Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 5

message: These are NOT the oldest landmarks! Only Mishkenot Sha'ananim is - the others (apart from the Windmill) come much later, during the British Mandate. Also, the way I phrased it is important, because very few people will read through the whole article or notice half a sentence about Mishkenot Sha'ananim. In fact, most people will ONLY look at the pictures. Here is a photo that includes many different landmarks combined in one (very thrifty and spacesaving if you ask me...). If you don't want to name them all, fine, but don't introduce wrong information by lumping them together as the oldest.
--Gilabrand 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice that it said oldest.  When I originally changed the caption earlier, I did not include that.  I am getting rid of it like you asked.nadav 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nadav, I see you know how to access photos from Hebrew Wikipedia - could you tell me how to do it? My son has an account there and added some of my pictures, which might be good for the English version. Trouble is, he's gone off on a trek to Nepal and I don't have a clue how to do it...Are you still interested in adding a Migdal David photo? I just took a good one today. Where would you add it?
--Gilabrand 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo caption 

message: It is neither a seal nor a coat of arms. It's an emblem. --Gilabrand 09:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coat of Arms" 

message: I added some figures for schools in East Jerusalem, but don't know how to put in a footnote with the source. Could someone do it?
).. 
All the best, 
--Gilabrand 14:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, I saw the revision and thought it might need a ref.  Could you explain what this source is? Is it an interview with Mr. Lilienthal that has been published? If, however, it's information he personally conveyed, it might be problematic for Wikipedia. I'll wait for Tariq to weigh in about that. Otherwise, the most recent information published about East Jerusalem classroom shortage problem seems to be the Ir Amim report (updated Sept. 2006): . I also found this ACRI doc:  and an article in the Jerusalem Post:   nadav 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah... I was looking for the reference and I couldn't find it in the text. I didn't realize it was right here. Do whatever you all want; if you need help with the references, I'd be glad to help (although I'd prefer that it would with one of the citation templates). -- tariqabjotu 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is information I received this week from Oded Lilienthal of the Jerusalem Municipality Engineering Department. There must be written reports for each project, but I doubt there is one report that discusses all of them. I also know one of the consulting engineers who goes to these building sites/operating schools on a regular basis and has the architectural plans for them. I will work on getting some "paper" reference, but in the meantime, I would add a footnote as suggested above. I must be doing it wrong because it comes out with a red tag.
--Gilabrand 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way to use ref is: source goes here. I am wondering whether the new schools will solve the classroom shortage. The guy in the 14/9/06 Jerusalem Post article said that "each year an additional 160 classrooms should be built just to keep up with the six percent annual growth rate in east Jerusalem. Given that there was a shortage of [more than 1,000] classrooms in the first place, the gap will just increase over the years." I'm curious to know whether we are any closer now to overcoming this gap. nadav 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Be aware that primary sources of this kind are usually not considered acceptable, as verifiability is valued. -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to read more. nadav 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding a reference 

message: If I recall, there was one very good suggestion in the FAC (I believe made by Tony), namely that we should have a subarticle on Jerusalem in arts and literature.  The influential Encyclopaedia Hebraica (which also deserves its own article), in its (naturally) extensive Jerusalem article, devotes quite a few pages to this topic.  I tried to write an article on this, but I have no sources besides the encyclopedia--which is in Hebrew--except for a few minor websites. nadav 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem in arts and literature 

message: Point number one: Personal automobiles??? When were you born? In the 1920s?
Point number two: I was under the impression that only numbers from 1-10 are spelled out.
There's more, but I'll stop here for the moment.
--Gilabrand 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was not born in the 1920s and I'm not even sure how that's relevant. Numbers between one and ten should be spelled out, but that does not mean numbers above that cannot be. WP:MOSNUM allows numbers that can be expressed in one or two words to be spelled out. -- tariqabjotu 07:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my edits 

message: I appreciate the great efforts that are being made to produce a good article, and I have read the link about original research. The number of schools being built in Jerusalem is not original research. You can go to these places and see them yourself. There is no point of view being expressed here. These are just facts - and because they are facts from the last year or so, they may not appear in any encyclopedic source. If the best Wikipedia can do is cite information from an article published in a newspaper in 2005, then it is not doing very well. In the interests of helping to create the best possible piece on Jerusalem, and one that reflects the situation today, I am working on getting the proper source material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilabrand (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just referring to the little blurb on primary sources, not anything else. I haven't read through the September 2006 report, but I would assume it mentions construction of the new schools, no? nadav 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the following text, based on the JPost article from half a year ago: According to a municipal spokesman, a new school for girls opened in Sur bahir for the 2006-7 academic year, a boys' school is currently being built, and construction will soon begin on six more buildings or schools. nadav 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not original research 

message: In the section about "shifts in control," I found this sentence: "and by the sixth century, the city had reached its greatest ancient extent.[33]" What does that mean??
--Gilabrand 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The language "greatest ancient extent" is taken directly from the respectable-looking source. I assume they mean that it's the biggest Jerusalem got in terms of population or physical size before the modern era, but you should look at the source. You can put quotes around the phrase if you like. nadav 20:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because someone wrote it somewhere doesn't mean it makes sense and needs to be one of 30-or so sentences that sum up the "history of Jerusalem." After reading the source, I find the phrase just as incomprehensible as before. I would remove it. Another example of fuzzy phrasing is the one about Herod "elevating the Temple Mount." Herod did no such thing. If he elevated anything, it was the Temple building itself, which is believed to have been built on a raised platform with stairways to reach it. 
--Gilabrand 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an interesting piece of information that means that in some significant way Jerusalem grew largest during that time period and not during other eras of the ancient world. That's why I inserted it. I am against removing it altogether. If you feel it's not precise enough, then find a source which explains it in further detail. I haven't checked the elevation of the Temple mount. I had assumed it meant he made the hill taller or some such, but I haven't read the cited text.  nadav 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Without parroting Nadav, I concur with what he said. You might want to try to add more detail from other sources, but it seems that the primary problem here might lay in the perhaps slightly figurative phrasing employed. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To the author of this comment, I think you need to do some reading. The following article might open your eyes. http://www.ldolphin.org/palestinians.html --Gilabrand 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I added more information to clear up these fuzzy bits, but now, as I read the whole thing again, I think the chronology of this section is mixed up. Also the heading "shifts in control" should be replaced with something more apt, as the section above it, which is supposedly focusing on the Temple periods, is also about "shifts in control." 
--Gilabrand 11:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: The reference given says that "a sketch is offered of a possible resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", therefore I added the word possible to now read:
:"Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem (captured as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial since it is seen by Palestinian Arabs as a possible capital of a proposed Palestinian state." Itzse 17:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the word ''possible'' 

message: I don't want to have to edit-war over a seemingly trivial issue, but the styling of the area of the Old City in the intro is confusing and not really correct. The area of the Old City, as established by the current source, is approximately 900,000 sq. m (0.9 sq. km). However, the current text puts the area at scarcely one square kilometer, which translates to just over one square kilometer (which is not correct). The area, translated into square miles is approximately 0.35 sq. mi. About one third of a square mile is unnecessarily lengthy; we could do with just 0.35 sq. mile or something along those lines. Also, the reference should ideally follow the format at . -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think precise hectare numbers about the area of the Old City don't belong in the lead and make it harder to read. In any case, the current citation includes words to the effect "other sources say the area is..." I think the texts should be cited directly without additional commentary (prefereably using the citation templates). If the sources disagree, then one of those endnotes can be added that quotes the different opinions. nadav 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pardon me? I thought the idea was also to convey the facts (in this instance very much "on the ground"). The sense that this is "just a tiny patch" can be conveyed just as well by adding "only", if you wish, without changing the number, which for all intents and purposes appears to be valid to one significant figure. Or one could say "less than one sq. km", but that would be vague.  You wrote, "All the sources say it is one sq.m."  No, they don't.  Those that give actual acreage give such figures as 215 to 225.  If you do the math (247.1 acres to the sq. km), you find this is 0.87 to 0.91 sq. km.  It is fully justified calling this "approximately 0.9".  The sources you mention are rounding upwards and actually exaggerating the size.  I think your point would best be made by leaving the numbers alone; a little precision won't hurt us.  Your point that this tiny place has been the focus of so much fighting is totally valid. Why not make it as an explicit statement? Hertz1888 13:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Um... 0.4 square mile? The size has not be conveyed down to the last millimeter; 0.9 sq. km is not excessively exact. I honestly believe it should say just under one square kilometer (0.4 sq. mi.); I'm not sure why this was a problem. Note also that American English is used almost exclusively in this article; we should stay consistent (er over re). -- tariqabjotu 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am changing the full spelling of km immediately. If we make your other changes, will it keep peace in the family and put this issue to rest? Hertz1888 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A featured article should not have a citation that says "other sources give a a different figure" without explicitly providing references for this. Moreover, no other footnote in the References section has self-aware comments of this sort. If you want to devote a whole endnote (in the Endnotes section) to this fact then do so. Otherwise, I'm deleting the text. nadav 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Either say what those other sources are or omit that piece. The one source available is sufficient anyway for saying the Old City is approximately 0.9 sq. km (or under one sq. km, or whatever). -- tariqabjotu 04:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of the Old City 

message: What is this "some of those identifying as Palestinians" that has been added to the lead? I'm getting rid of it. nadav 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New text 

message: I know that some might feel that the article has enough pictures already, but it seems natural to include a picture of the city hall, as Gilabrand did earlier with :Image:kikarsafraS.jpg. Is there any room in the article for it? I suppose it could come in place of another picture. nadav 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support its inclusion, but I wish that it wouldn't come at the expense of the eastern skyline (for which we need a brighter and wider image). TewfikTalk 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you feel that the picture of Kikar should be there, then why was it removed?
--Gilabrand 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City hall picture 

message: There seems to be a discrepancy in the article. The article starts out by saying that the Old City consists of 0.9 square kilometer; yet later in the paragraph Shifts in control it states that the city covers almost 2 square kilometers! Itzse 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no contradiction. 1000 years passed in the meantime, and I infer from the latter stats that Jerusalem was larger then than the Old City is now.  nadav 04:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we must say that the old city already extended outside its walls a thousand years ago. I haven't seen any source for or against it but it might very well be true. Itzse 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The walls are only about 500 years old. Jerusalem was in fact much larger than the remaining walled Old City, and of course it's area changed during the thousands of years of it's existance. Paper maps of different Jerusalem areas over the millennia are available. If I come across one, I'll reproduce it in a GPL form. Dotancohen 11:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: I think it was wrong to remove the information about Jerusalem's mayors. An article about Jerusalem without a single mention of Teddy Kollek? There are many sections here that are a hundred times more frivolous (not to mention based on dubious sources) than two sentences about mayors, especially one who had as much of an impact as Teddy Kollek. --Gilabrand 05:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have missed it: "The longest-serving Jerusalem mayor was Teddy Kollek, who spent twenty-eight years – six consecutive terms – in office." We also have a separate List of mayors of Jerusalem. nadav 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you also specifically point out the frivolous sections with dubious sources? I'll work on them. nadav 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Nadav. Yes, it is there. I must have been looking at an older edit. Actually, I was being overly harsh. I read the article over again just now, and see that much has been done to improve it lately. I am still unhappy with the claim that pollution is higher in East Jerusalem due to carbon monoxide, and also a fuzzy sentence about how the Caliph came to Jerusalem, had "somebody guide" him to where the Jews prayed and "later" decided to build a mosque there. That sounds very anecdotal. Another claim that doesn't make sense to me is the one about Arabs having a higher employment rate. That sounds very nice, and maybe I should be happy about it, but it seems very unlikely to me. Also, considering how short and condensed most of the sections are, I think the section on sports is too long. Yes, it is important to say that there are two rival soccer teams (which is not really emphasized here) , but I think some of it can be pared down. Also, you pointed out to someone that this article uses American spelling. If so, then we should use "soccer," not football. --Gilabrand 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason I can see to doubt the story about Umar. You can read the original historical text here: . It was also mentioned in TIME.com: . About the pollution, yes, we should find better more on-topic sources, which I am sure exist. The unemployment stuff is sourced to the statistics bureau: we can't find any better source than that. I'm ok with having stuff on the sports teams...not everything has to be high brow culture, holy, or political! About the spelling, I don't recall pointing out anything like that, though I suppose it should use either one or the other per WP:ENGVAR. nadav 07:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started looking at some Israeli government reports on air pollution in Jerusalem. The Ministry of the Environment keeps permanent measuring stations at Safra  Square, "Klal" (in the center, handles Ben-Yehuda Street), the Afarta school, Gush Etzion, and Beit Shemesh. This is the 2002 air pollution report: . Measurements units were also taken by moblie units in various other places around Jerusalem: . I haven't read most of this stuff yet, but it doesn't look like there are any real stats about East Jerusalem.  nadav 10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mayors 

message: There is currently a discussion about Category:Jerusalem culture at CfD, and your input would be useful. Cheers, TewfikTalk
:Some more input might be helpful in getting a conclusive result in one or another direction. TewfikTalk 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD 

message: Does anyone have an idea of what to make of this? I'm not sure the term is even deserving of an independent entry, as encyclopaedic information can/should be covered elsewhere. Anyways, what do you all think? TewfikTalk 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously. I don't can't imagine what the intent of the article is. There's some interesting stuff, but it should all be merged into the proper places. nadav (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to make of... 

message: I remember when I tried to work on this article, & got flamed to bits by one side or another in the perennial fight over this article. (I don't remember which side that was at the moment). Good work people! -- llywrch 01:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A featured article? 

message: Copying from discussion with User:Grinq:
Hello. Concerning your edit, the legality of the annexation is a complicated subject that deserves extensive treatment and footnotes. Merely inserting the statment by itself violates WP:V. We have extensive info on the subject at Positions on Jerusalem, which is linked to in the article's lead, and further discussion in Jerusalem itself. nadav (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An anon editor has been adding mention of security council resolution 252 (see  for text) to the State of Israel history section. At first I reverted it because the ref link he gives doesn't work, and the material shouldn't go in that section. Now I put in a working ref, but I am still unsure about where the statement should go. nadav (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inserting "illegal by international law" into lead 

message: This article would really benefit from a map of the city, especially one with important sites and the different sections marked. Atropos 06:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, obviously. I imagine, though, that it'll be difficult to find or create a good free map of modern Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that a free map would be hard to obtain, but I'm sure that there is a talented Wikipedian willing to make one somewhere. Atropos 08:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: To all those who worked on this article to bring it up to stand alongside and be one of Wikipedia's Greatest is amazing. Fantastic work especially in reaching a consensus of some of those hot debates. Great work. --Flymeoutofhere 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to all those who contributed to make Jerusalem a featured article. Keep it up. - Omar 180 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article is really good and really well-cited. Abeg92contribs 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: Many of these links were removed. Many of them should be returned. nadav (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year, decade and century linking

message: ?Question: why is reference to the contention on sovereignty an endnote (endnote iii) and not emphasized in the first paragraph? If status as capital is still not recognized by the UN, that should immediately follow a statement that it is the de-facto capital, no? --Shipmaster 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because UN recognition is not a prerequisite for a capital. In fact, it has nothing to do with it, as Jerusalem is both de-jure capital (designated as capital by Israeli law), and de-facto capital (seat of government). The UN's position in the matter is superfluous to it's status as capital. okedem 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing whether or not that status, as imposed by Israeli law, is valid  or is enough as a pre-requisite, I am just saying that if there is a contention, and a heavy one I presume, that should be obvious from the first paragraph, which currently conveys only that it is the capital. If one reads down a bit, this info is clear from Thus, the status of a united Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital has not been recognized by the United Nations and much of the international community.. Isn't that a mixed message? IMHO it's a bit POV, this info was important enough to include but not enough so as to challenge the matter-of-fact statement in the first paragraph? --Shipmaster 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's important enough to include, but not enough to change the fact that it is capital. The dispute is that some think it shouldn't be capital, but their view can't change reality, so it's still capital. okedem 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no contention that it is the capital. The contention is on whether it should be, and about Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no contention about it bieng the capital then why are forign embassies based in tel aviv? the dispute is that many don't accept it as the capital, ( not think it shouldn't be ) Elie 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, most embassies were located in Tel Aviv even before 1967, when the status of West Jerusalem of Israel's capital was undisputed. Even the United States currently maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv, despite declaring twelve years ago (through the Jerusalem Embassy Act) its belief that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Thus, that piece is irrelevant. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches are centered in Jerusalem. Israel proclaims Jerusalem as its capital. It does not matter what the United Nations or any other country says; those criteria make Jerusalem the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status as capital

message: Why isn't this page at least semi-protected today? It's under constant attack. okedem 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I am only trying to add the word disputed to describe the current situation of Jerusalem. It is a matter of fact. Jerusalem is unrecognized as a capital for israel by UN, the vast majority of countries (including USA) and by the Palestinians (the other party in the dispute). It is only recognized according to an Israeli law in 1980. I tried to put (... is the disputed capital of israel) in the first paragraph , but so many people don't accept that change.  --Wisamzaqoot 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, because it's wrong (it is the capital, no matter what other countries think), and because the issue is mentioned in the next paragraph. This formulation has been carefully crafted by many editors. Your change is not acceptable, nor is your manner in undertaking it. okedem 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please also read discussion above, discussion at the Feature Article candidate debate, and discussion in talk page archive. This large volume of discussion (which has accumulated over a couple years I think) now constitutes a consensus. nadav (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okedem says:...it is the capital, no matter what other countries think! This totally conflicts with a NPOV, plus, shall be considered as irrespect to others.--TheEgyptian 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way? Israelis have a country. Palestinians do not. Israel has a capital. Palestine does not. -- tariqabjotu 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The reality of the situation is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, according to every definition of capital. What other countries recognize or don't recognize is a political issue, which cannot change reality. We write about reality. Thus, we say - "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". okedem 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The status of Jerusalem as Israels capital is Disputed, This is an improtant piece of information that cannot be ignored into a footnote, there is no disagreement on weather it is disputed or not, we all  agree that the status is disputed, and the fact that a countries capital is disputed is very relevant. plainly stating that Jerusalem is Israels capital is misleading. Elie 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; this is an important piece of information that cannot be ignored into a footnote. That's why it's in the third paragraph of the intro, the "State of Israel" section, the "Capital of Israel" section, and the "Palestinian claims" section. -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As a small sideline, I would like to comment on what nadav has said and what I see being repeated to many who have argued about that one sentence since the article became featured, and  is also being used repeatedly as a reason to revert people who wanted to change, again, that single sentence (as I see from page history), that consensus can change, and that is especially true in the case of an article becoming featured and thus gaining more attention. I see from talk page history that there was an acceptable compromise (to me at least) of putting the other argument in the first paragraph but it was not implemented for some reason. --Shipmaster 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can definitely change. I said that in order to try to bring people into discussion, to more fully explain their reasons, and in hope that they would read the long discussions that have already taken place about this. nadav (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word ''disputed'' 

message: Old text: "This period ended with the division of the United Monarchy, which had consisted of 12 tribes."
The first temple period ended with the destruction of the temple, a couple of centuries after the division of the united monarchy, as the continuation of the paragraph makes clear.  The sentence can simply be removed and the paragraph would flow quite nicely (another good reason to remove it).  As an anon user I can't edit it myself, otherwise I would be bold...
:Done, though the fact that the kingdom consisted of 12 tribes should have remained perhaps. nadav (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  end of first temple period 

message: What a marvellous article. Simply superb. Wikidea 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvellous, superb. 

message: http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3697/0/
Just a heads up, these folks are trying to encourage people to edit Wikipedia in a manner that suits their political orientation.
-Abhinav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.142.162 (talk • contribs).
East Jerusalem is illegally occupied by Israel, in contravention of several binding UN Security Council Resolutions.
Jerusalem is not recognised as the Capital of Israel under UN and International laws.
82.36.27.50
Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel ...!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.178 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 June 2007
Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel ...!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.15.142.178 (talk • contribs).
1. East Jerusalem is considered by the international community to be illegally occupied by Israel, in contravention of several binding UN Security Council Resolutions.
2. Jerusalem is not recognised as the Capital of Israel under UN and International laws.
3. The UN Security Council has called for no measures to be taken to change the status of Jerusalem until a final settlement is reached between the sides: declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital is an attempt to change this status, and is thus a violation of these Security Council resolutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.24 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 June 2007
Just thought i'd mention the hypocricy of these people who refused to accept the 1947 UN vote on the Israeli-Arab matter in British mandate Palestine, and also on how they violated the UN on the eve of the 1967 war... so they violate the rules blatently and then try to bend them later. no shame. Jaakobou 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just your opinion. There's no point in starting an argument about this. nadav (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nadav, i did not state an opinion, only a couple facts and hypocricy. Jaakobou 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Nadav's point was along the lines of WP:DFT. TewfikTalk 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is the capital.  Whether you beleive the entire city or only West Jerusalem is the capital, it is the capital of Israel.  Why does Israel not get to make a city it's capital just because some of that city's borders "Are not finalized"?  Dragon Smaug 20:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that Wikipedia doesn't declare anything, nor does it affect the status of any city or territory. Wikipedia is merely a tool for conveying information. The security council's resolutionsand other means of the international community are respected political views, but they do not describe the fact on the ground nor can they overwrite Israeli laws. To sum it all up - I don't know whether or not Jerusalem should be called the capital of Israel in this article (it is clearly the seat of government, though), but arguing that we should align with international resolutions is simply irrelevant. DrorK 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to ask all the regular editors not start a political argument, since I don't see how that would improve the the article. nadav (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just accept the Israeli opinion on the matter? We could just archive the opinions that differ from this and ensure that the Israeli point of view is the one which is in the article. Indeed, what do international opinion and UN resolutions matter anyway? Legality and sovereignty are merely semantics and shouldn't influence the article.Sanitycheck 06:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article gives the opinion of the UN and discusses UNSC resolutions 252 and 478, as well as the Palestinians' desire for East Jerusalem to be their capital. Further extensive treatment is at Positions on Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. The wording of the lead has been subject to extensive debate, but the current formulation was agreed upon by a majority of people after a very long period of debate. I know you are not fully satisfied, but you should accept that people with opposite viewpoints from yours are also not satisfied. nadav (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page being targeted

message: Change the website link in the infobox from the current (Hebrew) one to this English one. - Patricknoddynewaccount 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current link goes to the main website in its original language. Links referencing the English (and Arabic) versions can be found in the accompanying footnote as well as on the Hebrew website. -- tariqabjotu 11:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please edit this 

message: Hello, I was looking at the Jerusalem website, their timeline has sentence saying (to put it in my own words) "Jerusalem was divided and Israel declared it the capital". - Patricknoddynewaccount 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus there are places on the website where it is specifically stated "Capital of Israel". - Patricknoddynewaccount 11:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is amusingly naive.Sanitycheck 12:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the capital 

message: A user who has twice categorised :Category:Geography of Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories, because: Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories, and Category:Geography of Israel, both belong since it is disputed territory. Or remove both categories. Needless to say, I think it is extremely inappropriate to label Jerusalem with a controversial political term, but I'm bringing this up here because the user has a history with me (incivility, personal attacks), and so I would rather not be the only person dealing with them. Cheers, TewfikTalk 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with you in this case. I already addressed the matter at Category talk:Geography of Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian territories 

message: Please, change this:  "The ending -ayim or -im has the appearance of the Hebrew dual"
--213.96.149.133 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to clarify? Change it to what, why change it at all? okedem 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  -aim for dual ending 

message: I think the context of the article and the presence of the sentence in the etymology section already makes it clear enough that Solomon is a character from Hebrew mythology and the POV represented by inserting the word suppossed is just argumentative not informative.  I will be more than happy to hear another point of view on this issue.--Markisgreen 14:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  insertion of work 'suppossedly by [[redaktor]] 

message: Following up on a discussion on the ANE 2 discussion list, Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible and ANE History Lists Commentary blog notes the way the place name [Jerusalem] is written in the Akkadian of Amarna tablet EA 287. 
:He even has a picture from The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool website. He correctly notes that the place name is written with the "City" determinative URU before urusalem. At least this is true in five of the seven instantiations of the place name in the Amarna tablets. 
:EA 287:25: URUú-ru-sa-lim (I believe this is the example illustrated in Yitzhak's post) 
:EA 287:46: URUú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 287:61: ú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 287:63: URUú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 289:14: URUú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 289:29: URUú-ru-sa-limKI 
:EA 290:15: ú-ru-sa-limKI 
The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places. 
That suggests that it was at one time the northern border of the dijadi which was moved north in the Time of Thutmosis I to the city of Kadesh in the mountains. (This was originally a Phoenician city (Gades - Cadiz, Carthage, Kodesh) which was a city of refuge on the border of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel before any of those existed as countries.
Like Kadesh Jerusalem may have had the same function as a refuge city and also as a place where people would feel safe to meet for purposes of trade. In the 18th Dynasty the border between retnu (the watershed of the Orantes) and the dijadi (the watershed of the Jordan) was at the common headwaters of the Orantes, Litani and Jordan whose mountain watersheds people still fight over today.
The Akkadian name should go first since thats the name of the place in its earliest history, even after it becomes part of an Egyptian province in the 18th and 19th Dynasty as referenced in the Amarna letters.Rktect 10:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, since we have a strict No original research policy. Has this theory been published in a reliable, secondary source? nadav (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to repeat, the name occurs seven times in the Amarna letters, one of the most heavily discussed primary sources on this topic. See above The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool website. Is the phrase "original research" applicable where you are talking about the comments of Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible ? Rktect 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one disputes that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Amarna letters. This is already in the article. If you want to include the info you wrote above, then that should be cited to a published source, not a web forum. In any case, putting the ancient name of the city in bold at the start of the article is not customary on Wikipedia, since we only do that with modern alternative names, not ancient names in dead languages. nadav (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is cited to a published source, the Amarna letters, hence the line numbers. It doesn't need to be in bold except that is Wikipedia's standard practice. The all caps is a linguistic device meaning that the determinative "place" is borrowed into Akkadian from Sumerian. If you agree that its desirable to avoid English only bias, or Jewish only bias, or modern history only bias, then its probably good to point out that the city is ancient and has had many residents not all of whom were Jewish or English speaking.Rktect 10:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a sense in this article that although Jerusalem is held sacred by many religions it should be discussed primarily from a Jewish perspective, rather than from a Muslim, Christian or Agnostic perspective; and similarly that the religious references should get more play than the archaeological, historic, linguistic, or even literal biblical references. My perspective would be that any comments which are demonstrably wrong, such as references to Jerusalem existing as a city in the period of Genesis should be struckRktect 12:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author who placed the etymological section cites Zecharia Sitchin as authoritative while removing the comments of Yitzhak Sapir as original research. Consequently this article deserves a disputed tag.Rktect 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  URU URU salaam KI 

message: Disclaimer: I am an Israeli.
The history in this article differs greatly from the current thought of Israeli historians and bible researchers. From what I've read (but unfortunately can't source right now), there was never a unified kingdom and therefore, a conquest of Jerusalem. 
The Torah part of the bible was written in Judean kingdom times by priests, which explains a lot of open questions such as: why would any sane king choose to position his capital city on a hill instead of on a shore and a major road (the king's road).
While I can't provide sources, I feel uneasy about the current text.
89.0.197.58 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll wait till you find sources then. I don't think you are right when you say most of these experts do not accept the conquest of Jerusalem. There are indications outside the Bible of the fact that Jerusalem was conquered by the Hebrews. nadav (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Define Conquest. Joshua 15:63 But the Sons of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites who lived in jerusalem. The Jebusites lived in Jerusalem side by side with the sons of Judah as they still do today There's one campaign in the north and another in the south going on at the same time. Read Exodus through Judges and compare the details of which towns get taken and which cities don't. Most don't. Jerusalem doesn't. Generally rather than cities that get taken its kings that get conquered. 
All the regions of the Philistines and the whole country of the Geshurites, from the Sihor east of Egypt to the Ekron northward the land is counted as Canaanite. The campaign is against the mountain people of Aram, the Ammonites, some of the Ammuru and the king of kadesh.
Read the Amarna letter and the campaign accounts of Seti I fighting at Beth Shean, Yenoam and Kadesh. Egypt's vassals are in some cases the original canaanites.Reading carefully its the satellite villages that get raided, but most strong points are fortified and would require a seige. In the time that takes Egtpt would be able to come to their defense. On the other hand caravans get raided, paychecks and tribute don't get to where they are supposed to go. Vassals get nervous and disgruntled and go over to the other side. If you are into this period, its the politics between the Hittites, Mittani, Kadesh, the cities of Lebanon, Hazor, the Ammuru, the coastal cities of the Philistines, the cattle barons of the Medeba plateau, Beth Shean, Megiddo, Yenoam and all the cities of Aram are on the verge of revolt.Rktect 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Jerusalem - Pre-Judean Period