso 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct. I expect nothing else from Jebus1 other than immediately ending this vandalism. I live in Jerusalem, and when I walk around here, I most definitely do not feel that I am in Palestine. I see Israeli flags, Israeli cars, Israeli buses, stores with Hebrew letters, etc. I do not quite understand how some people call this 'Palestine'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as someone who lives in Tel Aviv, and suffers from the common "Jerusalem-phobia" (there is no map that can describe the road network there), I don't visit Jerusalem that often, and yet I do know that some neighborhoods in the distant eastern or northern parts of the city don't seem so Israeli. Some of these neighborhoods weren't part of Jerusalem, neither Israeli nor Jordanian Jerusalem, before 1967. When quoting the official statistics about Jerusalem, it is worth while mentioning that it is based upon official Israeli definitions of municipal borders and permanent resident status. drork 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who lived in both, I can tell you that Jaffa seems far less Israeli than any part of Jerusalem and yet it's included in the statistics of Tel Aviv. Amoruso 05:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel575, who said anything about 'Palestine'?  I am not disputing any de-facto control by Israel or trying to promote a Palestinian agenda. Drork has some helpful suggestions, although there is no need to mention Tel Aviv since this is an article on Jerusalem. Something like: "According to national statistics/census figures...cite.. Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel". This would be a factual statement and does not challenge legitimacy.Jebus1 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Thanks for bringing a workable solution. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jebus1' edits

message: Why not change the infobox to one like Haifa so a picture can be added together with the emblem? Amoruso 02:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: It is depressing to see that after such exhausting amounts of debate we have ended up with such a POV introduction. There is a very simple rule that should guide us here: Nothing should be stated as a fact or implied to be a fact unless it is near-universally accepted to be true. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (WP:NPOV). Much has been said on this page about the definition of "capital"; this is not relevant. For Wikipedia to define for the World what a  "capital" is would be original research. What is relevant is the definition of "fact". Because it is far from universally accepted that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, we should not state it as a fact. Period.
The present introduction states "Jerusalem... is Israel's capital [implying that it is a universally accepted fact that it is the capital] and largest city [implying that it is a universally accepted fact that Jerusalem in its entirety is an Israeli city], and uses the phrase The status of the united Jerusalem, which implies that a united Jerusalem exists as a matter of accepted fact, with merely its status subject to debate.    It goes on to say that Jerusalem's status... as Israel's capital is not widely recognised by the international community, which is a blatantly misleading understatement, since not a single nation has recognized such a status. Stating that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial is also an understatement: "widely condemned" would be closer.
For some fresh air, it may be helpful to step back and look at how others – fellow Wikipedians writing in other languages – have attempted to deal with the same issue. Here are a few leads from some languages that I can attempt to translate:
French:
:Jerusalem... is a middle-eastern city which has a dominant place in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, and in Israeli and Palestinian national sentiment. The state of Israel has declared unified Jerusalem as its "eternal capital". This designation is not accepted by the international community. East Jerusalem is also claimed as capital of a potential future Palestinian state.
Swedish:
:Jerusalem... is since 1949 the de facto capital of Israel, a status that has met weak international recognition. Most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.
German:
:Jerusalem... is the capital of the state of Israel. The presidency and... are located there.
:East Jerusalem was conquered during the six-day war and annexed in 1980 by a constitutinal amendment. The annexation is condemned as illegal by the international community and is therefore not recognized. There are thus international reservations about the extensions of Israeli rights to the eastern parts of the city and the expansion of the city boundary (and thereby the status as capital) to the east. The Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city as capital of a future Palestinian state.
Italian:
:Jerusalem... is located...enormous historical and geopolitical importance... symbolic place for... Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
:The international governance originally called for by the UN for the city of Jerusalem (corpus separatum) was never realized. Actually, the international community considers East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, in the sense of the IV Geneva Convention, while the state of Israel considers East Jerusalem an integral part of its own territory, although it does not recognize citizenship rights of its inhabitants. The state of Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital since 1950 and introduced legislation to this effect in 1980, but no other UN member state recognizes this, and most countries maintain their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv, the economic and financial center of the country.
None of these leads are perfect either, but I hope it is clear by contrast how biased the present English Wikipedia article comes across. For example, note that three of those four leads chose to avoid stating that Jerusalem "is" the capital.
I would think that anybody who actually wants a NPOV article should be able to agree on a policy of simply not stating as a fact anything that is at all debated. We don't need to state that Jerusalem "is" the capital, we can stick to universally agreed facts, such as what the Israli, Palestinian, and UN positions are. We don't need to imply that all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel; we can easily formulate any population information etc. without falling into this trap.
To be NPOV, we must also mention in the lead Palestinian as well as Isreali claims to Jerusalem. And we cannot gloss over the international condemnation of the annexation (nor should we affirm that condemnation, we should merely report it fairly). --mglg(talk) 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Wikipedia does define what a capital city is -- not for the "World", but just for Wikipedia.  I have never read it before just now, and the first sentence needs some rewriting, but the upshot of the "Capital" article is that a capital is the seat of a country's government.  And so Jerusalem is, indisputably -- all three branches of the Israeli government are headquartered in Israel, and Israel says that Jerusalem is its capital.  Nothing more is required.  What is disputed is whether Jerusalem should be the capital, but that is a different issue.  By the way, the "Capital" article lists Jerusalem under "Unorthodox (ha ha) capital city arrangements", which seems pretty fair.  As for what this article should say, I have in the past written two different compromises for the first paragraph, both of which consisted of a separate sentence (at the end of the paragaph) stating that Israel is the capital but recognizing the dispute.  Unfortunately, the former consensus to keep it that way apparently vanished a month or two ago, and I got tired of changing it, so I stopped.  The result is the current unqualified statement about Israel being the capital.  I do feel strongly that Israel should be identified as the capital in the first paragraph, because it is.  6SJ7 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you wish to change here - the version is exactly the same as the German version and others. It says it's the capital and still in the intro it says "The status of the united Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem), and Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is particularly controversial.". Nothing more clear than this. Amoruso 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, they are exactly the same? So you wouldn't mind if I substituted one of the others? mglg(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, ours is still better. Amoruso 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you like to dismiss opinions of entire continents, you may wish to reconsider whether you ought to participate in international efforts like Wikipedia. English-language Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia that should reflect a global perspective. --mglg(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll take that into account. Wikipedia doesn't have to be biased like the U.N which is a political forum and this on the other hand is an encyclopedia. We deal with facts, not with anti Israel opinions advocated by political groups. Amoruso 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN is indeed a political forum. A forum where almost all states in the world are represented.  Even Israel. Expression of opinion that disagrees with Israeli opinion is not anti-Israeli and nor is it inherently biased. Jebus1 10:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having one Jewish state in the U.N while having 22 Arab states and giving 1 vote each is a bias to begin with. You can read the article on criticizm of U.N, this system is obviously flawed. Amoruso 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One state (of small population) with a very powerful ally as a permanent member of the security council vetoing any decision contrary to its interests. Jebus1 08:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously that ally didn't vetoe enough S.C res. since half of them address Israel more or less. Israel is the only country not invinted to be a part of this S.C at one point or another. Amoruso 08:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. This is not a political debate. This is a debate about facts and how they should be presented. Once you use the term "capital city" you commit yourself to a certain definition, you cannot avoid that. Let us take an example which is less politically charged. Here is the definition of Amsterdam in the intorduction to the article: "Amsterdam, the official capital of the Netherlands". The fact is that none of the government institutes of The Kingdom of the Netherlands is located in Amsterdam, and yet the article still defines it as an "official capital". The Hague on the other hand is defined as the third largest city in the Netherlands and "the seat of government". Jerusalem is in fact both the declared capital of Israel and the seat of the Israeli government. There is a UN resolution which rejects that, and all foreign embassies are located outside Jerusalem, and yet all foreign delegates and officials come to Jerusalem to meet with Israeli officials and to attend official ceremonies. The facts on the ground do suggest that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It should be pointed out in the introduction, though, that this status is internationally contested and that there are Palestinian claims to this city. drork 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant question is not whether it is true that Jerusalem "is" the capital, or a wholly Israeli city at all, but whether these things are universally accepted, which they very obviously are not. 210.255.218.52 11:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the goal of Wikipedia is to present facts rather than beliefs or aspirations. Therefore I find your remark rather peculiar. drork 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read the beginning of this section. Yes, the goal of Wikipedia is indeed to present "facts". And this, again, is how Wikipedia defines a "fact": "By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute' (WP:NPOV). If there is any disagreement about something, it is a particular POV and should not be presented as a fact on Wikipedia. Even things that the author can prove to be true (!) cannot be presented as facts unless there is  near-universal agreement about them. If this policy is unclear to you, please read WP:NOR which explains it clearly. Since there very obviously is no global agreement that Jerusalem in its entirety belongs to Israel, we must not state directly or indirectly that it is. Period. Therefore we cannot state that it is "the capital and largest city of the State of Israel", because saying so implies that it belongs, in its entirety, to the State of Israel. And there is no reason to make any such statement: we can convey the actual situation with similar brevity and and much higher precision by explaining that Israel claims it as its capital. --mglg(talk) 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since there has  been no improvement in a month, I will go ahead and make the edit myself. Please respond to the above reasoning before reverting. --mglg(talk) 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though some people may not like it, Jerusalem is under Israel's control, and is the largest city in Israel. Also, it displays all the features of a capital, and serves as such de facto, and is designated as such by Israeli law (de jure). Thus, it is the capital of Israel. This has nothing to do with what's "right", or "acceptable", it only deals with the facts of the situation. okedem 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Facts are facts, and they're properly sourced. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, jayjg. With your long Wikipedia experience, you surely understand the WP:NPOV policy that the only things that can be stated as facts are those "about which there is no serious dispute"? --mglg(talk) 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction fairly characterizes the position of those who dispute Jerusalem's status; that satisfies WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aside from the obvious fact, I've added 8 good sources attesting to it. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction (yet again) 

message: Jerusalem has been known in Arabic by its original name throughout history. "Al-quds" is a vernacular name, meaning "the Holy", known to the Jews likewise by the name "Ir ha-Qodesh" ("the holy city"). However, the Arabic text of the Bible clearly calls it Urushalim, and not al-Quds. For example, see Ps. 137:5 - "If I forget thee, o Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning" - إِنْ نَسِيتُكِ يَا أُورُشَلِيمُ، تَنْسَى يَمِينِي (in tansitki ya Urushalim, tansa yamini).Eliyyahu 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the current widespread name in Arabic is Al-Quds. The Israeli authorities insist on writing Urshalim-Al-Quds in official documents in Arabic. Other names for the city in Arabic throughout history were: Bayt-Al-Maqdis (بيت المقدس) probably derived from Hebrew Beit-Ha-Miqdash (בית המקדש) and Iliya (إيلياء) derived from the Latin name: Aelia Capitolina. drork 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Palestinian Christians use the term 'al-Quds'. --Soman 15:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem in Arabic 

message: Outside of this article, I can't recall seeing that "Jerusalem's significance in Islam is often questioned and debatable."  The story of Muhammad's ascension and when it happened is fairly irrelevant if you take into account that religions like "Islam" and "Christianity" and "Judaism" are not unitary but have multiple strands.  The "periods in history of Muslim religious neglect of Jerusalem" makes no sense to me--I don't know what periods they're talking about, what states, and what this has to do with past or contemporary Islam or why it should have bearing on whether there are many Muslims today that have an attachment to Jerusalem. Finally, while the quran is vital to understanding islam, I again fail to see the need for comparing how many times each religion's holy texts have listed Jerusalem--this is an extremely narrow view of what constitutes "significance" in a religion.
Many of these objections should be taken in the context that the only cited source is Daniel Pipes, who is, to put it mildly, notoriously NOT a neutral source on these issues.  See wikipedia article on Daniel Pipes for citations.
A more neutral source, Karen Armstrong, had this to say in Time Magazine:
"Jerusalem was central to the spiritual identity of Muslims from the very beginning of their faith. When the Prophet Muhammad first began to preach in Mecca in about 612, according to the earliest biographies, which are our primary source of information about him, he had his converts prostrate themselves in prayer in the direction of Jerusalem."
Saurav 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karen Armstrong is neither neutral, nor reliable. In fact, the religious status of Jerusalem was fiercely contested during the first several centuries of Islam. At that time, there were many more cities whose religious significance was higher than that of Jerusalem. Things changed at the time of the Crusades, especially under Saladin, when jihad propaganda relied heavily on claims of the sanctity of Jerusalem in Islam. Beit Or 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beit Or, the key word there is "more" as in "more neutral than Daniel Pipes."  I would hope that anyone interested in an NPOV discussion of this would acknowledge that.  I'm not a huge fan of Armstrong, but she is mainstream.  In any case, setting that aside for a moment, I think something along the lines of "Jerusalem is of particular significance to many Muslims." The whole paragraph could really go though, if it's written anywhere near the way it's written right now. Saurav 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel Pipes is an academic; Karen Armstrong is simply an omnivorous popular writer with no scholarly background. The current wording of the sentence in the intro seems incorrect because it fails to mention the political connotations behind the trumpeting up of the role of Jerusalem in Islam. Beit Or 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, Ramallite.  I think these lines should be (re)moved entirely unless someone can come up with an NPOV description that's appropriate for the introduction. Saurav 07:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the discussion of how many times "Jerusalem" is mentioned in various holy texts on grounds of irrelevance and POV. Saurav 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV: Various Religions' Claims To Jerusalem

message: Ramallite has deleted the statement that the Qur'an does not mention Jerusalem, while accusing some unspecfied "folks" of "distortions". I'm expecting an explanation of why this deletion was done and who is distorting what. I suppose it is undisputable that there are no mentions of Jerusalem in the Qur'an. Beit Or 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I assume good faith and think that people are counting how many times certain words are mentioned in the holy books (of which I am still planning on writing sequels) just to enlighten the readers of WP? Or should I suspect that the whole point of this is to point out that the word "Jerusalem" is not mentioned in the Qur'an, as if that means anything? Tokyo and Vladivostok are not mentioned in the Qur'an either. As I wrote in the edit summary, using 'how many times a particular word is mentioned' is a misleading criterion to an importance of a city, as even Mecca is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an. On the other hand, the verse that mentions "the farthest mosque" in the Qur'an, if one were to keep reading that same passage, leaves little doubt that it is referring to Jerusalem (at least in my mind), because it makes multiple references to that 'masjid' (i.e. temple or mosque) and its being built by the "Children of Israel" (that phrase appears over 40 times) and destroyed twice. Have the children of Israel been building other temples worthy of mention that were destroyed twice? Now, I don't really pay much attention to religious mumbo jumbo, but my point is this: It's pretty trivial to be counting words in holy books and making political/POV/grand statements about the lives of human beings in the 21st century. But that's just one Holy Lander's opinion. It would be much more interesting to count the number of Baskin Robbins parlors on the Tel Aviv - Damascus highway. Ramallite (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Followup after edit conflict, wouldn't want to dash your expectations: The 'distortion' is two-fold: 1- That the word "Jerusalem" not being mentioned in the Qur'an means that the 'importance' of Jerusalem is not described in the Quran, and 2- it is being assumed that a city has to be mentioned in the Qur'an in order to have 'importance' to the religion. Like I said, Mecca isn't mentioned either. So the point trying to be made is a bit ridiculous. Ramallite (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Beit Or, it was me, not Ramallite who initially removed the sections (unless it was done more than once and reverted more than once).  When I did, I articulated the reasons above (to reiterate: I think the claims are both POV as well as irrelevant).  People wanting to learn about Jerusalem surely don't need to know how many times in various religious texts the word is mentioned; it seems a self-evident POV insinuation that "Muslims" have less of a claim to the city than "Jews" and secondarily "Christians."  If you can mount a stronger defense of why those sentences need to be there other than equating Karen Armstrong to Daniel Pipes, I would like to hear it.  Otherwise, there's some other way that this edit conflict needs to be resolved, because I don't believe on the basis of your actions thus far that you're acting in good faith.  Perhaps I can insert a line about how many times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Gita or by Marx ;) Saurav 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, not hearing any comments, I went ahead and removed the section listing how many times Jeruslame was listed in the Old Testament and the New Testament.  If anyone reverts it, could you please offer some reasons prior to doing so? Saurav 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish whoever kept reverting the page back to the previous incarnation that mentions int he introcution the number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old and New Testaments would stop doing so and engage in this conversation.  This only works as a collaborative enterprise.  Saurav 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Saurav, your removals have been reverted.  I didn't do it.  Yet perhaps I can explain why others did.  Anybody who knows much about history knows that it is the Tanakh (OT) and the Apostolic Scriptures (NT) that inspire people the most to regard Jerusalem with honor.  It is such common knowledge that it almost goes without saying.  It is a consensus.  So to mention how many times the city is mentioned in those texts gives readers of this Wikipedia article a quick clue as to how important those ancient texts make the city.  It is not, as I suppose one or another religious zealot might suspect, a sneaky excuse for promoting a particular religion.  Then there are some technical reasons why your recent changes got reverted.  I need not mention those. - Samuel Erau 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to have this put into the perspective what Jerusalem means to these religions in their most important and guiding texts. The fact that Jerusalem is mentioned so many times attests to its importance. The amount of times that these words appear in the various "versions" of the Bible is important fact that needs to remain in this article and I think removing it would indicate some sort of biased agenda. Valley2city 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem in the Qur'an 

message: Can anyone tell me why some people dont like jerusalem?
:Some don't like it because they hate Jews. Now what does this have to do with the article? - Samuel Erau 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question