Talk:Second Temple/Archive 1

Archive 1

Style

Much of this article seems to be written in an attempt to mimic King James style English. This has caused a lot of spelling errors, odd circumlocutions, and incomprehensible passages. This lends an air of inauthenticity to the article. Or maybe this is all the result of the article it was copied from?

See the bottom of the page; most of it comes from Easton's Bible dictionary of 1897. Jayjg 03:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great did not kill himself "ingloriously". He died in battle.

It seems problematic to me that the article tells a story of the reconstruction of the Temple with information largely gleaned from the Hebrew Bible. I assume this is a result of the use of text from the Bible Dictionary. However, the information gleaned from the Hebrew Bible may or may not be true and should be presented as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakirr (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Ok, this is not flamebait or trolling but the question is important as follow. Is there any historical evidence of the second temple, not that it existed, but of the construction process? Because the only references found on the text comes from the Bible and I'm not sure that is the best reference you can get. Samuel Sol 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC) That is true. Many people do not believe in or read the Bible. I wouldn't believe this page. Needs to be worked on and needs sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.209.104 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V opens with The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The material is verifiable. If you do not believe in the source, that is not the point. I've removed the unreferenced tag. Yngvarr (c) 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The temple was rebuilt seventy years later by Cyrus the Great in 515 BC.

It is not clear to me whether the temple refers to the first or second temple, as both are mentioned before the above line. Skippydo 12:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious from the dates. I changed it to first temple just to clarify. Skippydo 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

BCE/CE v BC/AD

Clear consensus on this and other Judaism related articles is for the BCE/CE date style. If you change it to BC/AD without so much as an edit summary or a substantial reason for change, as per WP:MOS, expect to have your edit swiftly reverted. Steven J. Anderson 13:41, 4 November 2007

I invite a coversation on this then. Since the original dating system used was AD/BC, please provide an explanation for a change to BCE/CE that is consitent with Wiki policy and rationally related to the article. Jpetersen46321 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to get back to this, but here it is:

First although the article was created with AD/BC era style, the reason for that is that it was copy-pasted from Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) and carried the following disclaimer:

This is an article from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897. This article is written from a nineteenth century Christian viewpoint, and may not reflect modern opinions or recent discoveries in Biblical scholarship. Please help the Wikipedia by bringing this article up to date.

In the early days of Wikipedia a lot of articles were created from various public domain sources in a similar fashion, including this version of "Quails" (since redirected to Quail). They were rough, but they were a start.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not mandate that articles must retain the era style in which they were created. They only say that changes to an era style must be done for a substantive reason. The era style of this article had been kept stable and consistent for some time until this edit, which I believe was against consensus and without substantive reason. I also believe there is a clear consensus in favor or BC/BCE for articles related to Jewish History and Judaism. I am therefore returning this article to BC/BCE era style --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you make history out to be a science you should note that widespread use of a convention which is reasonable and accurate makes that convention interchangable and even more preferable. Unless the convention is more readily understood there exists a "substantive reason" for the alternative. Science is not for the scientists...or in this case for those who would expel such unreasonable force to push a less used convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.189.5.201 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument, (if it is one) would justify the complete abandonment of BCE/CE in favor of BC/AD everywhere on Wikipedia, an idea which has been clearly rejected by the Wikipedia community in extensive debate and discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation above clearly mandates the use of AD/BC. Wiki policy prefers that the original dating system is used continuously. Further, your "argument" that the wiki community prefers CE/BCE is spurious and unsupported. Accordingly, the original dating convention is being recovered.Jpetersen46321 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with the arguments of S. Anderson. This article has been stable with the BCE/CE style for a long, long time; I see no justification for changing it now. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Petersen, as I'm sure you're capable of comprehending, my argument mandates no such thing, and neither does Wikipedia policy. What policy mandates and I support is that an article that has an era style that is stable, consistent, and supported by consensus should retain that era style. Your personal preference to the contrary does not constitute a substantive reason for change. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Beit HaMikdash or Bayit Sheni

Just a thought: The English title of this article is Second Temple, but the Hebrew given is בית המקדש which just means "The Temple" which can refer to the First Temple or any future or theoretical Jewish Temple. The proper Hebrew should be בית שני (Bayit Sheni) or בית המקדש השני (Beit HaMikdash HaSheni) if it is specific to this Temple.

Secondly, I noticed that the Hebrew version on the side under "Languages" is the article תקופת בית שני (Second Temple period) rather than the more directly relevant article בית המקדש השני (Second Temple). I would suggest that someone else who is knowledgeable and more involved in this project make the changes. 24.118.174.254 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Duration of the Second Temple

Jewish sources support the existence of the First Temple for 410 years and the Second Temple for 420 years -- according to this article, it stood from 516 BCE to 70 CE, for a total of 686 years. What is the source of this discrepancy? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The descrepency is due to the dates given by secular historians and those by traditional rabbinic sources. Chesdovi (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

House of worship

Re: "ancient house of worship". This seems to be a modern and anachronistic expression. Modern scholarship makes it quite clear that the Temples served explicit priestly functions, which could be entered by non priests only on pain of death; at which ALL sacrifices were to be made; in which Yahweh literally dwelled, etc. You could make the case that "worship" could connote all these things, but this is likely to mislead the reader since, in the modern sense, a "house of worship" is a place all may enter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliotistic (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what "modern scholarship" you're referring to, but the descriptions of those who were there make it clear that the Temple was open to all. There was the Inner Sanctuary, where only the priests entered, and the Holy of Holies within that, where only the High Priest entered, but the rest of the Temple was open to all who were ritually clean. Levites sang during the sacrifices, and a rotating delegation of non-Cohanim recited prayers. A person obligated to bring a sacrifice was required to enter the alter area to lay hands on the animal, and could even perform the actual sacrifice. Sechel (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC Archeological categories

Which category is best fitting to describe the archeological location of the Second Temple? --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Notices have been left at WP:Palestine, WP:Israel, WP:Judaism, WP:WikiProject Jewish history‎ and WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 10:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Second Temple of Jerusalem is in East Jerusalem which is by the whole international community considered to be part of the occupied territories and not part of Israel proper, to have "Category:Archaeological sites in Israel" is false and not neutral, to have "Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli occupied territories" is more accurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But I foresee the usual pro-Israel rant from certain editors who will argue that Israeli policy and politics are somehow overruling the rest of the world's definitions... CUSH 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not one of accuracy, but of utility. Categories are there to help people find information. "I know it was a song by Frank Sinatra but I don't remember which one." It is not unlikely - in fact, it is highly likely - that some readers groping around the Wikipedia in search of information on archaeological sites in Jerusalem will look under the category "Archaelological sites in Israel." These poor misguided creatures will light upon the article on the Second Temple, and there their misconceptions, one would hope, will be corrected.

But, oops!, the article doesn't mention that the site is in East Jerusalem, in fact, makes no reference to the modern-day condition - both political and archeological - of the site. So I would suggest that we add a section to the article on the second temple, that describes the site today - including the archaeological finds, the museum, the mosques, and the delicate political administration of the Haram. Not a whole lot, and nothing inflammatory, but just so readers should know.

Now, as usual, I have succeeded in pissing off both sides. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying an encyclopedia should lie for the sake of utility?

Today the site is not on Israeli territory and in the Hasmonean time in which it was built the area was not named Israel either. So maybe the category reference should simply be dropped? CUSH 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why can't we have a category called 'Archaelogical sites in Israel and the Palestinian Territories' ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean has, as usual, come up with a solution which is no less than brilliant. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It slightly ruined by 'Archaelogical sites in Israel' containing a subcat called 'Archaelogical sites in the Golan Heights'. Sigh.. I'm going to pretend I haven't seen it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand Category:Archaeological sites in Syria also contains the subcat Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights so that's alright then. Perhaps no one will care if 'Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights' is a subcat of a renamed category 'Archaelogical sites in Israel and the Palestinian Territories'. I know I won't. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why disputed territories can't have two categories like it always used to. Supreme Deliciousness has actually created without discussions many extremely disruptive categories called X in Israeli occupied territories and had it listed as a country. As to the Golan articles, X in Golan Heights and having it both in Israel and Syria is a good solution. Temple in Jerusalem can be both under X in Israel and X in West Bank for example. Amoruso (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But the Temple is not on the territory of modern Israel. That is what is at issue. CUSH 20:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is either, it's in dispute. And it is de facto too and according to Israeli Law. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow a U.N opinion, which is just as politically motivated as Israel's opinion obviously, and was superseded by the Oslo Agreements. Amoruso (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Israeli laws are irrelevant. The UN, which means the international community, does not recognize the occupation and settlements expansion that is conducted by Israel. That is what counts and that is what is the neutral position that WP is supposed to present. Or was Paris suddenly a German city when it was occupied? CUSH 20:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Israeli laws are not irrelevant. Israel is a democratic country, the only one, in the middle east, and its institutions are recognized as such. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship which didn't sign an agreement with the Allies concerning pending final status negotiations over Paris. The UN is NOT the international community, it is a politically motivated and criticized, and sometimes completely discredited, institution. Amoruso (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree, the UN is not the international community and Wikipedia is not the UN. But I digress...The article for the island of Penghu, is categorized as an "Island of Taiwan". This is true of a number of other articles about Taiwanese geographical features. It doesn't say "Island of People's Republic of China" and it doesnt say "Island occupied by Republic of China". Taiwan, as a entity, is not recognized as an independent nation by most of the world. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 20:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the usual claim that "East Jerusalem which is by the whole international community considered to be part of the occupied territories and not part of Israel proper" is completely false. Most legal scholars would agree that Oslo Agreements are controlling, and those left East Jerusalem's status for final negotiations. Which means it's in legitimate dispute and Israeli category can be safely added as an alternative, per the "international community" as well. Amoruso (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not discuss this. The UN represents the world. And occupation is occupation and is not recognized by either the UN or Wikipedia. The site of the Temple is not on Israeli soil. CUSH 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Using the POV term 'Palestinian Territories' is misleading. It would be less but still misleading to say 'Jordanian Territories', but Jordan relinquished its claim on the land. In the last 15years, the Oslo accords have not changed the status of the Temple Mount to Palestinian, though it might be considered Palestinian-occupied since Jewish rights are limited there. --Shuki (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Why do these things always turn into an Israeli-Palestinian version of The Big Snit ? We only need to categorise things in a way that will allow people to find the information they are looking for, as Ravpapa, the voice of reason said. Categories like 'Archaeological sites in the Zionist Entity and the liberated Egyptian/Jordanian territorial obstacles to peace' are quite entertaining but they aren't very practical. Implementing a two state solution is easy in Wikipedia. You just type stuff in with your fingers and there it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - as an improvement on Sean's suggestion, have a category Archaeological sites in East Jerusalem (or just Jerusalem would be fine) which would be a subcat of Archaeological sites in Israel and the Palestinian territories. There could be separate categories for each in Israel proper and in the Palestinian territories but for what is in Jerusalem we can just ignore the issue and have a specific category for Jerusalem. And Shuki, "Palestinian territories" is in no way misleading, it is only somewhat imprecise. The standard terminology throughout the English speaking world is "occupied Palestinian territories". "Palestinian territories" is no more POV a term than "Israel" is. East Jerusalem is in fact recognized by the overwhelming majority of the world as being in the oPt, it is a super-majority view that Wikipedia should not pretend is the same as the fringe minority claim that E. Jerusalem is in Israel. But it would be easiest, as usual, to avoid the issue instead of trying to represent a demonstrable fact as such. nableezy - 05:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Only problem here (and of course we would need to find WP:RS) but I'm willing to bet if you asked the average person in the english language world where the Second Temple is, they would say Jerusalem. And if you asked them were Jerusalem is, they would say "in Israel". So I disagree with the statement that "East Jerusalem is in fact recognized by the overwhelming majority of the world as being in the oPt", because thats not obviously the case for all of the world. Rather, I think its probably a mixture of a number of terms. We must also keep in mind that Israel's own legal position regarding East Jerusalem is much different than that which it has applied to the Golan, Gaza and West Bank. Israel has said that under the right circumstances it would be willing to relinquish control of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan. That option has never been on the table with East Jerusalem. In fact, given all their internal "laws", "legal opinions", and even governmental statements regarding East Jerusalem, its obvious that the only way East Jerusalem will ever cease to be under Israeli control is through an act of force. We can argue the semantics of it until we're all blue in the face, but that won't change the facts: Transjordan, the former "owners" gave up their claim to East Jerusalem and Israel now claims it as theirs. In the interim it was never part of another country, so its hard to claim its "occupied" when the previous recognized owner of the land no longer claims it and the current entity controlling it considers and presents it as a de facto and integral part of their country. I did find this, however:

• From the Biblical Archaeology Review magazine, a large-circulation magazine serving the archaeological community --

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/temple-mount-destruction-02.asp

In the wake of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority (PA), through its Ministry of Religious Endowments (Waqf), systematically eroded the administrative role that had been assigned to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as the caretaker of Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In October 1994, the PA even appointed its own mufti for Jerusalem, who displaced Jordan's candidate.

Even though the Oslo Accords recognized Israel's jurisdiction over Jerusalem, pending any change reached through future permanent status negotiations, Israeli governments were extremely hesitant to confront the incremental but steady PA efforts to broaden religious control over Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, especially on the Temple Mount. Furthermore, since the entire Israeli-Palestinian peace process had been launched under U.S. auspices, a full-scale clash over the Temple Mount could also lead to a U.S.-Israeli diplomatic crisis, which the governments in Jerusalem sought to avoid. These considerations continued to influence Israeli decision-making even after the outbreak of Palestinian violence in 2000, even though any expression of Palestinian governmental authority in Jerusalem was an outright violation of the Oslo Accords.

and

The law governing the Temple Mount is explicit regarding the full jurisdiction of Israeli law over the location. Legal expert Dr. Shmuel Berkowitz summarized the main points in his 2006 book:⁶

All the laws of Israel are valid for the Temple Mount, as it is located on ground that has been part of the State of Israel since the unification of Jerusalem and the enforcement of Israeli law over East Jerusalem, including the Law of Planning and Construction, 1965, and the Antiquities Law of 1978. As early as August 1967, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall were designated as antiquities, as part of the Old City of Jerusalem and its environs. According to Article 29(A) of the Antiquities Law, no action is to be carried out, including actions of construction, demolition, earthworks, and change or dismantling of an antiquity without authorization from the Antiquities Authority.

According to the law, "Archaeological activities at...sites, which are legally defined as holy sites, are not dependent on the sole discretion of the IAA Director-General. Any changes (e.g., excavation, construction, preservation of ancient walls, etc.) require approval of the Ministerial Committee for Holy Places, which consists of the Ministers of Justice, Education and Religious Affairs."⁷

I'm sure pros and cons can be found with that article, esp. with another reference that the Waqf does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem...but then again, a number of Islamic entities and Arab states don't recognize any of part of Israel as being legitimate...so, we're back at square one, I guess --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 09:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a long response wiped by an edit conflict, so I'll try to reconstruct it but apologies if this is a bit disjointed.

The line that its hard to claim its "occupied" when the previous recognized owner of the land no longer claims it and the current entity controlling it considers and presents it as a de facto and integral part of their country is simply false. E. Jerusalem is recognized as being a part of the occupied Palestinian territories by the UN Sec. Gen., the UN and its various bodies such as the UNHCR, ECOSOC, UNICEF, and OCHA. It is also recognized as occupied Palestinian territory by the ICRC. In Dec. of 2008 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution concerned particularly about Israel’s construction and expansion of settlements in and around Occupied East Jerusalem. The resolution passed with 171 nations voting yes, 6 no (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and the US which stated that it was concerned with singling out Israel in UN GA resolutions so voted no, but not remarking on the actual content of the resolution, for more info see here and 2 abstentions (Cameroon and the Ivory Coast). A sampling of the yes votes: France, Canada, UK (for a more complete overview of the UK position on Jerusalem see here, Ireland, Spain, India, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, Germany, and the list keeps going. It is an undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of the world recognizes that E. Jerusalem is a part of the Palestinian territories and to pretend otherwise is just silly. nableezy - 09:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, most of those links you give are different branches/subsidiaries of the UN; one can assume they would have the same opinion as their parent organization. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 09:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The UN GA resolution is not a branch of the UN, it shows the opinion of each individual member state. The ICRC is also not a branch of the UN. nableezy - 13:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Set theory, the relevant perspective here, doesn't care about any of that stuff. From an information management perspective the Temple is a member of the set of all things in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is a member of the set of all things in Jerusalem etc. i.e. Temple $\in$ East Jeusalem $\in$ Jeusalem $\in$ Israel and the Palestinian Territories. It's just math. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support the creation of a category "Archaeological sites in East Jerusalem" or Arhcaeological sites in the Old City of Jerusalem". It could be a sub-category of the sets outlined by Sean Hoyland. Or, it could be categorized under "Archaeological sites in the Middle East" or "Archaeological sites in the Arab world" and skip any country categorization (as is preferred by UNESCO, for example). Tiamut^talk 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Many country in world, especial muslim country like Malaysia, Syria, Iran, not recognize Israel. This must be take into account along with UN opinion on Jerusalem. It be fact Jerusalem, include East Jerusalem, be occupied Palestine capitol. The Dome of Rock and wall bury beneath it, be locate in side a Palestine city that be illegal occupy by Isreal military. It not Israel city, it PALESTINE CITY! There be lot of proof. If use any category that not mention Palestine or illegal israel occupation, then it be intention falsehood!!! The same, if any category say the dome of rock and land under it be in Israel, it be intentional attempt to disguise truth by push very wrong israel pov Ani medjool (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

it notice that not many pro-israel editor comment here, may be them finally see lite an agree with truth? Ani medjool (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your set-theory thing works, Sean. Things that are in the set "things that are in Jerusalem" are not necessarily also in both the sets "things that are in Israel" and "things that are in the Palestinan Territories". They are either exclusively in "things that are in Israel" (Israeli POV) or some are in the one set, some in the other, depending on where exactly they are (UN POV). In exactly the same way, you can't make the Statue of Liberty belong to the set of "things that are in New Jersey" by the intermediary of putting it in a category of "things that are in New York or New Jersey".

Think it was a good try though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a choice. If you measure the degree to which placing it in a category represents the various POVs then placing it in a combined Israel+Palestinian Territories set maximises it. It's also literally true to say that things in Jerusalem are in a combined set Israel+Palestinian Territories just like it's literally true to say that Hartsfield–Jackson airport is in the United States if we decided to describe it that way rather than placing it in Georgia for pragmatic reasons. It isn't a member of both "things that are in Israel" and "things that are in the Palestinan Territories". Those sets would be subset/members of 'Israel and the Palestinian Territories'. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like this and not this like this. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to get fixated on categories that have inherent problems in a given situation. For example, I think 'male' and 'female' but recently I had to fill out a form that said 'gender at time of birth' because M/F doesn't work/isn't pragmatic in Thailand. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that most of the above is about political claims and that they simply aren't relevant. The relevant tests, with thanks to Ravpapa, Sean.hoyland and nableezy, are about what users of the English wikipedia will be looking for and how they will be doing so. And categories do not need to be exclusive. Even minority viewpoints can be accommodated, fortunately. I'd suggest including all the categories that have any approximate use. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay Sean, that makes a little more sense now, although, to make it work properly, you would presumably need to get rid of the relevant "Israel" and "Palestinian Territories" categories altogether (good luck with that!) or only put sites in disputed territory in the new cat (in which case something like "Archeological sites in disputed Israeli or Palestinian territory" would be clearer).

Richard, I think the problem with what you are saying is that you will find it hard to get consensus about where users of the English Wikipedia will look. Plus, as has been pointed out above, we can't forsake factual accuracy in favour of ease of use (because we are an encyclopaedia). For example, Sydney does not belong in the cat "capitals" just because people are likely to look there. --FormerIP (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points. However, I suggest that we don't have to get consensus on what the current legal facts are, which is good because I personally don't feel like sorting out all the local difficulties in one brief discussion. We only have to get consensus on where users of the English Wikipedia might look. I again propose that we can, without supporting anybody's claims or in any way trying to contribute to the local conflicts or their resolution, reasonably include this location in both categories and possibly more.

If the two sides both start claiming a site that has never ever been part of Israel or of Palestine in any sense - and as far as I know they aren't - this wouldn't apply because it wouldn't meet the test of factuality. But this site is in some sense located on territory which has formed part of both entities. It can, to repeat my suggestion, go in both categories and possibly more. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here, Richard. The legal facts are actually of paramount importance. Although we can allow for different interpretations of facts, we simply can't categorize things on the basis of common misconceptions. This is because cateorgisation isn't just a navigation tool. It is also a way of finding articles about (for example) types of fish, all grouped together in one place. The doplhin article doesn't belong there, regardless or where people might look. --FormerIP (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I doubt we will get consensus on the legal facts within my lifetime. I'd suggest that there is a consensus that the site has at different times been located within historical Israel and historical Palestine. And that this fact is useful, in that we can, for Wikipedious purposes only, put this article in both categories. Just my 2 cents worth... Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Which means we do not lie. Common misconceptions or where people might look are subsequently irrelevant. What counts is the real status, and that is not determined by unilateral declarations of the occupying aggressor. And btw Jerusalem has never been part of any historical entity naemd Israel. CUSH 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be interesting to know on what grounds you assert that Jerusalem has never been part of any historical entity named Israel. But not very. I don't propose to carry on this debate very far - I am responding to the RfC and have no special interest - but I repeat, saying that an archaeological site is within Israel does not have to imply anything about the legitimacy of present-day claims. I'd include both categories. While we're at it, if anybody seriously wanted to, we could include it in archaeological sites of the Empire of Alexander, of the Kingdom of Egypt, and in fact quite a few other historical concepts and political entities. The only reason not to is that these categories wouldn't be very useful. This particular issue can be separated from the hatreds focused on the area, and within Wikipedia it should be. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The United Monarchy period is ahistorical, it's just a biblical myth. And later the entity called "Israel" (the "northern kingdom") was ruled from Shechem and Samaria, while Jerusalem was part of "Judah".

Anyways this article is about sites and their respective location in today's territorial entities. East Jerusalam is officially outside of the State of Israel. Or what? And saying that an archaeological site is within Israel 'does' in fact imply something about the legitimacy of present-day claims. CUSH 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for the term "occupied territory"; since a definitive Palestinian state has not been established yet, and its future boundaries have not been set in stone by anyone other than the Palestinian Authority (and remember, some of the Hamas-aligned leadership feels the future Palestinian state will not be complete until it includs all of Modern Israel, not just the West Bank and Gaza). So we are left with the following: A) Israel currently retains Defacto control over the eastern part of Jerusalem, B) the Oslo Accords place it in Israel *for the moment*, C) most users on English wikipedia will look for it in an Israel sub-category not "occupied territory" or "palestinian territory", D) unlike the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan, Israel has never been open to the possibility of giving up East Jerusalem (short of armed conflict), and E) Israeli laws treat East Jerusalem different than the areas is has under its "occupation". Also, look at the Taiwan articles. None of them say anything about "occupied territory" etc. I'm concerned this debate may have been originally established with the intent to cause disruption and with the desire that ultimate outcome be based only on specific POV. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Palestine indeed exist! It be nation that be supress and occupy by political entity that be unilateral AND illegal declare in May 1948. East Jerusalem be OCCUPY PALESTINE TERRITORY! If this not be, why you think holy Waqf be able to ignore occupy government and operate Dome of Rock with none regard to "law" that occupy government attempt impose. Why you think occupy government not try stop Waqf from construction on Dome property? It because occupy government know they not legitimate government of East Jerusalem. Ani medjool (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Oslo Accords do not place East Jerusalem within Israel, and "occupied territory" is not ambiguous. It is clearly defined in the international media and by the international organizations who overwhelmingly use this phrase before any others. "Occupied Palestinian territory" is the territory occupied by Egypt and Jordan prior to the 67 war with the universally recognized boundary between it and Israel being the Green Line. The Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms would be included when the phrase "Israaeli-occupied territories" is used, but "occupied Palestinian territory" has a very clear meaning and East Jerusalem is included in that phrase. That is the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of the world. Hamas' claims to the whole of the region known as Palestine, including the modern state of Israel and the oPt, are taken as seriously as Israel's claims to East Jerusalem or the Golan. Both are completely dismissed by the overwhelming majority of countries, international organizations, and experts in international law. nableezy - 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Occupied Palestinian territory is the territory occupied by Egypt and Jordan prior to the 67 war. But before 67, Egypt and Jordan were certainly not occupying Palestinian territory. Back then, that term was not used widely. --Shuki (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied the West Bank. Yes the term was not as widely used, but it is used, hell we even use it (see Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan). It is only when discussing Israel's occupation of these territories do we see these arguments. Which is odd, because, as you point out, Gaza and the West Bank (including E. Jerusalem) prior to 67 are not predominately referred to as "occupied", whereas they both are now, which should make it less of an issue here on Wikipedia. But my point stands, the oPt is a clearly defined area and that area included E. Jerusalem. To say that something in E. Jerusalem is "in Israel" is a blatant falsehood, one in which a fringe-sized minority POV is given equal footing to what the overwhelming majority of countries, international organizations, and scholars say. nableezy - 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see this source -- http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/temple-mount-destruction-02.asp --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There are countless sources that dispute each part of what that source says, including the footnotes, such as the view (again, fringe-sized) that the Temple Mount is located on ground that has been part of the State of Israel since the unification of Jerusalem and the enforcement of Israeli law over East Jerusalem. The Oslo Accords recognize Israel's de-facto control of the city but stresses that nothing should be done to change the current status of the city, such as increased settlement activity. It does not recognize East Jerusalem as "part of Israel". nableezy - 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See Albin, Celia (Apr., 1997). "Securing the Peace of Jerusalem: On the Politics of Unifying and Dividing". Review of International Studies. 23 (2). Cambridge University Press. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) p. 119:

Under international law Israel's annexation of that sector, and the measures undertaken to change its physical and demographic character, are illegitimate. Most countries still reject 'united Jerusalem' as the Israeli capital, and the continued land confiscations and settlements in the Eastern part as a violation of the spirit and objectives of the Oslo Accords

nableezy - 03:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Egypt and Jordan occupy and supress nation of Palestine during period. If Egypt and Jordan not be occupy at time, then Palestine would have be free nation. Nation of Palestine exist all during time, but constantly be oppress and supress illegally. The Second Temple article cannot say nothing other than Occupy Territory. Cannot and will not because that what it be now and in future. Forever it be Palestine captial, unfortunate until opressive occupy government be overthrown, people be mislead to think it be part of entity that be illegally unilateral declare in 1948 Ani medjool (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So let me see if I understand you correctly: You are basing E. Jerusalem's current status (and by that virtue, this article's correct categorization) on the fact that Israel is not a legitimate country, but rather a "political entity" occupying a single foreign nation (which stretches from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan River) while suppressing that nation's rightful government? Do you have WP:RS for all of that? nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to make the point that the concepts of Israel or Palestine, or, say, Egypt or the Roman Empire, are not limited to present territorial legalities. Except where, for a particular discourse, we require and specify that they are. We can avoid here the strong points of view on modern legality, and I share nsaum75's concern that this debate is intended to cause disruption and insert a point of view which is not relevant to the article. Put the article in both categories, and as many others as may be useful! You might want to put a note in the category description that disclaims for it any current legal implications... Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think we're arguing about an issue that we can decide to avoid by simply treating contested things like this as if they are in a category that is a combined 'Israel+Palestinian Territories' set. That means we are only saying that they are in a combined 'Israel+Palestinian Territories' set. It doesn't mean we are saying that they are in Israel and it doesn't mean we are saying that they are in the Palestinian Territories. Yes, it's possible to place things in East Jerusalem in 2 categories, an 'Israel' category and a 'Palestinian Territories' category (in a similar way to the treatment of the Golan Heights) with the only slight problem being that from a wiki policy perspective East Jerusalem isn't in Israel. To say it is is pretty close to 100% WP:V non-compliance which unsurprisingly causes arguments. To address FormerIP's comment above, "you would presumably need to get rid of the relevant "Israel" and "Palestinian Territories" categories altogether (good luck with that!) or only put sites in disputed territory in the new cat (in which case something like "Archeological sites in disputed Israeli or Palestinian territory" would be clearer)." No, we wouldn't have to get rid of them (although I personally would like to get rid of them and just use a combined set for all Israel-Palestine related things). They could still exist as subsets of the combined superset like the separate Espionage and Sedition sets in this picture are subsets of the Treason set. Our treatment of East Jerusalem could be like categorising something as Treason (=Israel+Palestinian territories set) but not knowing or not wanting to specify whether it's Espionage (=Israel) or Sedition (=Palestinian Territories) so we put it in the magenta Treason area. Using a term like "in disputed Israeli or Palestinian territory" isn't policy compliant because it gives undue weight to what is, from a policy perspective, a fringe view. Saying "occupied Palestinian territory" (despite being close to 100% policy compliant) gets us into another avoidable political argument. It's easy and pragmatic to just avoid the issue altogether and use a combined set in this case. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sean for another good idea. What about "Archaeological sites in Israel or Palestine"? Again its use would require a little common sense and tolerance - as we all know there are claims on both sides which exclude the other from all legitimacy. Or "Archaeological sites in the former Mandate Territory of Palestine west of the Jordan" would avoid this un-necessary argument. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Lets look at a similar situation. Taiwan is an "entity" (since that seems to be a popular term) not recognized as being a legitimate country by the UN or any other major countries in the world. Yet articles on historical structures, such as Chaotian Temple or Kagi Shrine, are listed as being in Taiwan, not "Occupied People's Republic of China" or "Disputed Chinese Territories". Taiwan, despite not being recognized as a legitimate "entity", maintains de-facto control over the sites, not the PRC. When people talk about visiting sites such as Orchid Island, they say they're going to Taiwan or the Republic of China...not the People's Republic of China.

No one knows what the future of Taiwan holds, despite what the PRC says or what the UN says. But what is made clear is that currently Taiwan's government has defacto control over the land (or sites) and it presents it as its own -- and there is not any evidence of that changing anytime soon. The same goes for East Jerusalem. Israel presents it as its own land, it administers it as part of "Israel", no other "entity" currently has control over the land, and short of an armed conflict (similar to Taiwan) Israel has said it has no intentions of ever relinquishing control. We can say forever "its occupied Palestine and will be their a future capitol", and maybe it will be, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can say the sky is orange, pass resolutions saying the sky is orange, make statements that the sky is orange, say that in the past the sky was orange, and say that in the future the sky will be orange. But despite all that, at this moment, when you look at the sky ... it's still blue, regardless of what labels other people try to pin on it.

If it makes everyone happy, lets put whatever (non criminializing) categories editors want in it ...But this debate was originally opened because several editors were opposed to the "Archaeological sites in Israel" category and insisted it be removed. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 08:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying that it is in the occupied Palestine territories is not equivalent to the sky being orange. As a statement of fact, East Jerusalem is in the occupied Palestinian territories. There is no real dispute about that point, a small handful of countries and sources do not trump the demonstrable fact that East Jerusalem is regarded as part of the occupied Palestinian territories by the overwhelming majority of the world. I dont much care why the issue was raised (see appeal to motive); it has been raised and we should seek a resolution. nableezy - 08:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to Motive is not WP Policy, however WP:GAME and WP:POINT are. After a number of comments made by several editors above, the reasoning of why the issue was raised starts to become important. I do not think I am alone in this concern. There is no reason why several positions (categories) cannot be given, since there exists more than one position regarding this topic and WP:RS to back up each position. -nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to dispute Nableezy by pasting what someone put in the Evolution talk page today which tragically got removed "Has nobody considered that there's tons of proof against it? So no, it did not occur. It didn't possibly occur. It is fact that it did not occur. Simple as that." Despite this being possibly the best argument ever, policy means that the Evolution article doesn't give any weight to the fringe opinions of the Intelligent Design groups. Nableezy, has argued that we should avoid the issue. He said "have a category Archaeological sites in East Jerusalem (or just Jerusalem would be fine) which would be a subcat of Archaeological sites in Israel and the Palestinian territories. There could be separate categories for each in Israel proper and in the Palestinian territories but for what is in Jerusalem we can just ignore the issue and have a specific category for Jerusalem." What is the concern ? That we don't want to say it's in Israel ? It's not in Israel from the wiki policy perspective. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What about adding a comment to the category page, saying that inclusion in "archaeological sites in Israel" does not make any claims about legitimacy or de facto reality of modern claims? Are we then in reach of a consensus that this category and indeed quite a few others are then reasonable for this site? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That means you want to redefine what Israel means? Israeli territorry is still defined by the Green Line (Israel). There is no other internationally recognized border. If you have a category "archaeological sites in Israel" and you inlcude sites that are not in Israel then the category becomes meaningless, no matter what comments you add to the page. And having sites that are not inside Israel is in fact a political statement, which WP is not supposed to make. CUSH 12:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am saying that archaeological sites "in Israel" are not limited to those within the present internationally recognized border, nor indeed are those "within Palestine" limited to those within the present political borders of that entity. Both have wider historical meanings to which we can appeal. I also suggest that we might disclaim any political intentions, or intention to define or redefine anybody's boundary. This might save a lot of argument. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

With such reasoning I could include articles on Prague, Vienna, and Berlin in a Category called "Cities in Luxembourg". And archaeological sites are by the very meaning of the term sites that have been archeologically researched in modern times and subsequently are referred to with modern territorial designations. If a site was situated in ancient Israel it was then not a archaeological site. CUSH 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this sounds very convincing. Are there any other cases where we would have catagories for things that are currently within a country according to what its boundaries once were? (In this case, we don't even seem to be talking about actual historical boundaries, but boundaries in scripture). --FormerIP (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to restate my suggestion that we avoid a country categorization altogether when it comes to a place like Jerusalem, and more specifically, the Old City or Eastern section of the city. We can create a category for Category:Archaeological sites in East Jerusalem or Category: Archaeological sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. It can be a sub-category of Category: Archaeological sites in the Middle East or Category: Archaeological sites in the Arab world. I base this suggestion on the example set by UNESCO for World Heritage Sites located in the Old City of Jerusalem which are listed in the general category belonging to the Arab world (it was Jordan who proposed its listing as a World Heritage Site in 1982). A footnote outlines how the political situation (its proposed international status under the 1947 partition plan and the lack of any settlement regarding its present-day status vis a vis any country.) Tiamut^talk 18:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good approach. --FormerIP (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not acceptable, those option list by Tiamut be misleading. Category MUST state "Occupied Palestine" or "Isreali Occupied Territory"! All other be false that pander to pro isreal editor desire that truth about location be supress. East Jerusalem, most holy Dome of Rock and land under it, be locate in what be rightful Palestine territory that be forceably occupy by foreign entity. Ani medjool (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ani. I think the most important consideration is that any catagory name is factually accurate, which Tiamut's suggestions are, in my opinion. Whether you support these suggestions or not, you can see from her userpage that she is a strong supporter of Palestinian self-detrmination, so I think your suggestion that she desires to suppress the truth is almost certainly unfair to her. Arguably, "Israeli Occupied Territory" might also be factually accurate. Let's see what the consensus is, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ani, I'm sure you know by now about WP:NPOV. I'm sure that you can find a link on the left sidebar of that page that will have a page about this in your mother tongue language. I'm sure that after reading that page you will understand that what you say is not exactly what you can edit here since we all need to strive for NPOV, no matter how much it might suppress our emotions somewhat. --Shuki (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut's suggestions sounds reasonable to me too. I'll support any suggestion that helps people find information while avoiding making false or even false-ish statements via categorization. I disagree with FormerIP a little bit. I think the most important consideration is that any category name is not factually inaccurate although that amounts to the same as your view in some but not all categorizations. I think avoiding statements that many people will quite reasonably regard as provocative, non-neutral or patently false statements about the present day status which are inconsistent with both policy and the discretionary sanctions is more important than being precise and accurate about the actual present day status. The US State Department insisting that US citizens born in Jerusalem must have 'Jerusalem' and not 'Israel' as their place of birth in their passports is just one of the countless examples that could be brought to show that Wikipedia shouldn't just casually stick things in an Israel category on an 'it's obvious, look, here's a source' basis and then be surprised when chaos follows. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we are actually disagreeing, Sean. I think factual accuracy is the most important thing, as in no factually innaccurate categorisation is ever appropriate. You seem to me to agree with this. I am not saying that no other consideration will ever apply. If something is non-neutral, then that may obviously mean that it shouldn't be allowed. But, if it's a choice between something that's factually accurate and something that isn't, then the first option should always win IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel has both defacto and dejure control over Jerusalem. Defacto in that the Israeli government military controls the entirety of Jerusalem and has so for several decades, dejure in that by Israeli law Jerusalem is the indivisible and exclusive capital of the state of Israel. Obviously not every nation-state agrees with this dejure definition, but the situation is not much different then Taiwan. Since "sovereignty" is such a subjective and POV issue, Wikipedia should probably take a stand and pick military control as sufficient claim of sovereignty, and if not, it must pick what dejure claim solidifies sovereignty (eg: if it's the UN, we should remove a lot of Taiwan content from Wikipedia). Masterhomer 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC Archeological categories: summary and analysis of options

OK, if I could try to distil the argument so far, we have proposals including:

1) Classify archaeological sites by modern political entities, with scrupulous care to get the contested details right. This implies a fine subdivision of sites in the area, to the loss of clear geographical classification and at the cost of a lot of work. I also think we will have some trouble getting consensus even on the finest detail; there are plenty on each side who deny all legitimacy to the other. However, it does conform to usual wikipedia policy and usual practice in other less-contested areas, and it might eventually offer a way of satisfying some of the claims of the various involved editors.

2) Classify by combined modern political entities, some version of Sean's admirable suggestion of "Archaeological sites in Israel and the Palestinian Territories". This has the advantage of sidestepping almost the whole wretched wrangle, and it has clear boundaries, but is not normal wikipedia practice (though I note that in this particular area all practices are fairly abnormal). It requires re-categorizing quite a lot of sites and may make the resulting category less useful because it's less obvious.

3) Classify explicitly by geographical rather than precise political boundaries. The boundaries of the mandate of Palestine might be a useful place to start, or that part of it to the west of the Jordan. Advantages and disadvantages as 2.

4) My pet idea: ignore and if necessary specify that we are ignoring modern political boundaries, including in both Israel and Palestine sites that have ever been verifiably described as part of any such area. This has the advantage of keeping the present categories intact and useful, and again sidesteps the strong local points of view. However, it may continue to rile some editors and does not conform to normal policy, though there is precedent, see, for example, the inclusion of Palestinian territories in the category Geography of Israel.

5) There are no doubt some who would like to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and categorize this article by their exclusive claims. The results cannot be verifiable and NPOV and should be excluded.

Would anyone like to add to this analysis? I'd suggest one of 2, 3, or 4, or 1 as a desperation measure, and I'd support any one of those that we can get a consensus on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Above I made a suggestion that seems to have been met with positively by FormerIP and Sean.hoyland thus far. Is it represented in your numerical summary here? Because I don't really see it. Tiamut^talk 13:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think yours is somewhat similar to (1), Tiamut. I would describe it as:

6) Classify archaeological sites by modern political boundaries, creating a category for disputed land that gives the name of the geographic area in question but avoids wording that implies a position with regard to its status. Use multiple categories where appropriate, but not where there is a significant dispute about the factual accuracy of the categorisation. This may fail to satisty some who feel that one or other side of the dispute is without merit, but would satisfy many of those people who have a POV on the issue that they don't want to impose, but would not like to see actively undermined. It would mean work in order to implement it. However, it appears to follow normal WP policy.

--FormerIP (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FormerIP. Now that you pointed it out, I do see how it might have been covered by 1), but I do like your phrasing in 6) much better. Tiamut^talk 14:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FormerIP for expressing my ideas better than I could. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What would be the geographical name for Israel/Palestine?? "Canaan" or "southern Levant"? Surely it is NOT "Israel". CUSH 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion above was that we use the micro indicator "East Jerusalem" or "Old City of Jerusalem", skip the country categoriation, and then use the macro category of "Middle East" or "Arab World". Tiamut^talk 16:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How many sites precisely would be in this category? Five? Ten? CUSH 16:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There would be quite a few I think. For example, there is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Muslim Quarter, the Christian Quarter, the Jewish Quarter and the Armenian Quarter, the Damascus Gate, the New Gate (and all the other gates, including at least anoter seven), David's Tomb (and there a few more tombs too), the American Colony hotel, the King David Hotel, etc, etc. Tiamut^talk 17:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking more of Architectural sites, rather than archaeological ones. However, there are the Western Wall Tunnels, and I'm sure a few others too, if I go looking around a bit. Tiamut^talk 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Excavations at the Temple Mount could be included and it has links to a bunch of other relevant pages too. Tiamut^talk 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard and Tiamut.

I think (6) is definitely the best option here. I also think, though, that it leaves one thing unresolved. There seems to be a likely consensus (though not unanimity) that using the "Israel" category would not be appropriate. However, it is not clear, as far as I can see, whether there is any consensus about using the "Palestinian Territories" or "West Bank" categories. Whilst the idea that these categories should not be used is likely to be contentious, I am not sure that view is exactly a fringe one, since E Jerusalem is, after all, under de facto Israali control.

Cush: "Israel and the Palestinian Terriories" has also been suggested, although I am not sure I'm in favour. Think "Southern Levant" would probably be okay as a cat, but "Canaan" is not, as far as I'm aware, used as a modern designation.- Since multiple cats are okay, we don't necessarily need to settle on a favourite, just avoid POV cats. -FormerIP (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with FormerIP in that perhaps, as a compromise, we should avoid using nationalistic categories (ie: West Bank, Palestinian Territories or Israel) as they will be contentious with respective parties and lead to further article instability. Each "side" has its own WP:RS claims to rightful ownership (regardless of concerns of "fringe theory") and if we categorize it in one without the other (or even include them both), its likely further debate will occur. Removing them and using a category "Old City" or "East Jerusalem", with a geographic category like "Middle East" as a parent category, removes POV from this. I'm not sure using "Arab world" as a parent category would be the least POV term, if we are striving to make the article as neutral as possible. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 17:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

On that subject, I think the least POV term and the most accurate geographically speaking would be Western Asia. "Middle East" is a European term for the region that situates it as being east of it but not the Far East. I still think Arab world is fine though, given that it is what is used by UNESCO. Tiamut^talk 17:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My only concerns are that Arab world would introduce POV because it introduces politics and strays from a strictly geographic description. I'm guessing this would be somewhat similar to your concerns about "Middle East", due to it being a European term; in addition, because "Israel proper" is not considered by many to be part of the "Arab world", there would probably be a point of contention with this choice among those who feel that Israel's defacto control over E.J. equates to legitimate control. Its probably best to stick to geographic terms in the strictest sense, I guess. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, I get what you are saying about "Middle East". However, I think it is a term that is normally accepted by the mainstream. I don't mind "Arab World", but can foresee objections. "Western Asia", even if it is used by the UN, is probably not a term that most people will be familiar with or undertand what it includes. If we get too pernickity, though, the area will become un-namable. --FormerIP (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the simplest thing, following the current structure would be to create "Archaeological sites in East Jerusalem" within "Archaeological site in the Near East". --FormerIP (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes arab world fine because it arab territory that be resettle under force by jews after 1967, but prefer category make clear it palestine capital that be under occupy by foreign entity. Ani medjool (talk)

Support "Archaeological sites in East Jerusalem" within "Archaeological site in the Near East" (perhaps better "Middle East"), precisely because it should be acceptable to anyone editing in good faith. I realize that it describes the way the area looks from a Mediterranean viewpoint, but I hope this is not an obstacle. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)