From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleJerusalem is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2007.
Article milestones
April 2, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
August 7, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Merger proposal[edit]

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. Zerotalk 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)


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.[1] Since 1991, Palestinians who make up the majority of the residents in the area have only received 30% of the building permits.[2]

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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 15:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
PepperbeastThe NYT has also gone with the Trump related idea 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)


  1. ^ "New data shows Israeli settlement surge in east Jerusalem". AP. 2019-09-12. Retrieved 2019-09-13.
  2. ^,7340,L-5587170,00.html

Vague section in the introduction[edit]

"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 ([1][2][3][4][5]) and on the other they have said that President Trump "boldly decided to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital"[6]. 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 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[edit]

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). (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. (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[edit]

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