Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Rewriting the lead

The first paragraph on Jerusalem lacks basic information. Yes, I know that there is a conflict, but in the end, Israel controls this city. The entire city is run by Israel. Of course I have no problem that the opening of the page will mention that there is a dispute over the status of the city, but at least please mention also that the city is controlled by the State of Israel.

I live in Israel, recently if you know we won the Eurovision, and I want those interested in the city to have a good picture of what is happening there. If I were living in Europe and looking at this page, I would think it looks like a military battleground between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian soldiers.

I would be happy if you fixed the opening, in a way that would better reflect the city. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A052:4F8F:31BD:7345:86A2:CE8E (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As Jerusalem is the capital of Israel that should be in the lead.KirinMagic (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@KirinMagic: It is - "Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority claim Jerusalem as their capital..." LittlePuppers (talk)

But Israel is a nation, The PLA is a terrorist group, it is like recongnizing the ISIS clamims — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirinMagic (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@KirinMagic Please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes "~". I understand what you're saying about Jerusalem's capital, but please remember that Wikipedia takes a neutral position on controversial policies and you have to take that into consideration. Even though you feel very strongly about this, please remember that people on all sides of this issue feel very strong about this issue, that's why personal opinions are frowned upon on an article's pages. Try and remember to stay neutral when editing. Coryphantha Talk 20:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

As KirinMagic is now blocked as a sockpuppet, I'm striking through his edits and removing the last as no one replied. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Control of Jerusalem

In the first paragraph, it should be mentioned that Israel controls the city. You need to show the situation de facto, and only then say there is controversy over it. After reading the paragraph, one would have thought there is a military struggle between Israeli and Palestinian soldiers in the city, but there isn't. De facto, the entire city is controlled by Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.34.196 (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I tried an edit. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It already says what you wish it to say, the entire last paragraph is devoted to this. And why exactly "although", thats Wikipedia taking a position on the strength of the claims. nableezy - 14:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The point of the IP editor, and my subsequent edit, was to make this clear from the very beginning. I think that is the right thing to do, and would like to restore that edit of mine. I wouldn't mind rephrasing it, if you think it could be stated better. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor said in the first paragraph it should be mentioned that Israel controls the entire city. The way to do that in a NPOV way is how the final paragraph does. But if one were to move all that material to the first paragraph the objection would be it is too much politics for the first paragraph. I dont have a problem covering the current status of Jerusalem in the first couple of lines, but if it is done that way it cannot be tilted towards one of the POVs here. "Controlled exclusively by Israel" is doing that. Any NPOV rendition would say that this "control" is an occupation of EJ. Regardless, I think any changes to the lead should be worked out on the talk page first, the current lead is the result of a lot of discussion and compromise spanning years of edit-wars, and Im sure none of us wants that again. nableezy - 21:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Further to this, there is the arbitration enforcement action in place, according to which changes to the first paragraph should be done via RFC. --Dailycare (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not currently disposed to push a Rfc, but I would support a decent proposal to this effect. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

capital

@Thomas Paine1776:, it has been long-established that this article does not make the assertion of fact that you did in the opening line. The capital status of Jerusalem is handled at the end of the first paragraph and further expanded in the last paragraph of the lead. nableezy - 05:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ive reverted the edit as there has not been any response. nableezy - 21:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel should be in the heading. It is a fact that is where their government is based.47.22.177.195 (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That is in the lead. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Historical references to Jerusalem should be added

The article could be improved by citing the historical references to Jerusalem in ancient writings. For example: where the city is referenced in Babylonian records; Egyptian records; Greek records; Roman records, and also where the city of Jerusalem is mentioned in religious manuscript like the Koran, the Torah, and the Christian Gospels and epistles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.249.19 (talk) 14:44, December 5, 2017‎ (UTC)

"PLO" term should be defined before it's referenced

In my opinion, the "PLO" term should be explained, in the "Capital of Palestine" section. The actual meaning only appears in the next section and in the page references. The first use of the acronym should be replaced by "Palestine Liberation Organization".

Shuafat, (pre)historically, still is NOT Jerusalem

Why do we need to go back to that? (See here: Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 25#Shuafat, (pre)historically, is_NOT Jerusalem - from 2016!) Who gets a nationalistic orgasm out of a clear mistake? The age of a city is given by the oldest layer of its own HISTORICALLY DEFINED HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AREA. In the Chalcolithic era, as throughout pretty much all of the next SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS (see Third Wall if you doubt it), Jerusalem was defined by the Gihon Spring and Eastern Ridge, including the Temple Mount, the Central Valley, and the Western Hill, with various expansion areas, which never, until several millennia after the Chalcolithic, did include what's now Shuafat (and let's not fight over Second Temple to Byzantine period, it's still a good 3400 years gap between the end (!) of the Chalcolithic period and Herod & family, who expanded the city northwards). So no, Chalcolithic-period Shuafat can never be the same as Chalcolithic-period Jerusalem. Cities grow nowadays at scary rates, they swallow up other historical towns and even cities. This doesn't make the history of those places be their own. Motza is for all intents and purposes part of Jerusalem, but the Israelite temple discovered there was a sensation precisely because it ISN'T considered to be a second Jerusalem temple, but a distinct one at a distinct, but not geographically distant, site in the Judean Hills. But Motza isn't claimed by Abu Mazen, so we have no argument over that one. Arminden (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: @Power~enwiki: I see it was you who removed the separation (headings, etc.) and mixed up the two very distinct Chalcolithic sites ([[1]]). I am sure you meant well and didn't know the specifics. Please don't remove it again, it has a whole range of implications and is factually totally wrong. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}} The locations are 3 miles apart, a claim that Shuafat is a historically separate town needs some sourcing, particularly on a topic so prone to POV-pushing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to ask for a source to prove the absence of a relationship. What's needed here are reliable sources that a) say there was a Chalcolithic site in Shuafat and b) connect it to historical Jerusalem in some way. I'm not seeing that; press releases and news reports are poor sources for science, especially for archaeology, and especially for archaeology in such a politically-loaded context. The section on Shuafat ought to be removed until there are scholarly, reliable sources available.

(And for what it's worth, three miles was a long way in the Chalcolithic, when even the largest cities were no more than 20 hectares.) – Joe (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is this over-detailed?

Debresser, re his incomprehensible removal: The section has far too little data (b) it is an important historical note on intercommunal relations relating to demography. Your edit summary saying it is far too detailed ins inadequate, since it assumes that the a section without significant detail doesn't require more.Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There are several problems with that addition - the two most notable ones being that the source was referring to the early 20th century and that the source itself attributed this to an estimate in the memoirs of Ya’akov Elazar. So it can't be said in our voice, and needs to be scoped to a very particular period in history.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani My edit summary assumes least of all the completely illogical statement you ascribed to me. As i said clearly, that was too detailed. If you want to add details, add more general details. I, for one, do not necessarily share your assumption that the section is lacking detail. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jerusalem Mural depicting the Cardo in Byzantine era (6035801113).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination was withdrawn and deletion discussion closed. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Indigeneity

@The Human Trumpet Solo: Do you have a source for the "indigeneity" word? ImTheIP (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC) For example, here is an ostensibly Zionist source claiming Jewish ties to Jerusalem. But finding sources claiming Jewish indigeneity is much harder. ImTheIP (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On the one hand, Jews obviously do not claim to be indigenous to the area, since they came from Ur of the Chaldeans and later from Egypt. On the other hand, it can reasonably be argued that many centuries make a people indigenous. In any case, it is not clear where the boundaries lay. Adherence to reliable sources can save us from these questions.

Right. Claiming indigeneity would actually anger a lot of Jews because that would contradict holy Scripture. Not to mention the Palestinians because two groups can (generally) not be indigenous to the same area. If one is not happy with ties (which I don't understand, ties can be strong or weak, the word itself does not imply anything about its strength) then there are lots of other alternative words; connections, bonds, links, kinship, affiliations... ImTheIP (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I like the way this was solved on one another Wikipedia article: "The Jewish people originated in the land of Israel".

By the way, an interesting article on this subject, even though it is probably not a reliable source, I found here. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"International Status" deleted for no sources and POV Reverted

"International status" contained broad assertions and POV without any sources, indicating bias. It also had a "Needs Additional Sources" tag, though it had NO sources. The tag was from 2015, and no action was taken. In acordance with Wiki policy "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Accordingly, the section was deleted.

The deletion was a valid action but was reverted. Please be aware of the 1 revert per 24 hours and the general 3 revert rule. If you wish to restore section, then please include proper citations. "But it is true" does not justify revert. @Zero0000: J M Rice (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both Zero and Rice: the section should be in the article, but only if properly sourced. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

confusion of two issues

The question of whether the Israelites derived from the Canaanites is completely separate from the question of whether the biblical stories of David and Solomon have a basis in fact. The article mentions the second question, then "answers" it by answering the first question. It is illogical. Zero^talk 23:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hierosolyma

This name should be given in the header, given the city’s historic significance to the Latin and Greek world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.40.59.77 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Standalone Workstation (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Roadguy2 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Template removal

Hi there, I have removed a template from the article since its map file has been deleted and the template is obscuring the text. Could someone please fix the template and restore it once the template has been sorted out? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 12:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Extra comma in lead paragraph

The text "and attacked 52 times,.[10]" has an extra comma at the end which should be removed. The error appears to originate from here. Mkrupcale (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the correction. --Bsherr (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggested edit to lead paragraph

I know that this is a sensitive subject/page and would like to suggest an edit to the first paragraph. It currently states: "Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.[note 3][9]"

Suggested edit: "Jerusalem is the capital city of the State of Israel, which maintains its primary governmental institutions there. The State of Palestine ultimately foresees East Jerusalem as its capital city."

This, I believe, accurately represents the facts, and removes the statement that "neither claim is widely recognized..." which can be argued from either side. Thank you for consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmmark (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. nableezy - 21:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, that text was binding for 3 years, and that was over 5 years ago.

I think there is indeed something very wrong with the lead not specifying that the State of Palestine would want East Jerusalem, as opposed to the whole of it. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, there is a page level sanction in effect that requires any changes to the lead to go through a new RFC with consensus established for any change. The Palestinian declaration of independence, where they proclaimed Jerusalem the capital said

فإن المجلس الوطني يعلن، باسم الله وباسم الشعب العربي الفلسطيني قيام دولة فلسطين فوق أرضنا الفلسطينية وعاصمتها القدس الشريف.

The translation of that being

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

nableezy - 15:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Declarations have less meaning than facts on the ground. Interbational recognition has also changed since the last RfC. We probably should briefly mentions the PA wanting some hold in Jerusalem, but not much beyond a brief mention. There is no equal footing here and suggesting otherwise is false balance.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I dont know what thats a response to. My comment was about a couple of things. A. the State of Palestine declared Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem (though tbh I think when an Arab says al-quds they almost always mean East Jerusalem), as its capital. And B. We had an RFC on this issue. It was well attended. It was supervised. It resulted in a consensus. There is a page level sanction in place here that any new change would require a new RFC and consensus for that change. Does your comment respond to any part of mine? nableezy - 16:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Circumstances clearly have changed since the last RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nah, not really. And regardless, you still arent answering any part of my comment. What part of there is a page level sanction in place that requires an RFC with consensus for any change to the lead am I being unclear about? nableezy - 18:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You quoted a Paletinian declaration (which has little impact nor importance). I did not refer to the need to conduct a RfC - and one is normally required to discuss prior to a RfC. The international positions on Jerusalem have changed and Palestinians prospects have waned. Thus, the current lede over emphasizes an aspect of minute importance.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I quoted that in response to the claim that the Palestinians seek East Jerusalem as their capital. The declaration said Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem. The international positions on Jerusalem have largely not changed. A few countries now say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The lead remains accurate in describing that claim as not widely recognized internationally. nableezy - 19:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

We can not change the lead to "Jerusalem is the capital city of the State of Israel" because Jerusalem is not located in Israel and it is also rejected as being Israels capital by the vast majority of the international community. Current sentence in article is more accurate and neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"We can not change the lead to "Jerusalem is the capital city of the State of Israel" because Jerusalem is not located in Israel...." That statement is simply not correct. Being as polite as I can, Jerusalem is, factually, the capital of Israel. Israel maintains all of its governmental bodies in Jerusalem. I understand that there are complicated political issues with this page, but my suggested edit is factually correct, and removes the line about "neither claim is widely recognized internationally" which is arguable. Lmmark (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, thats a a POV, not a fact. The world largely considers East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory outside of Israel. Much of the world considers all of Jerusalem to still be a corpus separatum not a part of any state. You are confusing positions with facts. nableezy - 05:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but we can have an Rfc to 1. make it clear that Palestinians are interested in East-Jerusalem as their capital. 2. Break up the sentence into two smaller and simpler parts with a period. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

An RFC is fine. If we clarify that the PA is interested in East Jerusalem as its capital, let’s makes sure that Jerusalem is identified as the capital of Israel. Lmmark (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, I quoted from the declaration where the PLO proclaimed Jerusalem the capital. Not East Jerusalem. We have gone through the idea that the article should make sure that Jerusalem is identified as the capital of Israel, and there is an explicit consensus against doing that. Nobody is going to stop you from making an RFC, but the sources and the facts have not changed. The overwhelming majority opinion among the international community is that Jerusalem is not in Israel, and that the law proclaiming Jerusalem as Israel's capital is null and void. Israel considers Jerusalem its capital. The rest of the world largely does not, yes with a few exceptions. But NPOV is a fundamental policy here, and if a statement is disputed among reliable sources (that statement being "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel") then Wikipedia cannot present that statement as though it were a fact. nableezy - 05:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if they want all of it, then yes, I don't think there is much wrong with the lead that can be changed with an Rfc. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Replying to Nableezy. Here is the Wikipedia definition of capital city. “A capital city (or simply capital) is the municipality exercising primary status in a country, state, province, or other administrative region, usually as its seat of government.” if Wikipedia is to be believed, then Jerusalem is, by definition, the capital of Israel. This is the factual, NPOV statement. Stating that some governments choose to not recognize this, that is their point of view and hence, the POV statement. We must adhere to the NPOV guidelines, which means “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel” should be in the lead paragraph. I would wager, without looking, that “Paris is the capital of France” and “Washington DC is the capital of the United States” are prominently noted on the pages for those cities. Lmmark (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Naturally not. Israel has no legitimate authority over Jerusalem, and this should be emphasized. It is simply occupying East Jerusalem, as part of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please read WP:NPOV and also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem? These are not new arguments. We do not describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel for a reason. You have not, sorry to say, made some new discovery here. Whether or not Jerusalem is in Israel is a matter of dispute, with the majority opinion among reliable sources and other states that it is not in fact in Israel. Whether or not Israel can legally designate Jerusalem as is capital, as matter of international law, is likewise in dispute. Wikipedia does not make factual statements when reliable sources dispute those statements. nableezy - 15:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand that these are perhaps not new arguments, and I have read both pages you referred to. The fact remains that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel whether the UN recognizes it or not. Excluding this fact in the lead makes this article less effective and less truthful. It also distinguishes this article (negatively so) from those of every other capital city.

This is not a biased point of view. It does not affirm or deny occupation, nor does it deny Palestinian aspirations of having some part of Jerusalem being its capital in the future. Your statements that Jerusalem may not be actually IN Israel are nonsensical. It’s most certainly not in Lebanon or Jordan. Many countries including the United States recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Perhaps I should ask, if not Jerusalem, which city IS the capital of Israel? I stand by my original proposed edit to the lead paragraph as an honest, truthful, NPOV modification. If this requires an RFC and a new discussion in order to recognize this fact, let’s do that. Lmmark (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonsensical? East Jerusalem is nearly universally recognized as Palestinian territory held under Israeli occupation, ie not in Israel. The view of the UK is that the entirety of Jerusalem is still a corpus separatum, and not a part of any state, ie not in Israel. Im sorry that does not make sense to you. But reliable sources dispute the claim of a. Jerusalem being in Israel, either for parts or as a whole, and b. that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The lead includes that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital and that it hosts Israel's seat of government. Those are facts. It just does not include the POV that Israels view is the only one that counts here. You read both pages? Good, I assume that you made it to question one then. You see how that the view that saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a NPOV statement had pretty wide rejection? Great. We do not describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by consensus. If somebody wants to open this up again they can, but until an RFC determines a new consensus this article will not be describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. nableezy - 00:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The nearly universal lack of recognition of all of Jerusalem, in spite of the facts on the ground and the Jerusalem law, is indeed nonsensical. But do we really need to discuss this here? Debresser (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The formal RFC we had some years back concluded that it's wrong to state in Wikipedia's neutral voice that Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel. The situation remains the same, and thus the text should remain the same as well. In case Jerusalem became e.g. the shared capital of two states, recognized as such by most of the world, then sure, the text should reflect that, but as it is the arguments put forward in the RFC remain the same. The only difference is that Trump has, ahem, expressed himself on the matter, but the US position can change back to the international consensus, and reflects only one country anyway, and further a country that is not seen as neutral in the matter by anyone with eyes. China recognizes East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, which is at least as significant, but the text currently in the lead in fact elegantly captures the situation without cluttering it with detail. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Question, Why does recognition matter in this case if it’s clearly opposite the facts. Jerusalem is, by definition, the capital of Jerusalem. In my estimation, that makes including it as part of a well-written lead the NPOV-compliant solution. I agree that nothing significant has changed since the RFC, and the fact remains that Jerusalem is still the capital. Arguing that Jerusalem May or may not be in Israel is the same as arguing that Paris may it may not be in France. I’m not suggesting an entire re-write if the lead paragraph, nor suggesting that the Palestinians don’t claim East Jerusalem as their capital or that claims are disputed. Those are all true. But Jerusalem is the capital city and that should be in the lead. Lmmark (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, arguing Jerusalem is not in Israel is not the same as arguing Paris is not in France. You know why that is not the same thing? Because you cannot find any reliable source stating that Paris is not in France. I can quite easily find sources that say East Jerusalem is in the West Bank, occupied Palestinian territory outside of Israel. Here is one. Here is another. You seem to be under the impression that your views are the jumping off point for what is factual. We dont say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as a fact because that is a contested statement in reliable sources. NPOV demands that we not make statements of fact when a view is disputed in reliable sources. The article says that it serves as the seat of government of Israel and that Israel considers it its capital. Those are factual statements that are not in dispute. That it is Israels capital first requires one to accept as fact that Jerusalem, both East and West as that is what this article covers, is Israels to begin with, and that is in fact a minority viewpoint. nableezy - 02:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Historically (i.e. in the annals of ancient history on this site), there is no such thing as East and West Jerusalem. There is only one Jerusalem, a united Jerusalem, shared by multi-ethnic peoples. Therefore, any mention of its current political standing (albeit disputed) ought rightfully be mentioned in a later section, rather than in the lede paragraph. I see a political agenda (POV) behind any attempt to mention Jerusalem's status in the lede paragraph, since, obviously, the article entails FAR MORE than just hammering home the political morass and divide related to the place. This is best done in a separate section. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

To Nableezy. All of your arguments have, accurately, outlined that the status of Jerusalem is disputed. The documents presented indeed confirm that the Palestinian Authority and future State of Palestine want an East Jerusalem as their capital. All of this is clear. However, there currently is no "East" or "West" Jerusalem - only one unified city under a single government. This is a city that has existed for 3000 years, yet was only divided for 19 of those years. Recognition and dispute are, I believe, irrelevant in the change I am proposing. You said yourself, "The article says that it serves as the seat of government of Israel...." That is, by definition, saying that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or if you wanted to parse it further "Jerusalem is currently the capital of the State of Israel." That's the point I'm trying to get across, that BY DEFINITION, it is true that Israel's capital city, the place where it's government institutions reside and the place of residence of the Prime Minister, etc. - that place is Jerusalem. Again, I'm not asking for this single sentence to complete the lead paragraph, merely stating that its inclusion in a balanced, NPOV lead will better the page and make it closer to NPOV than the current. I'm not sure if you're the 'buck stops here' administrator of this page. If not, is anyone else willing to participate in this discussion? If so, sounds like we need a new RFC to move forward. Thanks for your feedback. Lmmark (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is Nableezy who is anti Israel even given any weight on this? Jerusalem is in Israel and it is the capital. those are facts. Even Egypt and Jordan conduct their business with the Israeli government in Jerusalem. Israel gets to choose it's capital. what the international community thinks is irrelevant.72.22.189.98 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the "seat of government" argument, that's a red herring. The text already says Israeli governing entities are located there. On the other hand, during WWII, the Belgian government operated from London. London, however, was not Belgium's capital city then any more than it is now. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Currently, the lede paragraph carries the following edit:

Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.

Can we agree here to move this paragraph into a section further below, where it speaks specifically about the political status of the city?

References

---

OPINIONS: (add below with asterisk)

• Agree to move.

Davidbena (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

References

David, all changes to the lead require a new RFC. But for the record, no I think that should be in the first paragraph. It shouldnt be delved into too deeply until later, but its current status is relevant for the opening sentence. nableezy - 21:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This article has a huge lead, with a lot of material, and I don't think that an Rfc is needed for all changes. The whole point of insisting on an Rfc was about the first paragraph only. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not true, not even a little. The page level sanction here reads as follows:

As the results of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem regarding the article's lead represent the community's consensus at a well-attended discussion, a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. Editors editing the lead without consensus from an RfC are subject to sanctions such as page or topic bans or being blocked from editing. Reverts of blatant and obvious vandalism or edits made in violation of this sanction are exempt from this restriction.

Any changes being made to the article's lead section. Not the opening paragraph. The lead section. And, by the way, even if you were correct, David is asking for changes to the first paragraph anyway. nableezy - 17:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Israel is a nation, the Palestnian are no more one than the ISIS caliphate was. They should not be given equal weight. Article could say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and have a note about outside groups claim they have no right to declare it.104.226.24.210 (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I can read. however, that notice is incorrect. The discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem was not about the lead, just about the specific issue of the first paragraph, as the conclusion of that discussion says specifically: "we have set the first paragraph of Jerusalem as follows". Debresser (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I never questioned your reading abilities. The sanction however, which is logged as an arbitration enforcement measure here, very specifically says that the lead section requires an RFC for changes to be made. Not just the first paragraph. I dont see how that allows for much arguing, but, even if it were only about the first paragraph, David is asking for changes to the first paragraph. nableezy - 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, yes the first paragraph was set by that RFC. However that RFC covered more than the first paragraph. It also said no one may add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead. Not to just the first paragraph, to the lead. nableezy - 21:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

So let's have a new RFC. As I've said since the beginning of this thread, the arguments are legitimate to have "Israel is the capital of Israel" as part of a balanced lead. I'm not suggesting that this be the only sentence in the lead, but rather being part of the existing lead. I believe the larger part of the lead paragraph is proper and correct. My proposed edit is small but relevant. Lmmark (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You can start the Rfc. The question if it will have a chance of success. I personally feel that the lead should make clear that Jerusalem is de facto capital of Israel, with limited international recognition. Unfortunately, there is a strong lobby, worldwide, to hide this simple truth. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read through the earlier RFC before considering a new one. In particular, consider if the balance of what the best sources say in the matter has substantially changed since then. It hasn't. --Dailycare (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It could be stated Israel has it's capital and government offices in Jerusalem. The Palestinians make a claim to the city but have no presence there.American Zionist (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Jerusalem for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jerusalem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jerusalem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove lack of international recognition

The phrase "neither claim is widely recognized internationally" should be cut. It is a lite no matter what reasonable, factual stance you take regarding Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher C Sanderson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please say that again. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree as it is the declared capital of Israel and acts in the capacity both domesticly and in foreign relations.173.166.127.233 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

flags in infobox

I removed the flags from the infobox fields per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Beyond that, if we are to include some flags we should include all flags, not only ones for Israeli bodies (the state and the district). MOS:INFOBOXFLAG however suggest skipping that exercise entirely and just leaving flags out of the infobox, so I did that. nableezy - 21:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Turkish university

A recent edit added a line about a university that was founded in 1915. I tried to remove this information, but was reverted. My reason to remove this is simple: this section is for present universities, and there is no indication that this Ottoman university still exists. I for one never heard of it. Also note that the link is redlinked. Alternatively, if this university is indeed discontinued, we must say so clearly, otherwise this article would be grossly misleading. If this information stays, in what way soever, it should be elaborated upon, since the other universities have a lot more information. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

No, the reason you gave in the edit summary was (I have never heard of it) and (what does "something" mean). So I think the revert is reasonable. Secondly, you came here with a different reason why that paragraph should be removed, which is that the section is for existing universities, I don't know about that. Is that really the case? Is that section only for existing universities? Al-kulyyia Al-salahiah (الكلية الصالحية) was built I guess by the Ottoman empire and was named after Salah Addin, it is now a church. That's the information I have about it.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This church: Church of Saint Anne, Jerusalem--SharabSalam (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, these "education" sections are for the existing institutes of education. Not mentioning that it was discontinued (with a source), is misleading. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Johnbod wasn't pinged.

Debresser, so should we mention that it was discontinued? Or should we remove it? As I said it was transformed to that church per the sources I found (which are Arabic sources) I am pretty sure that there are English sources but I think that the sources would call it Madrasa not Kullyia (college in English).--SharabSalam (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Uh, yall see the edit-notice on this page, right? Notice how it says in big bold letters are restricted to making no more than one revert per twenty-four (24) hours (subject to exceptions below)? There's a dispute, solve it here, not there. nableezy - 20:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Education sections in article about places mention only existing educational institutions. Same for List of Israeli universities and colleges. I think it would be very interesting to have this as a stub article in Category:Universities and colleges in Jerusalem. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Heading

The heading should start with Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That is how any other capital city starts. As this where Israel declares it to be and where all govt business is done there should be no problem.23.25.37.11 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, however, the Wikipedia community has decided this article should not reflect the facts on the ground, rather the more esoteric point of view of international law. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Much of the city is not in Israel but instead in the occupied Palestinian territories. As such analogies to other capitals fail. nableezy - 21:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I don really see why that should make a difference. The facts on the ground aren't influenced by you calling them "occupied". Debresser (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not me that calls it occupied, but the reason it matters is that much of Jerusalem is not in Israel. nableezy - 06:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. You are taking us back, while I am trying to take us forward. We all agree on the point of view of the majority of the countries in the world regarding the status of part of Jerusalem under international law, and we all agree that Israel has another point of view regarding the status of that part of Jerusalem under international law. The question is what our articles should reflect: the point of view of lawmakers in countries the world over, or the actual state of affairs in the area which this article describes? It is my opinion that the second should outweigh the first. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, not really. As far as the actual state of affairs in the area, that state of affairs is Israeli-occupied territory, ie not in Israel. And on Wikipedia, personal opinions on what outweighs the other carry little, uh, weight. What does matter is the weight reliable sources give to views, and the view that much of Jerusalem is not in Israel is a super-majority view among such sources. Anyway, as you noted earlier, the Wikipedia community has decided how we should cover this, and conversations between the two of us also do not have the weight to overrule that. nableezy - 16:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nabellezy all of Jerusalem is in Israel, they are no occupied areas in Israel. The claims of the Transjordanians are bogus and need not be considered. Lead should be changed.206.173.106.22 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC) No certain admins who are pro terrorists, the majority of posters do not agree.206.173.106.22 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. (But if you want to refer to the Palestinians in a derogatory way I think it would be "Cisjordanians"). nableezy - 03:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As only one poster has objected to the heading change we should change the lead to Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.73.123.227.29 (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to forget that there is a restriction on this page. The one editor who opposes is enforcing that restriction, which represents the (IMHO mistaken) majority of opinion of Wikipedia editors. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Well Id like to think all of us would enforce that restriction, and you as soon as anybody would revert to enforce our communities consensus as I would if the consensus were reversed. All sorts of people complain when there is an established consensus against their position, and those who point and say look at what we already discussed and established invariably dwindle. See for example the voluminous archives on the use of images in Talk:Muhammad. Add up the number of people who come to complain and compare it to the same few people who said Im sorry but we already have a consensus on this and the policies of our site require ... . People arent going to keep coming back to support "no change" when there is an established consensus for every random IP that shows up demanding we change the article to suit their personal viewpoint. But, anyway, I hope you as well will enforce that restriction, and if you seek a change the restriction allows for an avenue to do that. nableezy - 23:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I also oppose your POV proposal that is against the RfC consensus. It doesn't matter how many editors have replied to your comment.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2019

A large part of the culture of Jerusalem is the art scene that is present there. I think it would be beneficial to add a section not only just about art, but in particular about The Jerusalem Biennale, which is an art exhibition in Jerusalem. It is important for the culture of Jerusalem and Judaism that is being expressed through a Contemporary Art medium. In the culture section of the Jerusalem Wikipedia page, I think it would be beneficial to list The Jerusalem Biennale as an important aspect of Jewish art and also the exhibition utilizes various sites around Jerusalem for their exhibitions. This makes it important to Jerusalem in particular, and the art and culture that is present there. Templerl (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We already have an article on the Jerusalem Biennale. Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an actionable edit request: you need to write exactly what you want me to add. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Religious demographics math

Should be 62.1% instead of 6.1% for Jews in 2011. I'm not special enough to edit this myself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E78C:16EC:4143:3299:C8F2:942C (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Christianity in infobox image

Why no Christian church in infobox image, with Temple Mount so prominent? -- A man without a country (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Jerusalem Municipality into Jerusalem. I think that the content in the Jerusalem Municipality article can easily be explained in the context of Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Municipality article is no larger than the municipality-related content already included in Jerusalem, so the merging merge will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. PepperBeast (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

An alternative would be to rename the article "Jerusalem Municipality building" or similar. That is what the article seems to be primarily focused on. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a very short article. I think a merge is probably best. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. Sokuya (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge. The other article is very short, but it could be expanded a lot without excessive overlap here. It doesn't have to be just about the building. Zero^talk 16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, as Debresser said, it is very short and could easily be merged. @Sokuya: why to you oppose it? NightBag10 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it is the largest municipally in the state. Sokuya (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose merge. There is a whole history of the plot and the buildings there. It just needs expansion. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Two different subjects, the municipality is merely an arbitrary and apparently politically motivated border (for example, areas beyond the wall that are within this border are not provided with services and there are other issues).Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:weasel

Is this weasel?

According to Peace Now, approvals for building in Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem has expanded by 60% since Trump became US president in 2017. Since 1991, Palestinians who make up the majority of the residents in the area have only received 30% of the building permits.

This was removed by Pepperbeast saying that it seems like weasel, I disagree, this looks absolutely fine. I dont see any weasel here.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Not the least bit weasel. Put it back. Zero^talk 03:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Pepperbeast Kindly explain in what way the material is weasel, else revert self. Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's weaselly because it implies that the denial of building permits is in some way related to the Trump presidency. If there's no relationship, it's just "since 2016". If there is a relationship, it goes way beyond a demographic comment and needs better support. PepperBeast (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

However both sources directly associate it with Trump's election. The Peace Now analysis these articles draw their figures from also does: "A dramatic increase after Trump’s election". You can't just say that you disagree with the sources. Zero^talk 15:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

PepperbeastThe NYT has also gone with the Trump related idea https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/09/12/world/middleeast/ap-ml-jerusalem-settlement-boom.html The PeaceNow site also cites figures in relation to Netanyahu's election eg "An increase of about 33% since Netanyahu’s 2009 election.". I agree with you that they are implying that Trump/Netanyahu elections are impacting the figures but the sources making use of the data have decided that they agree with this interpretation. If you have a source that shows that the figures are nothing to do with Trump, and instead something else, we can include that as a contrary pov. But we can't keep the material out merely because you don't like the implication.Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"Jewish settlement construction in Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem has spiked since President Donald Trump took office in 2017, according to official data obtained by The Associated Press".--SharabSalam (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The question is do we need an attribution? We don't need to say according to peace now. The sources seem sold and neutral.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that is OK, the main news sites are getting the hard data from PeaceNow (who had a lot of trouble to get the data) so it does no harm to attribute them. In my mind's eye, I am treating them as primary and the reporting as secondary. The issue here is that this material should not have been removed because "I think the sources are weaselly" is not a sufficient reason for doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yea right, I didnt read the whole article in the AP. I thought its their own data when they said "official data obtained by The Associated Press".--SharabSalam (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Vague section in the introduction

"While the international community rejected the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel"

What does it mean by international community? Obviously not places like the USA, Naaru and Honduras. Is it referring to the United Nations? If so can it be changed to United Nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:412B:6300:6D54:C2A1:FD00:479D (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Done. Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with the use of the commonly-used expression "international community".

• Wikipedia's own article on the subject: here.
• The UN Secretary General's explanation of the term: here.
• An article explaining the concept of the international community in international law: here.
• A Google search producing sources using the term "international community" in relation to the terms "East Jerusalem" and "occupied": here.

The original wording came about as a result of the arbitrated and widely participated in May/June 2013 Wikipedia:Requests for comment on the Lead of the current article. As such, it probably shouldn't be being modified without allowing for a reasonable period of discussion beforehand (read what it says at the top of this talkpage: "a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section"). My preference would be to revert the article back to the way it was. I certainly wouldn't want to see the start of a campaign of replacement of use of the term.     ←   ZScarpia   10:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will self revert, personally I am happy either way. I guess the person requesting the change was pointing out that the international community apparently no longer includes the US but I guess that's obvious by now.Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks to me as though confusion exists in what exactly the US position is. On the one hand, for example, the State Department has stated that the US embassy was moved to Jerusalem for efficiency reasons and that the move doesn't indicate that there has been a change of policy ([2][3][4][5][6]) and on the other they have said that President Trump "boldly decided to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital"[7]. To the casual observer there appears to be a contradiction there unless what is being implied is that, prior to making the decision to no longer waive requirements of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, there had already been a change from the traditional US policy regarding the status of East Jerusalem (or the State Department is trying to claim that the traditional US position was not what it was believed to have been).     ←   ZScarpia   14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was a little loose with my language there, what I meant was that the US (as confirmed by 14-1 (US veto) UN resolution on the issue https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/us-outnumbered-14-to-1-as-it-vetoes-un-vote-on-status-of-jerusalem) is currently not on board with the consensus position of the international community (by which is usually meant, the UN).Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The position of the international community is also expressed by international law, which is affected by previous UN motions. To change such international law, the US would have to get new motions through the UN.     ←   ZScarpia   00:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There just happen to be differing interpretations of international law in this case. Not to mention, that it is usually the other way around, in the sense that international law reflects the opinions of countries. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it quite like that either, agreed that politics plays its part but this currently seems more political than legal. I don't know if you saw Greenblatt's effort in the UNSC recently, he tried to argue (in essence) that international law was irrelevant (ie trying to disown previous US positions) and was taken to task by nearly every other member for his opinions.

I doubt that you read my comment the way it was intended.

[In the following, Finamore-20181031 refers to the article "Are UN resolutions legally enforceable?" by Emma Finamore on the AllAboutLaw website. The website is blacklisted by Wikipedia for a reason I can't determine. I have web browser extensions in place which limit tracking, script execution and popups, which may be why I can't see a problem.]

• There are various sources of international law (see the sources of international law article).
• The Charter of the United Nations of 1945 is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization (see the treaties as law section in the sources of international law article and the Charter of the United Nations article).
• Under the Charter of the United Nations, members are bound by its articles. Obligations placed on members by those articles override the obligations imposed by any other treaty (see here and details of Article 103 contained here).
• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Its primary functions are to settle international legal disputes submitted by states (contentious cases) and give advisory opinions on legal issues referred to it by the UN. Through its opinions and rulings, it serves as a source of international law (see the article on the International Court of Justice).
• Most UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding on UN members (see Finamore-20181031, here and here).
• Quite a few Security Council resolutions affect the situation in Palestine (see the article on the List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and, for examples, those on UNSC Resolutions 478 and 242).
• Those resolutions affect the status of Jerusalem, East and West (see Finamore-20181031, here, here, here and here).
• As a UN member, the United States continues to be legally obligated by existing binding UN resolutions.
• I suspect that it was in order to hedge and be able to argue that US was not in breach of its legal obligations that the State Department put out a press release saying: "This decision was driven by our global efforts to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our diplomatic engagements and operations. It does not signal a change of U.S. policy on Jerusalem, the West Bank, or the Gaza Strip. As the President has stated, the United States continues to take no position on final status issues, including boundaries or borders. The specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between the parties. The Administration remains fully committed to efforts to achieve a lasting and comprehensive peace that offers a brighter future to Israel and the Palestinians."

    ←   ZScarpia   20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

IMHO one can not say that the "international community", which is indeed a hopelessly vague term and should be avoided per WP:WEASEL, has a unique position at this moment in time. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, nowadays, I would also avoid the use of this term in favor of being more specific but I am not going to get involved with an RFC just to change a couple words in the lead; it seems quite odd to me that the "Wikipedia community":) would agree to preserve article content in aspic, so to speak.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If it is a weasel term, it's a widely used one. In the case of the current article, it was the moderator of the May/June 2013 RFC who wrote what is there. As far as representing what US policy on Jerusalem now is, remember that it's a policy requirement that content is neutral, meaning that the contents of multiple sources, not just one or two chosen ones, have to be fairly represented. Prepare for difficulties if you want to open a new RFC to modify the Lead. I recommend the articles on the United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel (what the State Department had to say is recorded here) and the Jerusalem Embassy Act.     ←   ZScarpia   20:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Problematic definition

Jerusalem is considered as the capital of the state of Israel. Palestine is a semi autonomy, and it’s area does not cover any part of Jerusalem. I think that it has nothing to do with the conflict. An article in Wikipedia should acknowledge the fact that it is the capital of Israel (it is recognized by a decent amount of countries). 87.239.255.112 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is within the occupied Palestinian territories. nableezy - 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is still the capital of Israel. That territory is controversial, and now under an Israeli occupation. 87.239.255.112 (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

As you say, it's occupied; as well as that, the East Jerusalem annex and other attempts to change the demographic character of Jerusalem are considered illegal. Some countries have recognized the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as capital, so what? Jerusalem is still considered a final status issue (it doesn't matter whether Israel agrees with any of this or not).Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

My response was regarding it’s (sic) area does not cover any part of Jerusalem. Anyway, both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem, with various meanings to that word, as their capital. Our article says as much. nableezy - 18:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

source 241: "facts and trends 2012" (PDF). Retrieved 12 March 2013 change (or add) link to: facts and trends 2019: https://jerusaleminstitute.org.il/en/publications/facts-and-trends-2019/ - Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research ( Organization name had changed) OR the 2012 version correct link: https://jerusaleminstitute.org.il/en/publications/jerusalem-facts-and-trends-2012/ ___________________________ Source 341: "Jerusalem, Facts and Trends 2009–2010, p. 11" (PDF). Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. Retrieved 12 February 2016. Correct the link to https://jerusaleminstitute.org.il/en/publications/jerusalem-facts-and-trends-2009-2010/ - _______________________ Erela G (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The removed maplink

@Onceinawhile: hi, and sorry to bother. I see you removed a maplink ("remove awkwardly placed external link"): . I cannot figure out what it was, or why it was unneeded/awkward, and I apologise for that. Can you please clarify? In general, I find the removal of information, without replacement, to take smth. away that can be of some use. I hope I'm not being too pedantic. Thanks, and stay well! Arminden (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to speculate but it may have something to do with formatting. When I looked at the version of the article before the removal, the map doesn't show up on my screen. Let's ping Onceinawhile. Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi both, it has been bothering me for a long time – I have been thinking about ways to make the layout better but there don't seem to be alternatives. It was just hanging there underneath one infobox and two navboxes (which is already too much in my opinion) without a frame or a caption. It doesn't seem to add anything encyclopaedic to the article, and on my screens – mobile and desktop – it just got in the way of the timeline. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess the only thing it was doing was showing a picture of the municipal boundaries of the city, but I am not sure it would count as a WP:RS for that purpose... Onceinawhile (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it DID show the municipal boundaries, as it does here on this page, that is very relevant and interesting and it should be included in the article, of course with a caption. If the lead is too crowded, then in the post-1967 context, since that's when the municipal borders were extended to include outlying Arab villages and Jewish settlement areas. That's precisely why this map is VERY relevant indeed. All peace talks went about establishing the future Palestinian capital in those areas (or not), since if that's Jerusalem, too, then it should cover the Palestinian needs (see relation to Abu Dis, laying right outside the municipal borders, with its abandoned Parliament building). That's a major topic, picked up again by the Trump plan, and the map is the best visual for it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Arminden, there was a proposal to merge Jerusalem municipality with this article a little while ago, if that is relevant at all.Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, thanks, but I see a misunderstanding here: you mean an article that only deals with the town hall, even if it is confusingly titled "Jerusalem municipality". It is this article here that deals, for all practical intents & purposes, with the Jerusalem municipality as an administrative unit. Arminden (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did wonder. Still agree with you, in any case.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Careful with historical periodisation

Please see arguments in favour of periods as they are now on Talk:History of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages page under "Wrong title!". Thanks. Arminden (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a dumb mistake in this article

In 2019, the USA and lots of countries around the world agreed that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The American embassy is located in the heart of Jerusalem, in a neighborhood that according to the article here, is part of East Jerusalem, and isn't recognized as part of Israel. Please update. Gavrielbowman (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"lots of countries" is simply false. "East Jerusalem" is more complex, since the location is inside a no-mans-land defined by the armistice agreements. Zero^talk 02:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The armistice agreements have been dead by definition since June 1967. Gavriel, this is Wikipedia. All articles about Jerusalem (and indeed, Israel) are full of bias and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.122.19 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

Here's a sentence from the first section:

"According to a Midrash, the name is a combination of "Yireh" ("The abiding place", the name given by Abraham to the place where he began to sacrifice his son) and "Shalem" ("Place of Peace", given by high priest Shem), then the two names were united by God."

If you hide the parentheses, you get "According to a Midrash, the name is a combination of "Yireh" and "Shalem", then the two names were united by God." This isn't grammatical. Please replace the whole sentence with:

"According to a Midrash, God created the name by combining "Yireh" ("The abiding place", the name given by Abraham to the place where he began to sacrifice his son) with "Shalem" ("Place of Peace", given by high priest Shem)."

64.203.187.122 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I didn't word it exactly the way that you suggested, but you're quite right about the grammar. PepperBeast (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

protected pages

why pages about israel (i live in israel) protected? - Eitanbb (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eitanbb: Good question. Please click on the protection icon, which will take you to Wikipedia:Protection_policy#extended, and the explanation is there. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

English

Rise MVELO NTULI (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Qods is capital of Palestine

Qods is capital of Palestine 37.255.152.44 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Qods is capital of Palestine

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Stating the obvious

Regarding this edit,[8] don't you think you are stating the obvious? I mean, Suleiman the Magnificent means Ottoman Empire. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No, not everyone knows who Suleiman was. Jerusalem was part of the OE for centuries, so mentioning it in the lede is more relevant than mentioning Suleiman. Konli17 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That is why Suleiman the Magnificent is linked. So that anybody who doesn't know that he was an Ottoman can look it up. Anyway, I don't feel strongly about this, but I stand by my opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Israeli Sign Language names

I want to add this bit to the part about the city’s names:

Jewish and Muslim speakers of Israeli Sign Language use different signs for the city: the former emulate indirectly ‘kissing’ the Wailing Wall (i.e. briefly kissing their hand and touching its stones), the latter indicate the general shape of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

I’m not sure how to cite this video, in which Sammy Siroa, a CODA and a a veteran interpreter, explains and demonstrates this. שונרא (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that Names of Jerusalem would be a more appropriate place. Zero^talk 10:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Technical fix for collage

The collage for this page is currently what I'd term "static", meaning that it's a single image file. This is bad, since clicking on it doesn't allow you to see any one image full-sized, and finding the caption requires reading through the list to figure out which image is the one you're interested in. I changed the collage to a dynamic version that renders almost identically but uses {{Multiple image}}, which fixes this problem and is consistent with many other high-quality city pages. However, it was reverted by Debresser, who has offered no explanation except Please establish consensus for this change. I realize that this is probably one of those pages where a "revert first, ask questions later" mentality has taken hold, but still, if there's a problem with the fix, could those who object please at least articulate what it is? {{Multiple image}} is very flexible, so if any further tweaks are desired, those could be easily achieved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all let me say that collages are not the norm. They are accepted, but not necessary. I am stating the obvious, because what you wrote almost gave the impression that collages are the norm. Which they aren't'.

One problem of collages is that they lead to incessant strife about which pictures to have in them. I have seen it on pages about nationalities and ethnicities, which is why at a certain time a huge Rfc decided to abandon collages on those articles. For that same reason I am suspicious here, and think that a single image (even though it too contains other images, but it still is one image) might be better. Since I personally am not decided on this, I did not specify all of this in my edit summary when I reverted, just indicated that it might be a good idea to talk this over. So thank you, Sdkb, for doing that. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting the reader first, I cannot accept the argument that a worse reading experience is justified just because we as editors might not be interested in discussing which images to include. (And who's to say that such discussions would not turn out to be useful and result in a better selection?) Regarding how much it's the norm, of the GA/FA VA-4 or higher cities, I'd say roughly 80% use a collage. Those who don't are typically cities so defined by a single landmark (e.g. St. Louis) that anything else next to it would just seem like filler. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I would not say that one image made up of several images is necessarily an inferior reader experience just because you can't click the pictures. Incessant edit wars are also not good, not for the reader and not for the project. But I don't feel strongly about this, so what do you say we wait for at least three other editors to express their opinion here, and simply go by consensus? Debresser (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Anyone else want to weigh in? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  Seeing no other comments, and noting that the reverting editor has said they don't feel strongly about this, it appears to me that there is weak sufficient consensus to use multipleimage and I will restore it on that basis.

  If it leads to too much switching of the images, I've seen hidden comments at other pages asking for talk page discussion before any swaps are made, and a similar comment could be added to the wikitext here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You propose to remedy one evil with another evil? Such comments are a last resort. Debresser (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe add a climate fun fact

Jerusalem gets almost as much annual precipitation as London (554mm vs 601mm, respectively) and I thought adding that to the climate section would be a nice fun fact. Impossiblegend (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection trivia, especially if unsourced. Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Replace duplicate image Ercole_de_Roberti_Destruction_of_Jerusalem_Fighting_Fleeing_Marching_Slaying_Burning_Chemical_reactions_b.jpg to Roberts_Siege_and_Destruction_of_Jerusalem.jpg YitzhakNat (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Replace duplicate image Ercole_de_Roberti_Destruction_of_Jerusalem_Fighting_Fleeing_Marching_Slaying_Burning_Chemical_reactions_b.jpg to Roberts_Siege_and_Destruction_of_Jerusalem.jpg YitzhakNat (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

Hello, i would like to sublit request to change this. Jurusalem is Palestinians. Its never own by Israel. You should have some humanity when writing down all the history. People who kill and evicted people lands and shove people out of their own house is not a human. There never was Israel. It always own by Palestinians. May god open your heart to see the truth. 183.171.69.5 (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 05:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2021 (2)

Change capital of Israel to Capital of Palestine

Jerusalem has been and always will be the capital of Palestine. 2A02:2788:9D5:E355:45B2:CB3:ED7F:A746 (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

196.157.45.20 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Jerusalem is capital of 🇵🇸

 Not done: Citation needed. - Daveout(talk) 07:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Jerusalem is the capital of Palestinian 41.40.222.235 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Run n Fly (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing the lead - arbitration

Does the rule against changing the lead without an RFC apply to the whole lead, or only the first paragraph? 2601:640:4000:3170:F9D7:1CC9:3930:53B4 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead is the lead, not part of the lead. Another thing, for the more important articles, what is in the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body. And there seems no restriction there other than the usual. So if there were sufficient alteration in the body not reflected in the lead then I would have thought that getting the lead altered in such a case would be quite easy but not otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked because the summary in the box just gives the first paragraph, not anything else. I know that the lead is supposed to be a summary. Nevertheless, there are potentially things that wouldn't be controversial to change (although I don't have suggestions now). 2601:640:4000:3170:F9D7:1CC9:3930:53B4 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Change Jerusalem the capital of Israel to The capital of Palestine or Disputed or Israel and Palestine. 131.251.253.59 (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The OP is implying this article makes out as if Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which it does not. Only the reality of it being the de facto administrative capital of the Israeli state is laid out here. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:69F2:3477:CF8B:4A7F (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

95.172.218.47 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine, an occupying state does not, and cannot have a capital that belonged to Palestinians since the beginning of time.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

Picture referred to as Al Aqsa mosque is in fact “Jama al Qibly” or the “prayer hall facing Qibla”. The term “Al Aqsa Mosque” refers to the entire 37 acre sanctuary. 86.13.99.54 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

60.54.88.129 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

the information does not true, kind of misleading.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

Add Armenian name : Erusaghem Երուսաղեմ David Sargsyan 777 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Doesn't really need the Armenian name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

67.68.225.211 (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that the city named Jerusalem wasn't exist under this name before Christianity, you are wrongly set the history of the region including this city.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinpoint location of the city

The location of the city on the map section of "the arab world" is way off. As it's right now it's shown almost two hundred kilometers to the east of its actual location. Change the location of Jerusalem in said section to its actual coordinates. TurtleDragon22 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thats a problem with the coordinates of that template, have raised it at Module talk:Location map/data/Arab world as it effects every page that uses that map (see eg Cairo). nableezy - 16:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

nableezy, I see you already raised the issue there and you described it well, you're right it does affect other articles using the same map. I hope it gets corrected eventually. TurtleDragon22 (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

Jerusalem is Palestine capital city Ahmed.102000 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In fact Jerusalem is palestine capital city Ahmed.102000 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, we simply can not add what is already in the article. It would be redundant: "Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power." Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

Jerusalem is capital of Palestine

 Not done: The article currently states - "Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power. Neither claim, however, is widely recognized internationally" - thus this would be redundant. This change or any change to this wording would necessitate a consensus. Also please sign your messages (2a00:23c7:8391:db01:581f:8a73:75e1:c15e) - yes I did go back to find this in the history. Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 19:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2021

القدس عاصمة فلسطين — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.157.67.243 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Map by neighbourhoods needed

A Jerusalem map divided into neighborhoods would be most welcome, as it's almost impossible to figure out the boundaries between them (streets & other features) based only the text. Google, including Google Images, didn't help much. Arminden (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: The official story is complicated. Start at this map (may take a while to load). Click on שכונות (neighborhoods) in the top menu bar, and in the list check שכונות. After a while you will see the neighborhood boundaries as blue lines. You can click on a neighborhood to get a pop-up with information starting with the name. Zoom out to get an overview. It would be easy to draw the boundaries on a map, but not easy to put in the neighborhood names in a readable fashion without the map being quite large. Zero^talk 08:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

History section on Ottoman period needs more data

Please follow or contribute at Talk:Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem#What was the admin. unit called between 1516 and 1872? The redirect "Sanjak of J." to "Mutasarrifate of J." is plain wrong & misleading., I think that's the better venue for the topic. Arminden (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The Al-aqsa Mosque

This article is such a brainwashing machine...You keep mentioning "The temple mount" as a reference in order to demolish the true existing HUGE MOSQUE there. Even the devil isn't this malignant. SUCH A SHAME. 129.45.107.179 (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the Temple Mount is the complex the mosque sits upon and encompasses more than the al-aqsa mosque…SinoDevonian (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

An ill-advised answer. The neutral terminology adopted by the UN Security Council, if a name is to be used at all for the holy site, is the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Alas, both prior points are moot then!. --SinoDevonian (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

Add al-quds to the name in brackets IraqiEagle1001 (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Already done This name appears parenthetically in the first sentence as well as in the section Arabic names. --N8_wilson 🔔 21:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Niqqud usage in Hebrew name?

I noticed that the Hebrew in the first sentence is written with Niqqud (vowels), but the version at the top of the Infobox is not. I'm curious as to why the difference and whether it should be made consistent. This is weaker than an edit request. I am *perfectly* happy to see if left the way it is if there is a reason. I don't know Arabic well enough to tell whether the Arabic in the article is written with or without the diacritics or even if the name in Arabic needs them.Naraht (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead edits

Tombah, please read the informational box at the top of this page regarding lead edits. Most importantly the bit that As the results of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem regarding the article's lead represent the community's consensus at a well-attended discussion, a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. Editors editing the lead without consensus from an RfC are subject to sanctions such as page or topic bans or being blocked from editing. Reverts of blatant and obvious vandalism or edits made in violation of this sanction are exempt from this restriction. nableezy - 14:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Add flag image "Al-Quds_flag.svg"

Al-Quds flag (Flag of Arabic Jerusalem)

and emblem image "Al-Quds_star.svg"

Al-Quds star (Emblem of Arabic Jerusalem)

Kxeon (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Where would I do that??? Kxeon (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You're in the right place, I'm thinking about it, other editors may also respond. The two emblems that are there seem to be "Israeli" somehow? Seems partial at first glance given that Israeli claims to Jerusalem are not generally accepted.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That flag at right is not "official", right? Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The flag in the article is Flag of Jerusalem, "made the "flag of a united Jerusalem" following the Six-Day War in 1967". Hum. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's not selectively quote. From the same article: "The flag was adopted in 1949 " And So It (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I linked the article, besides, no "Jerusalem" then, just the so called New City (West Jerusalem). Selfstudier (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The municipality of Jerusalem most certainly existed in 1949, and this was its flag. And So It (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There was the Old City of Jerusalem, different municipality. Selfstudier (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Old City had a municipality. And So It (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The description of the proposed addition says this is a "Hypothetical flag of al-Quds ". As such, it does not belong in the article And So It (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the Israeli flags/emblems don't belong in it either? Selfstudier (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

They are not "hypothetical", so no, your comparison is not apt. And So It (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Partial was the argument I made not whether they are "official". Selfstudier (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't quite parse what you are saying, but my point is that actual, existing , official flags and emblems are not the same as "hypothetical", so they can't be treated the same, and this change request should be denied. And So It (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The change request gave rise to this discussion but any change does not have to reflect the actual request, the change might be other, like deleting the images there now. Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Which I have now done, it is not a NPOV to include images as if there were uncontested control of Jerusalem by Israel when the international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

OP, the correct response is deletion of the imagery there not additional imagery of dubious merit intended to offset the prior imagery. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether the international community approves of it or not, the municipality's flag is in fact what is in the article; You should not made that change without consensus. And So It (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Overly long lead

The lead is fairly clearly too long, and also poorly reflects the balance of the content in the article. The third paragraph, which is on religious and cultural significance, is the most obviously undue. Religious significance is a tiny section in this article, as there is a standalone Religious significance of Jerusalem page. So, unless anyone strenuously objects and provides a reason why the MOS:LEAD guideline should not be followed, I plan on reducing the presence of this material in the lead quite dramatically. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

Please restore the flag and seal of the municipality, which have been in the article for years, and were removed without consensus to do so . And So It (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CCC and I have challenged the inclusion of this material on the grounds that it is not WP:NPOV to include this imagery (see Status of Jerusalem). Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you have challenged it, but have not shown that you have consensus for this change. Please restore it, and we can discuss your request. And So It (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS lies with those seeking to include disputed content. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This "disputed" material has been on this article for at least ten years now; please restore it and seek consensus on this change. Tombah (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

ONUS overrides QUO. I have cited reasons for challenging the material, QUO is insufficient by way of rebuttal as is "ridiculous". Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted this. ONUS doesn't apply to content that clearly has enjoyed consensus for years. Sure WP:CCC, but it's up to you to show that it has, not unilaterally change it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The flag was added silently on 24 April 2010 as a part of an edit changing Infobox Israel municipality to Infobox settlement. At best this edit has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or is subject to WP:SILENCE ie the weakest form of consensus, there was no active discussion at the time afaics. I am not able to verify by reference to any policy that QUO supersedes ONUS when material is challenged with valid reasons (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 68#WP:ONUS vs.WP:QUO and current discussions at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#The meaning of the CURRENT text at ONUS (survey) appear to suggest the contrary).

Nevertheless, I will wait a while to see if there are any further comments before starting an RFC to "prove the negative" (ie Should those seeking to remove/exclude the material be required to explain why the material does not belong). Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont see how any edit that does not have a consensus besides silence is not subject to ONUS. Beyond that, we have a very large RFC establishing that we will not say Jerusalem is Israeli (or Palestinian), only that there are varying views on its status. The flag lays claim where we have, by consensus, said Wikipedia will not make that claim. nableezy - 17:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

One would imagine that the article should either display both POV insignias, the lion thingy and Quds star above, or neither - and probably not in the infobox, but in some separate section on Israeli and Palestinian insignia for the city, since, duh, disputed territory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you missed the fact that the flag containing the Rub el Hizb is hypothetical - it is not real, and not in use by any official Palestinian municipality. The two sets of images are not on equal footing. And So It (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well the lion thingy is theoretical as applied to both West and East Jerusalem, since, again, disputed. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not theoretical at all - it is in use today, by Israel, for all of Jerusalem. You may not like it, the international community may frown on it, but it is in fact used for the entire city. And So It (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Needles to say, flying a flag over occupied territory does not alter the disputed nature of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did not say otherwise. The dispute is well covered in the article. And So It (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I have no opinion one way or the other, other than that 12 years of silent consensus suggests there should be some discussion before changing in a contentious article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I gave two options, the other being to display neither. Displaying one POV is the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Treating a fictional symbol the same as an actual one is not really an option. And So It (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's odd to claim WP:SILENCE after 12(!!!) years of seeing this symbol at the top of this article. The so-called "Quds star" is probably hypothetical. It may never have existed outside the digital world, and even the most enthusiastic activists in East Jerusalem may never have heard of it. On the other hand, the lion symbol stands out as one of the most recognizable symbols of Jerusalem, no less than the Dome of the Rock, the Western Wall, or the Tower of David. It is present everywhere in Jerusalem, from official buildings to public services to official events to schools and even manhole covers. Yes, even in East Jerusalem. This symbol is likely to be encountered by readers who visit Jerusalem at some point in the future. General knowledge shouldn't be compromised to avoid offending anyone. Tombah (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless you can show some discussion with some level of participation equal to what we are seeing here now you cant claim an established consensus for this. Regardless, Im arguing on the merits here. You are welcome to join me in doing that. nableezy - 18:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok first off forget the supposed Palestinian flag, I agree that doesnt belong in anything calling itself an encyclopedia article. See WP:MADEUP. There is no argument about equal treatment here that is any way valid, a pretend flag is not the equivalent of the actual flag Israel uses. But the Israeli flag is laying claim to Jerusalem as an Israeli city, and we by established consensus do not do that in this article. It can be in the article, but it should not be shown as "the flag of Jerusalem" (or Coat of Arms) because that is in fact calling it an Israeli city. nableezy - 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't actually realised that the flag above was totally made up when I made the suggestion. I tend to make the good faith assumption that people aren't intentionally uploading completely unsourced crap all of the time, especially on Commons, which filters out a bit of the crud. But yes, not an option. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether the international community approves of it or not, the municipality is in fact administered by Israel, with those symbols. This is no different than listing the mayor of the city as Moshe Lion - elected by Israeli citizens. Or for that matter, having an article , complete with flags, for non-recognized entities like Northern Cyprus. And So It (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That is avoiding the point. The point is that we, per this extremely well attended RFC, do not claim that the "municipality" is in Israel. Prominently displaying an Israeli flag, which is a claim of sovereignty, and coat of arms does that. That violates that established consensus. nableezy - 19:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that displaying the municipality's flag or seal does this anymore than saying the mayor is Leon - it is just informational. Compare with North Nicosia - its administration is not recognized by the international community, yet the article displays its city seal. And So It (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea who created that seal, who imposed it, or when, nor am I aware of a consensus against saying that North Nicosia is not in Norther Cyprus, whereas I am aware of such a consensus against saying Jerusalem is in Israel. nableezy - 19:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

and as I wrote above, showing the municipality's flag is not saying that it is in Israel, that's just your opinion. And So It (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

showing the municipality's flag is not saying that it is in Israel The borders of the municipality include the 1967 Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem . That's not opinion. Flag (and the emblem within it as well shown separately) need to be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That is the flag of the municipality, just like Leon is its mayor. And So It (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That is the flag of a "municipality" as defined by Israel. nableezy - 22:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just like the mayor. And So It (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That should probably be removed from the infobox as well. Good point. nableezy - 23:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

So, there's an article for all this: Jerusalem Municipality - that's where this information can all be shelved. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The seal on the North Nicosia article, FWIW, is from 1958, so actually predates the division of the city. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• The Israeli proclaimed flag, Israeli proclaimed coat of arms and Israeli proclaimed "mayor" must be removed from the infobox. Israel is occupying the entire city with force and Israeli claims of sovereignty over the city is rejected by the vast majority of the international community. To have Israeli proclaimed symbols and titles in the infobox, we would be presenting the Israeli claims as a "truth". This is a clear violation of npov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is recognized by many, including both US and Russia. However, that doesn't matter as the municipality, duly elected by the residents of Jerusalem, is separate from Israel. The seal and flag of the municipality belongs, just like it belongs in all other city articles. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is recognized by many, including both US and Russia False. See Status of Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  You are denying US recognition? Also Australia and several other states. Not that it matters, the municipality is separate from the state. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  US recognition of what? Please get your facts straight. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  As for the statement the municipality.....is separate from Israel see Jerusalem Law

  Amendment no. 1 (passed by the Knesset on 27 November 2000):

  Area of the jurisdiction of Jerusalem

  5. The jurisdiction of Jerusalem includes, as pertaining to this basic law, among others, all of the area that is described in the appendix of the proclamation expanding the borders of municipal Jerusalem beginning the 20th of Sivan 5727 (28 June 1967), as was given according to the Cities' Ordinance.

  Prohibition of the transfer of authority

  6. No authority that is stipulated in the law of the State of Israel or of the Jerusalem Municipality may be transferred either permanently or for an allotted period of time to a foreign body, whether political, governmental or to any other similar type of foreign body.

  Entrenchment

  7. Clauses 5 and 6 shall not be modified except by a Basic Law passed by a majority of the members of the Knesset.

  It is clear that the municipality was created by and its continued existence guaranteed by the State of Israel. QED. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. The Jerusalem municipality existed prior to 2000, prior to 1967, and prior to 1948 for that matter. The Jerusalem Old Town Hall was used continuous by the municipality from 1930 to 1993 until replaced by a new building. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This article covers the entire territory of both western Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. By consensus, we do not say it is in Israel or Israeli. The seal and flag do that. nableezy - 19:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• It clearly says above "the proclamation expanding the borders of municipal Jerusalem beginning the 20th of Sivan 5727 (28 June 1967)" + see Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem defining the borders by way of an illegal annex, in contravention of UN resolutions, which is the reason why it is non-NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, again, the right place for an infobox containing these emblems is just that: Jerusalem Municipality. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't seem to be the case for any other city article, which all use the city's flag and seal (if any) in the city article's infobox, not the municipality article. And So It (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I guess this isn't just any other city article. Huh. How about that. I wonder what differentiates it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't put much stake in special pleadings. And So It (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well then stop with the special reasons to entirely ignore the import of international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to break it to you, but international law does not govern how wikipedia articles are written. I am not the one making special pleadings why this article should be written differntly than other city articles, including articles about cities with disputed sovereignty. The disputed sovereignty is far from ignored - it is covered in this article, but has no bearing on the displaying of the city's flag. And So It (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  international law does not govern how wikipedia articles are written It has a lot to do with it in this case. Nor is "sovereignty is disputed" a correct description of the situation, search for the word "disputed" in the section dealing with sovereignty and political status. Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  International law's relevancy to the political status of Jerusalem is covered in the article, but it does not govern how wikipedia articles are written. And So It (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is why we do not say (or imply) Israeli or Palestinian. Which is exactly what this discussion is about. Selfstudier (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This argument makes zero sense, please refer to every single other disputed city in a disputed country, and none are treated this way. Israel has complete and total control over Jerusalem, just like Kosovo does over Pristina. The country is stated as Kosovo (which nearly half of UN members do not even recognize) with a footnote stating that Serbia controls it. The Mayor is simply stated, not "Kosovar mayor" as if there is also a Serbian mayor. And there is no issue showing the seal and flag of the city. This is not a somehow unique case of a country controlling disputed areas, it happens all over the world. Bill Williams 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Or a country with even less support, North Nicosia is the capital of North Cyprus, which only Turkey and nobody else recognizes. Yet notice the seal is there without dispute, and the mayor is simply stated, not "North Cypriot mayor". Bill Williams 21:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I can list out numerous disputed capitals: Taipei is only recognized by less than a dozen countries as Taiwan's territory, Tifariti of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which almost only African nations recognize as independent, I could go on and on. There is zero issue with having the seal and coat of arms as well as the mayor in the infobox of this article. It has not been an issue on a single other article. Bill Williams 21:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

We already have a consensus on not saying Jerusalem is in Israel or in Palestine, that it is neither's sovereign territory. You can go on and on about things that do not have that consensus, so it is not relevant. These arguments about Israeli has complete control were already rejected in a [[widely attended RFC that was mandated by ArbCom. The view that this control, known to nearly the entire world as a military occupation of at least the eastern portion of what we cover here, makes it so this city is Israeli already has consensus against it. nableezy - 21:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Israel has complete and total control over Jerusalem, there is zero dispute over that. Your dispute is that its military occupation means it is not an Israeli city, but this is completely irrelevant. Its military occupation is the same as Morocco's over Western Sahara or North Cyprus over North Nicosia, yet once again, the capital of the Sahrawi Republic and North Cyprus both show the seal and the mayor. Every one of the article I listed is significantly disputed, with many countries not recognizing the sovereignty of the country over its proclaimed capital. Guess what, every single one of those articles states in the infobox that it is disputed, yet they also show the seal and the mayor of the city. You are disagreeing with basic facts, as the city has a mayor, a person who runs its day to day government, and pretending like it doesn't is not benefiting any readers. Bill Williams 21:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Also using a nine year old RfC is not exactly a convincing argument. Can you provide me with your own argument as to why a dozen other capitals of disputed countries show their seal and mayor, but this article cannot?Bill Williams 21:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Other crap exists is not an argument because the situation is not the same. Please explain precisely what is the disagreement with the 9 year old RFC? It reached the wrong conclusion? It should be done again? Or what? Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that is crap is your nonsensical propaganda against Israel. Once again, signaling it out compared to every single other disputed country is absurd. Find me a single quote from the nine year old RfC that states this article cannot show the mayor or seal of Jerusalem in the infobox. Instead of asking irrelevant rhetorical questions, why don't you tell me why your bias allows you to single out this article in opposition to the norms that govern Wikipedia. You are treating this differently from the infobox of any other city article (of the tens of thousands on this site). Bill Williams 22:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Also the biggest irony is that the mayor and seal have been in the infobox before that RfC, 10 years ago, and you suddenly felt the need to remove it and violate a decade of consensus. Bill Williams 22:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Not noticing something is not the equivalent of agreeing to it. Again, youre continuing to discuss other cities that do not have the consensus we have here, that is we do not say that Jerusalem is in Israel or is an Israeli city. The flag, imposed by Israel and based on the Israeli flag, clearly does that. I am not asking any pointless irrelevant questions. Nobody is disputing Israel controls all of Jerusalem. That control is called a military occupation, at least for a large portion if not the majority of what we cover here, and that means that this territory is not in Israel and is not Israeli. There is no insane bias in that. The norms that govern this article, like any other, are WP:NPOV and WP:CON, among others. And we already have a consensus that it is not neutral to give the Israeli claim to Jerusalem as a fact. And that is what the flag does. I am not opposed to including it somewhere as the Israeli flag for Jerusalem. But claiming it is the flag of Jerusalem is giving the Israeli claim as a fact. And we already have consensus against that. Its the same bs argument "any other country is allowed to pick its capital" that was already widely rejected in that aforementioned RFC. You can pretend things are equal to other cities, but they are not. And unless you would like somebody to discuss your insane bias that allows you to have Wikipedia endorse war crimes, kindly dont discuss what you perceive to be other editors failings on article talk pages. nableezy - 04:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The only one endorsing war crimes (Personal attack removed) You can accuse me of having "insane bias" and "endorsing war crimes" but I'm simply applying the same rules to this article as the thousands of other city articles. Anyway, North Nicosia is under military occupation by North Cyprus, yet it is treated the same as this article, with the seal and mayor in the infobox. The same is true for every other disputed country and Israel is not some magical country that differs from every other. Nobody is arguing that those other disputed countries are controversial or military occupiers, and the Mayor of Jerusalem is the one controlling it, there is zero dispute that he has authority, and pretending like he does not is only misleading to readers. Bill Williams 12:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats interesting. Ill give you a bit to refactor that, given I didnt accuse you of anything, only said you need to stop discussing other editors here. To follow it up with another personal attack is just dumbfounding. And tat argument you making, already been lost. We already have consensus on this. And oh, illegally changing the laws of an occupied territory is a war crime. And the word Hezbollah doesnt appear on my page, and nowhere have I said I enjoy watching terrorists bomb innocent people. Read and internalize WP:NPA, refactor that comment, and we can continue. Otherwise will see how AE admins feel about that level of discourse. nableezy - 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you just lost the moral and intellectual high-ground there, mate. Way to lower the tone. And Nicosia isn't occupied by Northern Cyprus, it is entirely populated by northern Cypriots. Apples and oranges. I don't think there are any direct parallels to Jerusalem, where a bullying military power is clearly occupying a part of city while actively attempting to displace its population. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

North Nicosia is under an illegal military occupation according to international law and the international community. The reason in is entirely populated by Turkish Cypriots is that the Greek Cypriots were expelled - a war crime. Stop making excuses for this. And So It (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Well you're welcome to go over to that page and start a consensus-forming RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

what? that page is written in a way consistent with other pages- it displays the seal of the city of Nicosia, reflecting the entire city, even though the Northern half is occupied. And So It (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The other crap argument has already been lost at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. nableezy - 14:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

thanks for linking to that discussion. I haven't read the whole thing , yet, but I think I read enough to see that you've been trying to pull the wool over our eyes with repeated references to it, when its summary clearly says it is valid for only 3 years, and all its conclusions expired six years ago. You can start a new one if you'd like. And So It (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

lol read the top of this talk page for the page notice on a discretionary sanction in place to this day. Yes, the ironclad lead was binding for 3 years. The consensus however remains, and it is incumbent on you to show that it has changed. Well, on the people qualified to comment in the RFC, and that aint you. Toodaloo, nableezy - 21:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with this page. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I knew I should have just closed this as needs consensus. Now it's a whole thing, and it's escalating. Sorry everybody. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I dont think you did anything wrong, and I would caution anybody removing it, but if this ends with no consensus my view of the process would be it gets removed, not stays. But in the interim I think its fine you restored it. nableezy - 04:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to remove something that's been in the article for over 10 years, it stays. And So It (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's already been said, and it's still not correct. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

ONUS > QUO unless there was an active consensus to add in the first place and even then if the argument against inclusion is strong enough, which in this case it is due to the (very) active consensus not to include this sort of material anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You've already said that, and were told it was wrong by the administrator who reverted your out-of-process removal of the flag But to repeat: "ONUS doesn't apply to content that clearly has enjoyed consensus for years. " And So It (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Is SFR an administrator? "ONUS doesn't apply to content that clearly has enjoyed consensus for years." We have clearly demonstrated that is not the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

He is not. Also for the record an editor with 170 edits may not particpate in the below RFC, so time to say fare thee well. nableezy - 15:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That was my opinion, and my reasoning behind my revert. A lot of discussion has happened since then, obviously. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Funny how an editor with 170 edits is so sure of our policies. But no, WP:ONUS requires consensus for challenged material. This has been challenged. nableezy - 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it right to leave the question of the theoretically expired RFC hanging? It seems unreasonable that such a well attended consensus can be just dismissed/ignored by commentators. Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The RFC hasn't actually expired though - only the absolutely binding "3yr no changes to the lead" clause. The principle stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

new lead suggestion

I want to lightly expand the details regarding Israeli institutions' locations. The suggestion is the following, at the second-last sentence in the lead. "All of the institutions of the Israeli government are located within Jerusalem (mostly in the west, with few, such as Kiryat Menachem Begin, in the east), including the Knesset, the residences of the Prime Minister (Beit Aghion) and President (Beit HaNassi), and the Supreme Court."

the bold section is my new suggestion. Any objections? It's just an elaboration of facts (without this, the reader won't know the proportion of what's in the west, and what's in the east (area in dispute), not something controversial at all. Archway (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If the material is in parentheses, that's a strong indication that it isn't crucial in a lead (especially one that's too long already). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Dont think its necessary, thats material for the body not the lead. nableezy - 16:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)