controversial articles and neutrality problems

The difference between a POV warrior and a fair-minded but opinionated editor is this: the POV warrior wants to excise the opposing view. The fair editor wants to include both views, though he may want to present them in a way that makes clear which view is correct.

An example of this is the ongoing war over the lead of w:Jerusalem. ProPalestinian editors argue that that the lead should contain an explicit statement that half of Jerusalem is occupied, and that its status as Jerusalem's capital is disputed by almost all nations of the world. The ProIsraelis point out that the issues of occupation and status are amply discussed, including an extensive footnote in the lead, and a section in the article. None of the editors involved in this dispute wants to remove information supporting the opposing view; the entire dispute is one of presentation. None of these editors, in my mind, are POV warriors. That doesn't make the battle any less bloody.

I am curious to know what you think: should the lead of the article contain an explicit statement about the dispute over its status? Or, in other words, which camp are you in?