Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2012

Text taken from Talk:Jerusalem archives

Lede: the first three paragraphs

Reading above... "a few weeks" to work out a grammatical problem and active remedies since 2008; I see there are many overlapping sources of contention here :-)

The very beginning of the article could be written more clearly (style, not substance), and with clearer ordering of the different areas in which the city is significant (age, historical, religious significance; modern political significance). That would help highlight them each in turn.

At present the historical and religious significance aren't mentioned in the first paragraph, the Old City is mentioned a few times but not defined in the lede, and the World Heritage Site status is presented in a confusing way [the recognition as a site is more significant than the addition to the endangered list; both suggested by Jordan around the same time]. In addition, footnotes make it hard to read; making it slightly easier, 1+2 could be clustered at the end of the second clause and 6+7 should not be separated by a comma.

(Finally, "home to sites of key religious importance" seems to dramatically understate the unusual magnitude and concentration of holy sites in the Old City, but I couldn't come up with an improvement without unwanted overtones, and would want a citation for a claim that this is globally exceptional.)

Below is a suggested a reorganization of the first three paragraphs to address these issues. Edits and comments welcome.

Current text

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.[iii] If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city[1] in both population and area,[2] with a population of 763,800 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[3][4][iv] Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond the boundaries of the Old City.

Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions— Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In Judaism, Jerusalem has been the holiest city since, according to the Hebrew Bible, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE, and his son Solomon commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city.[5] In Christianity, Jerusalem has been a holy city since, according to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified in c.33 C.E.[6],[7] and 300 years later Saint Helena identified the pilgrimage sites of Jesus' life. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city.[8][9] It became the first Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (Salah) in 610 CE,[10] and, according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad made his Night Journey there ten years later.[11][12] As a result, and despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi),[13] the Old City is home to sites of key religious importance, among them the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.

During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[14] The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE, making Jerusalem one of the oldest cities in the world.[15] The old walled city, a World Heritage site, has been traditionally divided into four quarters, although the names used today—the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters—were introduced in the early 19th century.[16] The Old City was nominated for inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger by Jordan in 1982.[17]

Suggested update

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[iii] and one of the oldest cities in the world.[15] It is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city in both population and area,[1][2] with a population of 763,800 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[3][4][iv] Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[14] The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE.[15] In 1538, walls were built around Jerusalem under Suleiman the Magnificent. Today those walls define the Old City which has been traditionally divided into four quarters -- known since the early 19th century as the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters.[16] The Old City became a World Heritage site in 1981, and is on the List of World Heritage in Danger.[17] Modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond its boundaries.

In Judaism, Jerusalem has been the holiest city since, according to the Hebrew Bible, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE, and his son Solomon commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city.[5] In Christianity, Jerusalem has been a holy city since, according to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified in c.33 C.E.,[6][7] and 300 years later Saint Helena identified the pilgrimage sites of Jesus' life. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city.[8][9] It became the first Qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (Salah) in 610 CE,[10] and, according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad made his Night Journey there ten years later.[11][12] As a result, despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi),[13] the Old City is home to sites of key religious importance, among them the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.

– SJ + 23:53, 14 March 2012‎

I can find nothing to object to or further improve upon, and fully endorse your proposed reorganization. Commendably, you seem to have accomplished something hitherto rare here, making major improvements in logical flow and readability without upsetting the established balance and provoking heated debate. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok! Changes applied. I think it looks a bit more balanced now. I also changed "home to sites of key religious importance" to "home to many sites of tremendous religious importance" - not perfect, but less underwhelming. – SJ + 03:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Capital

Tiamet recently amended the lead to read:-

• Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, is Israel's designated capital, though it is not interntionally recognized as such.

This was reverted to the original without the "designated". I actually think Tiamut's wording is better in terms of NPOV and neutral language. The current wording gives undue weight to the minority position, which is Israel's. Dlv999 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "minority position" that countries get to choose their own capitals, where the government institutions are. No one else has a say in the matter. Wikipedia editors don't get to rewrite the dictionary. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem aren't recognized as being in the same country, so the "countries get to choose their own capitals" argument doesn't work. Anyhow, we've had this discussion too many times, it's unlikely to be resolved this time. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't party to the prior discussions, but I find Tiamut's formulation to be preferable because it does not privilege the (minority) Israeli position, over the (majority) position of the international community. Incidently what promted me to take a look at the article, was this correction printed in The Guardian,

• "The caption on a photograph featuring passengers on a tram in Jerusalem observing a two-minute silence for Yom HaShoah, a day of remembrance for the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, wrongly referred to the city as the Israeli capital. The Guardian style guide states: "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; Tel Aviv is" (Eyewitness, 20 April, page 24)."[1]

So this is not a matter of editors rewriting the dictionary. The point is that considering the International community does not acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and international news media categorically report that it isn't Israel's capital, why are we reporting it as a fact in the Wikipedia voice given our NPOV policy? Dlv999 (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of language. Hertz is correct that countries choose their own capitals, and this is not a 'minority position'. He is incorrect to think that defining territory beyond one's frontier as part of one's capital is not a fringe position, espoused only by Israel.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"null and void" does not equate with successful de jure annexation

Partial revert by Hertz1888 http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=499571659&oldid=499561809

From existing article source: 21 http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch12.pdf "In a resolution adopted on 1 December 2000, the Assembly determined that the decision of Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem was illegal and, therefore, null and void." Being "null and void" does not equate with a successful annexation. Readers should be fully informed of the actual de jure status talknic (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's apparently not entirely clear that there was an annexation. See Ian Lustick's article here for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it might be prudent to check on whether the UNGA makes international law. (I don't think they do). Because they say something is illegal doesn't necessarily make it illegal. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hertz1888 -- Uh? I believe year 2000 is after 1968 and UNSC Res 252.

UNGA resolutions can and do remind parties of International Law, the UN Charter, International Conventions, Conventions (according to ratification), all binding, and; UNSC resolutions, binding on UN Member States to whom their content is directed. In 2000 UNGA adopted a resolution to remind the parties concerned of the preceding UN Security Council Resolutions, being : 252 May 21 1968, 267 July 3 1969, 271 September 15 1969, 298 September 25 1971, 465 March 1 1980 (the Golan) and; 476 June 30 1980 which again reminds the party of International Law, previous UNSC Resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention by "Reaffirming", "Recalling" & reconfirming

1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Reconfirms all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

talknic (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hertz1888 -- Removal of "UNSC" from "The international community and the UNSC have"
The International Community is not the UNSC. The UNSC only has only 15 representative members. The International Community is the Comity of Nations. It includes states outside the UN.
This can be seen in the order in which states (such as Israel) become UN Members. 1) they declare. 2) they are recognized by the majority of the "comity of nations" (there is no vote, some UN Members don't recognize each other, they are never the less members because a majority of the Comity of Nations first recognized them before they could be recommended by the UNSC). 3) Recommended or not by the UNSC, by a vote, for admission to the UN. 4) Admitted or not by an UNGA vote, as UN Members.
talknic (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant statement in leading sentence

The first sentence of the article states that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." How is the bigoted opinion of a bunch of foreigners important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence? It is a bit of trivia that should be mentioned somewhere further down in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehuditeman (talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yehuditeman - Uh? The following are UNSC resolutions based on the Law and UN Charter all of which existed before Israel was declared or became UN Member state. Israel obliged itself to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law, in their entirety. UNSC res 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 and 478 (1980) 20 August 1980, UNSC Resolution 1860 (2009) -- talknic (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At best, I'd say the contribution is soapboxing, at second best, trolling. With a few more contributions of that type, the user will be exiting the IP area with a boot so far up his arse he'll be smiling toecap.     ←   ZScarpia   22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I too also wonder why Jerusalem's Wikipedia page says AT THE VERY TOP of the page in the VERY first sentence that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel when the White House of the United States does not recognize it as so? If the United States is Israel's closest ally and we do not recognize this to be true, why does this Wikipedia page say this? I donated $100 bucks to Wikipedia because I believed it to be neutral and unbiased towards any religion, political organization or bordered landmass. Yet here I see the very first thing is BLATANT pro-zionist propaganda. This is very disheartening and makes me question if this website has been operationally subverted by zionists.

Make no mistake I am neither pro-islamic, nor pro-jewish. I am neither pro Palestinian nor pro-Israeli. I hate both of these shitbags equally. What I do wonder is if Wikipedia is interested in truth and unbiased logic and rational discourse or if this website has been compromised and is no longer a reliable source of information. (75.181.132.184)

Sorry mate, but the USA does not decide what is or is not Israel's capital just as Israel does not decide what is or is not the USA's capital. Nor is the UN an impartial body, it is merely an amalgamation of the partialities of its members. Since each country decides itself what its capital should be, the current sentence - given its prominence within the article - comes across as rather petty/bitter and reflects badly on Wikipedia. By all means go on to mention that some people in the world do not like the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital however that dislike does not change the fact it is the capital of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.14.8 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The job of editors is to neutrally reflect what reliable sources say on a subject. The Israeli government's position is that countries get to choose their own capitals. The international community reject that in the case of Jerusalem, their position being that no body can unilaterally change the status of that city. If you can't bear not to push the Israeli government's position as anything other than the Israeli government's position, find yourself somewhere else to contribute.     ←   ZScarpia   11:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

Here is my proposal for a new lead for this article. It addresses all the concerns raised on this page about the "capital or no capital" status, the issue of Palestinian capitalness, in addition to all the concerns that have been raised over the years. The proposal is from a year-old archive - not surprising since none of the arguments raised on this page so far differ by the slightest jot or tittle from those raised in the past. For that reason, too, this proposal will be seen as unacceptable in the eyes of almost everyone:

--Ravpapa (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree.... its totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ravpapa. I think that is a good starting point, though I am unsure of claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians as their exclusive capital (emphasis added). The Palestinian declaration doesnt do anything like the Jerusalem Law (complete and undivided ...). nableezy - 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It has one great advantage, i.e., that it simply steps out of the, is it, centuries of editwarriorship on the page and looks at the facts most would accept and attempts to synthesize them in a completely fresh rewriting

It is too ambitiously objective (except for the use of 'exclusive' (which I don't think is true of Palestinian claims), unfortunately, RP, so it will be RIP'ed, ahimé. I find commendable the elision of the most obnoxiously tendentious sentence in the lead however, which runs

If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city in both population and area,[2][3] with a population of 801,000 residents[4] over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[

Everything hangs on that if, which is an hypothetical and counterfactual, since East Jerusalem is neither annexed to Israel, nor in Israel except in hasbara discourse. If statements of this kind have no place in a lead. If my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt, etc. Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've bolded is, the second of which should be changed without challenge to would be, as per the grammar of if clauses. Unless I get sound grammatical objections, I'll do that in the next day or two.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, annexed should be changed to effectively annexed, and things like after the annexation should be changed to following the 1980 Jerusalem Law. nableezy - 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Exclusive": While it is true that the Palestinians have nothing as obsessive as Israel's "complete and undivided", Palestinians (like just about everyone else) do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which makes their claim exclusive. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess, but I dont see a claim of exclusivity to the city, as a city or a capital, in the Palestinian declaration, even factoring in the rejection of the status as Israeli capital (for now). nableezy - 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When the day comes that the Palestinians reach agreement with the Israelis on where the other guy's capital will be, we can always change it.

As for your argument with "annexed" - I am surprised at you. You have fallen for Israel's cheap propaganda ploy. It is true that the Jerusalem Law and the Foreign ministry assiduously avoid the word "annexed" because of the extremely negative connotation of the word; but they have extended Israeli law, and, consequently, sovereignty, to the area, which is exactly what annexation means. And that is what everyone else calls it. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it's a lot more complicated than that (see Ian S. Lustick's paper for example). Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been citing that ever since John tipped me off with a link years ago, but it has no impact on articles or public usage. Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the propaganda ploy, my suggested language is based off of Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 60. Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.. Though Roberts also says, on page 59, was formally annexed on July 30, 1980. nableezy - 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lustick wrote his analysis after Roberts. The key point is

'According to general international law, annexation can only take place by conclusion of a peace treaty which provides for the cession of an occupied territory to the occupying State, or as a result of debellatio, i.e. the disintegration of an enemy State.'Fania Domb,'The Separation Fence in the ICJ and the HCJ,' in Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic, (eds.) International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines : Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007 p.517.

Jordan hasn't disintegrated, and in the meantime conferred its rights re East Jerusalem on the PLO in 1988.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable to me too, for the same reasons I gave last time you suggested it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, no one has given any reasons yet as to why one would flatly object to it. My concern is the part "The western sector of the city is indisputably part of Israel;" - does any state recognize West Jerusalem as being in Israel? I don't believe they do, maybe stating that WJ is located on the Israeli side of the green line would be better? I also see no reason for the inclusion of the very last sentence. Canadian Spring (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Since you are not answering on your talk page, I'll ask you here - have you used any other accounts to edit wikipedia? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well for a start "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts: what country is it in, and how many people live there. " sounds more like it belongs on a FAQ section of the talk page, rather than an article about a city. Secondly it gives equal status to the fact Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of Jerusalem and the proclaimed capital of a future Palestinian sovereign state. That gives undue weight to the palestinian claim, ignoring the fact that Jerusalem is controlled by Israel, is in law its capital (although not internationally recognised as such, but theres nothing in the rule book saying a capital needs international recognition to be one), and in practice serves as its capital with its government almost entirely being located there. Clearly the two sides cannot be given equal status at present in terms of how Jerusalem is described, which is why the current introduction has a paragraph on the situation and a sentence clearly saying the Palestinians claim the capital for their future state. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention it's full of OR, like "it has been for the last 2,000 years, the focus of conflict" or "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious". Seriously, does anyone here actually support it for its content rather as a vehicle to get rid of a certain sentence in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We also have "Yet that, too, is misleading". That's the kind of stuff you'll find in any serious encyclopedia, I'm sure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I too oppose this proposal, more for unencyclopaedic tone than anything else. Without mentioning a handful of grammatical editors and unnecessary contractions that make conscientious copyeditors like myself blush, there is also the issue that, "There is little about Jerusalem that isn't contentious, starting with the most basic facts", is not high-quality writing of the sort expected on Wikipedia. I'll be adding an alternative proposal below shortly. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Zugzwang

Those editors who believe that we are nearing consensus on the lead are, as they know, sorely mistaken. The moment anyone tries to make an actual edit to the article page, the pro-Israeli opponents of change will swoop down with arb-barbed talons to restore the woeful status quo.

The status quo, sanctified by hundreds of thousands of archived talk-page words, is, alas, the best that this committee can come up with. The pro-Israel campers have deified "capital" into a mountain range, and the anti-Israeli campers have added a rider and an exegetical footnote that points out the absurdity of that word. Fortunately, I doubt that any reader has ever read that footnote, and most readers, stymied by that Henry Jamesian first sentence, probably scurry to the online Britannica to read about the world's most contentious city.

In the classical meaning of zugzwang, any move a player makes results in a loss. But in this game, it is not the players that lose: whatever either side does, it is the reader who loses. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think actually, chess-wise, it's only the Palestinians there who are in zugzwang, only in the sense that they are required to move, but won't move (away). This leaves us with the descriptive page. The opening definition is moulded on the capitals' template which defines a class of cities, capitals, in terms of the countries ab initio (London, Moscow, Paris, Berlin). In all these cases, we have internationally-recognized sovereignty, and a concordance between the state which affirms its capital, and other states recognizing that city as the capital. In Jerusalem we do not have that condition, therefore claims by Hertz1800 about dictionary usage look plausible, but are spurious because the linguistic sleight-of-hand camouflages the anomaly there. And NMMGG's insistance that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged is contrary to wiki practice. On wikipedia, we only have a positional result in a warring game, in which Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but part of it, East Jerusalem, is not the capital of Israel, which as you say, is conceptually nonsense. The conceptual nonsense is preferred by 'pro-Israeli' editors because a half-affirmation is better than none, and the definition excludes Palestinian claims. Since Palestine is a partial state (with majority recognition, but lacking the full monty of endorsement by all states, according to the relevant protocols of international law), with an irrenunciable claim to the eastern part of the city, NPOV simply cannot allow the unilateral lead affirmation, however subject to parenthetical modifiers, to stand alone.

Despite my pessimism as an editor here, I am surprised that this time round several good suggestions have been made by relative newcomers. I don't think the shut-door no-dialogue policy adopted by Hertz1800 and NMMGG adequate to what we are required to do as editors here.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not "insist that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged". Don't lie about what I said. The current wording is the result of a consensus and needs a new consensus to be changed. That's what's what I said and is EXACTLY what "wiki practice" demands. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The issues is already addressed in the lead and the article.. . We've been over this. Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And that in your mind amounts to "insisting that this unsatisfactory compromise cannot be challenged"? Really? You know what, scratch that. I don't have the patience to read a paragraph or two of your thinly veiled childish attempts at insults. The record shows what the record shows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So you don't have any argument except it was like this before ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa - After they finished to write the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Arabic Wikipedia) they come to here ! maybe after than they go to the Hebrew Wikipedia also ..... if you understand what i mean. פארוק (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take offense at this, but I would be surprised if anyone understands what you mean. The majority of your posts are total non sequiturs with absolutely no relation to anything we're talking about. Please take note -- I am normally an obnoxious Zionist when it comes to issues like this, and even I think you've contributed nothing but baseless accusations and personal insults to this discussion. I am honestly trying to give you a piece of friendly advice: Shape up, or you're probably going to be forcibly removed from this page by administrators. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Evanh2008 - I don't want to Shout that someone here can hear me. only i want to say that is If Wikipedia wants to get the most precise level of the truth and the reality, So why it is not a uniform across of all languages​​ ?....... an article about: Jerusalem it is very different in Arabic than English and Hebrew. i am talking about articles that showing in other versions. פארוק (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

All I am looking for is the inclusion of Palestine's declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the currently existing State of Palestine. I am not looking to actually change the statement on Jerusalem as Israel's capital, as I dont see much of a point in that discussion. But its status is incomplete right now as it only says that the Palestinians want it as a capital of some future state, disregarding that it has already been declared capital of the existing state. nableezy - 05:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell

of a good universe next door; let's go

But it is a world of made. Thanks for that nonetheless. nableezy - 06:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"All I am looking for is the inclusion of Palestine's declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the currently existing State of Palestine. " - We clearly state in the introduction that the palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital of a future Palestinian state. That covers the issue is a reasonable and balanced way. No change is needed or justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is recognized as the capital of Palestine by more states in the world than [West-]Jerusalem is recognized the capital of Israel.

Jerusalem was chosen to be the capital of Israel of Israeli government.

[East-]Jerusalem was chosen to be the capital of Palestine (a non existing state on the field) by Palestinian autorithy.

Both claims have their strengths and weaknesses. Both require to be written exactly with the same weight and the same place in the lede.

...Pluto2012 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not the PNA that designated Jerusalem, it was the PLO. nableezy - 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can check the all history of the world - a Capital for 2 states always ends with a war. פארוק (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Farouk: I thought your words needed a little extra ummpph to convey the depth of your emotions, so I added some color. Hope you like it! (Sorry I couldn't make it flash and dance around on the screen - don't know how to do that!) --Ravpapa (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And for what ?.... פארוק (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... Ha! I thought you would take me seriously! --Ravpapa (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you lived in Jerusalem probably it's not funny at all. פארוק (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know I don't live in Jerusalem? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

פארוק

this is from the East Jerusalem article. I think it would reflect a commitment to NPOV to include it here. East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the proposed Palestine although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital.90.211.19.178 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

Jerusalem as capital of Palestine

Can somebody please tell me why exactly the fact that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine should not be included in the lead of the article? I know of one discussion on the topic (here), but the major push back there is the thoroughly false claim that a state called Palestine does not exist. So, can somebody tell me why Israel's claim that Jerusalem is their capital should be included but Palestine's should not? ZScarpia's edit summary is spot-on in my view. A (large) number of users have objected to any clarification of Jerusalem's status as capital on the basis that states have a right to choos their own capital, regardless of whether or not that capital is even in the recognized territory of that state or held under belligerent occupation. Why exactly does that same argument not apply to Palestine? nableezy - 23:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems a ridiculous double-standard. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia's edit and edit summary were a POINTy attempt to edit into an article something he knows has no consensus. He's lucky someone reverted him or I'd take it to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be very happy for YOU, No More Mr Nice Guy, to take it to AE, because it would give me an opportunity to discuss your behaviour in the current article before admins. The last two discussions on the wording of the Lead were run into the ground by editors using all kinds of tendentious reasoning. They were inconclusive therefore. Perhaps you would like to explain why you are claiming that there is a consensus?     ←   ZScarpia   18:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do it again and I'll take you to AE without the courtesy of a warning, and you can have your opportunity to discuss whatever you like. I find your threat quite amusing considering your success rate at reporting me. Also, perhaps you should read my post carefully before you ask me to explain something I didn't say? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Save your posturing for someone who could give more than the steam off a poodle's piss for it. Who's it supposed to impress? Yourself maybe?

You left the comment "see multiple discussions in talk archive" when you reverted N_maram. On my user talkpage, you wrote: "You have participated in enough discussions on that page to know there's no consensus for your edit" and "I'll take that to mean you knew you didn't have consensus for your edit, but made it anyway." Here, you wrote: "ZScarpia's edit and edit summary were a POINTy attempt to edit into an article something he knows has no consensus." I can think of two ways to interpret that. The first interpretation is that you think that the edit was against consensus, in which case you should be able to explain where and how that consensus was established. The second interpretation is that you think that you and your wiki-chums have a right of veto over what goes in the Jerusalem article, in which case you need to sort out your ownership issues.

For those interested, No More Mr Nice Guy's comment about my success rate at reporting him refers to this AE case.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not posturing, it's a warning. A serious one, as I'm sure you understand.

Here's another way to interpret what I said - the first sentence of the lead is the result of consensus. Past discussions about adding the Palestinian claim did not result in consensus. Thus your edit did not have consensus. Or to put it another way, you were trying to force something you and your wiki-chums couldn't get in the article the proper way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had been through this enough times by now. I won't attempt to repeat the details here; they are all available in the archives. The wording of the lead, and its basis, have been discussed many times and at great length here, and the present wording and structure achieved by consensus. Proclamation is not enough. A capital must also be the functional seat of government, where the principal governmental institutions are. Recognition by others is not essential. Nableezy and ZScarpia are fighting the dictionary definition. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Which dictionary definition says that the capital must also be the functional seat of government? Because somebody really ought to let the Dutch know that. The wording of the lead has certainly been discussed many times and at great length, but I question whether its wording has ever had something resembling "consensus", by any definition of that word, be it Wikipedia's or a dictionary's.

@NMMNG, I dont necessarily agree with the edit, but I dispute your characterization of the edit summary. But would you care to comment on if you feel that the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine should be in the lead, and, if not, why not? nableezy - 06:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

there is no such country like Palestine. becouse Palestine is the Roman name for Israel. and Palestine is an Arab lie that supported by the Christian states !. now you can go and check that in every history books in the world. פארוק (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority exists, and the State of Palestine is recognized by many of the governments of the world. One can debate whether or not it meets certain criteria thought to be defining of a sovereign state, but the fact that a significant portion of the world believes in it is enough to warrant a neutral presentation of the facts by Wikipedia. Determining whether or not a state exists is not the same as, for example, determining whether or not the Moon is made of green cheese.

In summary, I don't see why it (the status of Jerusalem as the proclaimed capital of Palestine) shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is recognized by those who are pretending they love Israel and in their heart just waiting for Israel's destruction and demolished that is the true !. without renting here politicians ==>>>> Capital of Israel. פארוק (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. That's your opinion, and I have no comment on whether or not it is true. To me it looks like you're primarily on this talk page to wage a WP:Political dispute against those who disagree with you. You are a valuable contributor, Farouk, as has been seen by your great work elsewhere, so I wonder why you feel the need to get so contentious about things. If you have a concern about the article, you ought to state it rather than making accusations against those who are here to build an encyclopedia. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My dear friend. I love Wikipedia as much as you and i like everyone here i would not like to start a distort wrong facts and start writing depression lies to destroy the history by the name of politics. Wikipedia is no uniformity between all languages ​​and that is something creates Antagonism. You can check in the Arabic Wikipedia and see lies written there and almost the word "Israel" does not appear there in a lot of places. i know that is Perhaps not the right place, but it was important for me to mention it. פארוק (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the status as proclaimed Palestinian capital ought to be in there. There's a lot of less-relevant information in this long article already, including in the lead. For example, sources mention the Palestinian-capital issue more often than the zoo ;) --Dailycare (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

yes we know. פארוק (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the lead suppose to summarise the entire article anyway? So if there is content in the article about Palestine and Israel, then a brief summary mention in the lead should also be included. Wesley Mouse 08:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont object to this sentence which is in the article introduction and clearly summarises the situation. "According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, which is sought by the Palestinian Authority as a future capital of a future Palestinian state." Strongly oppose stating as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of a state that does not exist though. The current wording saying its sought to be the future capital is far more accurate and summarises the article enough. It would be factually inaccurate and hugely misleading to say its the capital of Israel and Palestine. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine exists as a state. And that state designated Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinian National Authority is an interim organization tasked with governing a small portion of the oPt that was set up by the Oslo Accords. The PNA is not the State of Palestine, and its "seeking" Jerusalem of a "future state" isnt related to the fact that the current state, recognized as a state by over 100 other states, has declared Jerusalem its capital. Any argument based on the invalid premise that Palestine is a state that does not exist is invalid. Wikipedians do not determine whether or not a state exists, other states are the only entities with that authority. Palestine's recognition as a state by other states makes it a state. A state without control of its territory, that being because its territory is under Israeli occupation, but a state nonetheless. nableezy - 15:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As long there are not a Palestinian state (Arab lie supported by the West) then there is no point in talking about this issue !. because of all this such a talk is only increases the lies here and the hatred towards Jews and Israel also. and the Real Palestinians in the Bible are a " Greek nation " that came from the island of " Crete " and they did not was an Arabs. פארוק (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you are helping your side of the debate with comments like that? nableezy - 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't help anyone. But if it's a lie, then have we need to admit it was wrong. I did not say the arabs have no rights to live in Israel. but to say in the media press: "From the river to the sea" maybe you know what I mean. פארוק (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It isnt a "lie", a Palestinian state was declared in 1988 by the PLO. That declaration also stipulated that The National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem.

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

And no, I do not know what you mean, and Im guessing Im not the only one. nableezy - 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not ==>>> From the River to the sea and if i am wrong please tell me what is From the river to the sea ? thank you. פארוק (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably the same thing that Likudniks mean by "Greater Israel". I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to Palestine's designation of Jerusalem as its capital. nableezy - 17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Greater Israel is very small against 21 Arab states. and we never want to occupie other countries. פארוק (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine is very notable information and should definitely be in the lead of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

+1. Jerusalem was proclamed the capital of Israel and East-Jerusalem was proclamed the capital of Palestine. Both proclamations generated controversies (Israeli proclamation is not recognazed as legitimate by any other state and Palestian proclamation refers to a city that is not administrated by them and for a state to come). Anyway, both are very notable and important information. This shoud be added without any doubt be in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though the "consensus" for non-inclusion claimed by NMMNG and Hertz1888 isn't so clear anymore. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Is that how it looks? After a whole 10 hours? Awesome.

The issues is already addressed in the lead and the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you interpreted me as saying "oops the pendulum has swung! include Palestine! debate over!", which I did not intend at all. What I mean is that your initial "shh only dreams now, no need for further discussion" doesn't seem quite justified in light of the discussion thus far. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to write what Pluto stated, so agreed. There is also another problem with the lede, it states that " [Jerusalem] is Israel's largest city". As no nation but Israel believes Jerusalem, east or west to be in Israel, how can this be stated so? Any suggestions of a replacement phrase, something like "Jerusalem is larger than any other city in Palestine or Israel"? Canadian Spring (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

I had the same feeling in reading the article. Jerusalem cannot be claimed to be Israel's largest city. Only West Jerusalem could whereas some countries consider even West Jerusalem status is controversial. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@NNMNG: it's addressed in the lead already? Really? Where? Because I do not see any mention of Jerusalem having already been declared the capital of the current state called Palestine. nableezy - 17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Too bad that people can't express there personal opinions. Where is the justice here if there is no uniformity between the English Wikipedia and the other languages. just look at some other Wikipedia and see Full of lies and hate to other nations. פארוק (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@Hertz1888, 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC): "Recognition by others is not essential. Nableezy and ZScarpia are fighting the dictionary definition." Incorrect. Nableezy and ZScarpia would like the article to reflect what all the reliable sources say but, failing that, that consistent logic is applied. It is actually other editors, you included by the look of things, who have argued about dictionary definitions and the nature of what a capital is in order to include a statement that Jerusalem is, as an absolute fact, Israel's capital, overriding, contrary to Wikipedia's policies, all the reliable sources that state the contrary.     ←   ZScarpia   18:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, there is room for mediation. Pluto wisely noted that both sides proclaim Jerusalem as a capital. It (West Jerusalem) is functionally Israel's capital (there is no legal basis for assuming that East Jerusalem is part of Israel. It was not formally annexed.) Palestinian authorities proclaim (East) Jerusalem the capital of their future state. I'm sure a sensible compromise is possible. The problem exists, there are two POVs, and they must be balanced in wikipedia, since the Palestinian perspective at the moment is lacking.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that those who designed the borders of the Middle East today are English and French by their Christian interests. I see here that you can write articles ​​of a state that still not exists. But hurry to delete entries about Israel and Judaism. פארוק (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

See Oxford Dictionaries, Macmillan Dictionary, etc. Good luck squaring the circle. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That is provably false, see The Hague and Amsterdam. But either way, I didnt say that the article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. I dont generally try to make disputed statements like that in the encyclopedia's voice. nableezy - 04:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ok. But please forgive me if I tell you that Jerusalem is a Jewish capital over 3000 years and we never replace her If anyone understands what I mean. פארוק (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(a link to your user talkpage) And you still need to realise that it's the job of Wikipedia editors to neutrally present all the significant views given in reliable sources, not to argue tendentiously that one particular viewpoint is the factual one. Presumably, you're not going to deny that reliable sources do, for given reasons, albeit ones you don't like, dispute the status of Jerusalem? What is of importance is what reliable sources say, not what argument you can construct based on such things as dictionary definitions. Do you need a reminder of which particular policy bans the synthesis of facts in the way you're doing it? And do you need a reiteration of why your arguments, which ignore opposing viewpoints, are tendentious?     ←   ZScarpia   20:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this. You have yet to produce a source that "disputes the status of Jerusalem". You have yet to produce a source that says that non-recognition means a city is not the capital. What you're trying to do is give equal weight to reality and future aspirations. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No one here is trying to remove the fact that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital. We only believe Palestine's claim to East Jerusalem as its capital is equal to Israel's claims as the city is not recognized by most nations as being the capital or even within either or these nations. I suggest we simply ignore the one editor who is obviously not trying to be constructive as it derails the real discussion. Canadian Spring (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

This is how Wikipedia works: unless reliable sources agree about something, you cannot argue that that thing is a fact despite the disagreement. Reliable sources don't agree that Jerusalem is indisputably the capital of Israel and therefore you can't state as an absolute fact that it is. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear may like to read talkpage archives such as Archive 14 and Archive 15 to see which sources have been provided and what they say.     ←   ZScarpia   05:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like we have consensus for change. Below is my rough idea of how I would like to see the first paragraph of the lede, any fine tuning or comments would be appreciated.

"Jerusalem is a very old and holy city which straddles the 1967 border separating Israel and Palestine. Both nations claim the city as their capital though neither has significant international recognition on this matter. With a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 the city is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel. Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam." Canadian Spring (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock

I don't like the wikilink on "very old", as I think a case could be made that that violates WP:ASTONISH. I also am unsure about "holy" being in the first sentence, particularly since you already have that status mentioned later in your draft of the paragraph. I don't think the demarcation line of '67 needs to be mentioned, either. What about something like:

Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] as well as the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine. It is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, the city is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2. Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Any thoughts? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My main thought is that if you claim there's consensus for a change after less than 2 days discussion (over a weekend to boot) regarding such a contentious sentence that has been discussed multiple times by probably dozens of editors, I'll have to seek admin intervention. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Whether or not that consensus has been established yet is not a major issue, as anyone who reads this page is fully capable of judging that, either way. Ask an admin and s/he will tell you the same. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment was directed mainly at Canadian Spring above, but is something everyone should keep in mind. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a dozen of us here now, please try to join the discussion rather than your continual threats and talks of old "consensus'". Canadian Spring (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Well the "very old" part was me trying to incorporate in items from the original, the holy part was just so that I did not have to say too simply "Jerusalem is a city". I added that it straddles the 1967 border so that people know its position relative to the states, something which your's does not accomplish. "If the area and population of East Jerusalem..." I don't get this, why would anyone ever think to exclude the population of East Jerusalem unless we are coming from the perspective of Jerusalem as an Israeli city. Why not cut out that part up to the comma? Canadian Spring (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Wait a second, you cant say things like Jerusalem straddles a border. It doesnt, the Green Line separates Israel proper from the occupied Palestinian territories, it does not separate the state of Israel from the state of Palestine. That border has yet to be drawn, and until a peace treaty establishes such a border we cant say that one exists. Israel has a border with Jordan and a border with Egypt, it does not yet have one with Palestine. There are a lot of technical issues here that cannot be glossed over. I think the solution is removing is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such, from the first sentence and moving it to a paragraph dedicated to the political status of the city. In my perfect world, that paragraph would include such things as Jerusalem straddling the Green Line, having been declared capital by Israel following the 1948 War, EJ being captured and occupied in 67, the 1980 Jerusalem Law and its rejection by the international community, and the 1988 declaration by Palestine, and finally something like the status of Jerusalem continues to be among the most disputed issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We dont need to, and shouldnt, dumb things down, and we dont need to lead the article on some 5000 years of history with a comparatively recent political dispute. nableezy - 04:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, I think Ive read everything in here that you have written, but I dont think Ive seen you actually comment on the actual issue here. You wrote above [t]he issues is already addressed in the lead and the article. I asked where. Is there a place where the designation of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is mentioned in the lead? And if not, do you think that designation should not be mentioned? And if not, why not? nableezy - 04:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm not too up on the technicalities in the I/P conflict, I would accept a change from what I proposed above to "Jerusalem is an add adjective city which straddles the green line, demarking a boundary between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories." If you want to separate out the lede in a new way, show us a draft. I don't care too much for order, but I do believe that in the first line or two there should be information which states where the city is in regards to nations. Canadian Spring (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

There's a line that says that East Jerusalem "is sought by the Palestinian Authority as a future capital of a future Palestinian state". That can certainly be tweaked, but to make things very clear, I think that a. that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (as per plenty of reliable sources and per the simple fact that it functions as Israel's capital, including the seat of government, where all diplomats go to submit their credentials and carry out their diplomatic missions vis a vis the MFA, etc) should be in the first sentence of the lead, like it is for every other capital in this encyclopedia, and b. that the Palestinian claim for territory they don't control and don't use as a capital does not deserve equal weight. Not to mention the fact that AFAIR they claim only East Jerusalem, which has its own article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the entirety of the comment directly above, with the possible exception of the East Jerusalem bit, which I am not sure about. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If one needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph, then I think the other does as well. In that case I dont see much wrong with Evanh's proposed edit. As far as EJ, the actual declaration just says القدس الشريف (al-quds al-sharif, Jerusalem) nableezy - 05:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify and state that I support including both states' claims in the lede (obviously, as per my suggested revision), but also agree with NMMNG that we need to be careful about WP:WEIGHT. Obviously, the key difference between the two claims is that one of the political entities has de facto sovereignty over the city; whether that sovereignty is de jure is not relevant to this particular discussion. We can and should present both claims with due weight and a keen eye for the facts of the case. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine, but I think the weight is covered by is the capital vs the proclaimed capital. nableezy - 06:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think both should be in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Until now i don't understand why it is allowed write articles ​​of a state that does not exist but on the other hand can't write articles like the "World Bible Center". I have a strong feeling that maybe everything here is a strong Christian antisemitism motif. פארוק (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the state exists. I have a strong belief, or hope at least, that we wont be dealing with such comments much longer. nableezy - 06:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just want to note that I take offense at the antisemitism accusation, particularly since good portions of my family are Jewish. No personal attacks, please. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

nableezy - I want to ask you a qustion pleas. Why the Palestinians in Israel are "destroy and demolished Jewish archaeological sites" at night when the police is not there ? ....... and why the Palestinian education system teaches the children that in Israel never have been here a Jews ? ....... Thank you. פארוק (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... Or we could stay on topic. But hey, why do that when we can have much more fun waving our hands and distracting each other from the actual subject at hand? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My question is directed to - nableezy - if English Wikipedia prepared to recognize a country that does not exist. So I want to know why it is can't write on a important buildings that are not finished their construction. פארוק (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. If you want to be taken seriously, stay on topic and discuss the content of the article. This is not a forum, and if you treat it as such there may be consequences, regardless of how correct I or anyone else think you are. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is not a sovereign state, it has no capital city. Palestine is a proposed future state which wants Jerursalem as its capital. The article already clearly states that. This article should not be changed to mislead people into thinking that Jerusalem is the capital of a state that does not exist, let alone a non existent state that does not control any of the territory it claims as its capital. If a European country claimed Washington D.C as its capital.. would we put that on equal terms with the fact Its the American capital? Of course not. Yet there appears to be an attempt to grossly mislead people by stating something similar here. Shocking bias BritishWatcher (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is a neutral area that belongs to no one !. Neither Israel nor the Arabs. the true Palestinians lived in Jordan, Because Jordan was the first country that occupied this area in 1948. פארוק (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, that Palestine doesn't really do the sorts of things that states do. Nonetheless, multiple foreign governments recognize Palestine as existent, whether any of us think that wise or not, and that ostensibly existent state claims Jerusalem as its capital. Again, we can state that without doing or saying anything misleading. Is there anything in my proposed wording that you find objectionable? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another historical point you skipped it - During the Turkish Empire which ruled Israel for 400 years. a lot of Muslim immigrants arrived to Israel from distant lands !. You can check it out and add this to articles about the history of Israel. פארוק (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you mean your proposed wording " Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] as well as the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine" , then i could not object and oppose such wording more strongly. Palestine is not a sovereign state, it does not have a capital city. the palestinians proclaim Jerusalem as the capital of their future palestinian state. The introduction already says that clearly. Your proposed wording is misleading, inaccurate, and gives undue weight. Like my example with the USA, if some european country claimed Washington D.C. as its capital despite not controlling its territory..... there is no way we would put that on such equal grounds as with the state that does control the capital. Also its clearly one sided. it says Israels capital is not internationally recognised as the capital, but does not bother to point out Palestinian claim to Jerusalem being the capital of a state that doesnt exist lacks international recognition too. Your proposal is one of the most controversial possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You should keep cool...

We all know that Palestine is not an existing state on the field but it has been proclaimed and is recognized by many countries in the world as well as the choice of [East-]Jerusalem as their capital.

On the other side, Israel is recognized but the choice of (West-)Jerusalem as her capital is not.

Nothing is one-sided. Both claims have their strengths and weaknesses and should be written side by side.

About your argumentation :

• Israel chose a capital partly (or totally) in a land that does not belong to her as well.
• It was widely claimed that people can chose their capital freely. That what Palestinian autorithy did.

I add that more countries in the world and more people recognized [East-]Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine than countries recognized (West-)Jerusalem as the one of Israel. Which claim is more legitimate than the other ? None. These are perfectly controversial and equivalent and it is not the purpose of wikipedia to decide which one is the better.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments like a state that doesnt exist betray a lack of understanding about the issue. Palestine does exist as a state. It exists because other states have recognized it as a state. It is not up to Wikipedians to determine whether or not a state exists, that right belongs solely to other states. And as over 100 other states have recognized the existence of Palestine as a state, Wikipedians cannot overrule that determination. nableezy - 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Palestinian claim should be given equal weight, and should be higher up in the lede. It is POV to leave it where it is. 78.40.152.129 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, it makes far more sense to cover the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem being its capital after the paragraph focused on the dispute. IT would give a non state which does not control the territory in question undue weight by putting it on equal terms as it being ISraels capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What does equal weight mean on wikipedia? It means where there are 2 points of view (here there are three) the two parties must be allowed equal representation. To reformulate this in state vs.non-state terms is possible, if you think that a state must be given more weight than the people and the land it occupies as a belligerent power (the legally correct term admitted as such by the Israeli Supreme Court). But that is not written in our protocols, as far as I know.

The lead as written accords Israel its POV, and elides the claim of the other party. Statehood has nothing to do with it. Israel's claim to have unified Jerusalem is not accepted by other states (it will be, by the US, if Romney is elected, of course). Palestine, recognized as a state by over 120 nations, claims that part of Jerusalem (city) where it has a demographic majority, is their capital, and will be so in the future. The lead as written thus violates NPOV, because it privileges one claim, while suppressing in the same sentence the other party. Technically, that has to be addressed: it would need but the simplest of glosses to achieve this parity of claim, and makes wikipedia, on this, reliable. By relegating the POV of the Palestinians to some later section, you are endorsing an POV imbalance in favour of one party.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead states facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but that is not internationally recognised. in another paragraph of the introduction it clearly states the status of jerusalem is disputed and goes on to say the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of a future palestinian state. That is reasonable and due weight to the situation. Nowhere does it say a capital needs international recognition to be a capital.. so Jerusalem is the present capital of Israel (just not internationally recognised), that is far more important than a proclaimed future capital of a state that does not exist and a territory that it does not control.To try and act as the two status's are equal is blatantly giving undue weight and favouring the Palestinian POV. the introduction rightly explains the Palestinian claim and that the status of Jerusalem is disputed. Any change, especially along the lines proposed is hugely controversial and it is not needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that there exists a state called Palestine that has declared Jerusalem as its capital. You keep going on about a future Palestinian state. We are talking about the existing Palestinian state. That you personally dont think one exists is of little importance here. nableezy - 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, there has been very little progress since my last post, but I have thought more and would like to propose a better first three sentences.

"Jerusalem, the de facto capital of Israel and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, straddles the green line, demarking a boundary between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The city, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2, is larger than any other in Palestine or Israel. Jerusalem is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

Is this better or worse, comments? No More Mister Nice Guy, Nableezy, I'm looking at you two. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)banned sock of user:passionless

Better. Though you will get objections to de facto, and that is ambiguous. It is, under Israeli law, the de jure capital of Israel. nableezy - 16:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i dont support it. the current wording is far better. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

65.95.22.16 I like your suggestion below better. To get anywhere here we have to tinker word for word unfortunately, since small minds weigh every dot and comma in the POV scales, rather than writing to the state of affairs, as given in RS.

The lead states facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but that is not internationally recognised.

The lead here states a factoid, because the 'fact' is one of two relevant 'facts', each with nuanced qualifications. You're happy with one 'fact', which is the official Israeli POV, and are opposed to the other POV, and in this those who oppose amending the text violate an obligation to edit according to WP:NPOV. Your 'fact' is not a fact stricto sensu in that Israel, according to Ian Lustick, has not annexed East Jerusalem. Since no other country has its capital city in another country, since East Jerusalem is not in Israel in Israeli law or international law, Jerusalem de facto refers to West Jerusalem, as it did in usage from 1948 to 1967 unambiguously. This refusal to honour the 'facts', and privilege an ideological POV is not unexpected, but we have a problem, and clear proposals to overcome it are required, not ostrich-vision.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The current proposals are blatantly biased in favour of palestinian point of view, giving totally undue weight to a non state that seeks Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state, and putting it on equal footing with the capital of a country that declares it the capital, controls the capital and treats its as though its the capital of the state. Yes it lacks international recognition, which is why that is clearly stated straight after the mention of it being Israel's capital. No change is needed, and certainly not these biased POV proposals. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nishidani, I accidentally logged out somehow, I am Canadian Spring, now on another computer. I did not mean to push any POV, I am very open to tinkerings of what I wrote to make it more correct, if we need to clarify east vs west jerusalem just let me know how you would write it. To BW, if someone claimed that Israel was not a state would you think about listening to them in this discussion, of course not, so I don't see why anyone would take you seriously. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

BW, why exactly are you talking about a "non-state"? Nobody else is. We are discussing the existing state called Palestine. A state that has been recognized by over 100 other states as a state. Which, guess what, makes it a state. nableezy - 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is a state in the legal sense, but hardly in any practical sense. They do not control Jerusalem, and their proclamation is no more than a proclamation. That proclamation does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The existence of a state is a legal question. I do not know what a state in any practical sense means. There is a difference between a country and a state. nableezy - 18:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you do know what in any practical sense means. Even Palestinian leaders still talk about it in the future tense. Or as Evan (I think it was) said, it fails the duck test. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you know you are unable to read my mind. I also think you know that Evan said more than that. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Without resorting to reading your mind, which I neither confirm or deny having the ability to do, I still think you know what it means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I did say more than that. If you want my personal opinion (and I can't imagine why you would, but just in case), I should probably tell you that I don't think the State of Palestine exists, in any meaningful sense. For all practical purposes, the Palestinian Authority isn't a government any more than the Central Tibetan Administration is. The Taiwan analogy is particularly apt, I think. Despite my personal feelings on the matter, however, the state's existence is recognized by a majority of the nations of the world, and we need to include well-sourced information with due weight.

As I said before, the key difference is that only one entity currently has de facto sovereignty over the city. And because of that de facto sovereignty (once more irrespective of whether or not that sovereignty is de jure), I strongly support the current wording in the lede which states that "Jerusalem ... is the capital of Israel". That was the previous consensus after extensive discussion on this page (and doubtless others as well), and I see no good reason to overturn that consensus at present. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When i say state, i mean sovereign state. Palestine is not a sovereign state.It is a proposed sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is a state unable to exercise sovereignty over its territory due to it being occupied by Israel. That does not mean it is not a state. nableezy - 19:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Which means it is not a sovereign state. When i talk about a state that is what i mean. The fact palestine is not a sovereign state unlike Israel (even though it is not fully recognised by every country), just goes to show there is a serious difference in terms of status when discussing the issue of its capital, which is why i believe the current introduction is reasonable. Israel is a sovereign state, it declares in law and is seen as/treats Jerusalem as its capital, but this is not internationally recognised. (the article intro clearly states that). There is a paragraph on the dispute over Jerusalems status, and then it clearly states palestinians claim jerusalem as the capital of their future state. that is reasonable, and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anybody has said that the existing State of Palestine exercises sovereignty over its territory, so besides raising a straw man that is easier to know down than my actual argument, I do not see the point in arguing over that. Palestine, the state, exists, and its existence is not up for debate among Wikipedians. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An occupied state cannot exercise its sovereignty? So no state occupied in WW2 was a sovereign state. Do you ever consider what your opinions imply? Yet this is irrelevant to the point. There are at least two contending interests in Jerusalem, and there is absolutely no way wikipedia allows that one of the POVs may exercise a narrative hegemony or sovreignty, as the present article does, esp. in the lead. Israel's exercise of sovreign powers is in fact the exercise of the powers, by its own court rulings, of a belligerent occupying power, which is all the more reason why, in delicate areas, wikipedia's fundamental insistance on neutrality obliges editors to ignore, as you refuse to, the perspective of the occupied in this regard. Jerusalem as defined by Israel is one POV. Jerusalem in international law, and in the Palestinian POV which requires parity of regard, is not as it is defined in the opening para. I repeat, this is a gross NPOV violation, and no distracting offhand opinions about states alters the lay of the legal facts. Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree with nishidani, the current wording is POV, and should not remain.19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require us to give equal weight to competing claims. Also, this is not a court so handwaving in the general direction of "legal facts" (whatever they may be) is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Evan's suggestion does not give equal weight to competing claims. nableezy - 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It does, by putting a proclamation of an entity that never has, doesn't, and can't currently exercise sovereignty over Jerusalem or use it as a capital right after an entity that has, does, and will continue to until some sort of agreement is reached.

It's like putting the claims of Taiwan over mainland China in the first sentence of the lead of the article about the PRC (putting aside the fact the ROC did in fact once control those areas). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on now, one is given as a fact and the other is presented only as a proclamation. It is not saying "Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital, as has Palestine". nableezy - 02:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me why this proclamation belongs in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because that is apparently where the political status of the city belongs. nableezy - 06:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How does a proclamation by a state that doesn't control the city or use it as their capital change the political status of the city? Do I need to give the Taiwan and China example again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the proclaimed capital of Taiwan is Taipei, not Beijing. If Taiwain claimed Beijing as its capital then that example might hold water, but it doesnt, so it doesnt. How does it change the political status of the city? Really? A state recognized by over 100 other states and whose territory, held under occupation, includes a portion of this city has proclaimed it its capital. I think that is as pertinent as the fact that a state has proclaimed its capital to include territory outside of its sovereign territory. nableezy - 17:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to Nishidani): This is again where the distinction between legal sovereignty and actual sovereignty comes in. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the adjective "sovereign" as "possessing supreme or ultimate power ... (of a nation or its affairs) acting or done independently and without outside interference". By this definition, the answer to your question regarding the nations occupied by Nazi Germany is no, they were not sovereign states in point of fact. Though they may have been sovereign according to international law, they were not sovereign because they did not possess "supreme or ultimate power" within their own borders, and their governments, where extant, did not act "independently and without outside interference". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 1

What follows is my counter-proposal for a revision to the first paragraph of the lead, for which several people have expressed support. I believe it addresses the issue of weight in respect to the status of capital for either state, while also upholding the previous consensus that states can declare their own capitals. The remainder of the lead should remain unchanged, with the probable exception of the fifth paragraph, which should probably be removed in favor of the updated first sentence. I've titled this section "Alternative proposal 1" to allow for other proposals that may be made later down the road.

~ Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I don't think putting the Palestinian claim in the first sentence of the lead gives it correct weight, just like putting Taiwan's claim over mainland China in the first sentence of the lead in the PRC article wouldn't be giving it the correct weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i certainly think that is a better proposal than some of the others so far, although i believe the current wording in the article still is more reasonable. The concern i have with the proposed main sentence is it basically has this structure ... Israel's capital > Not recognised internationally > proclaimed capital of the state of Palestine. Unlike for the Israel's capital bit, there is no qualification of Palestines proclaimed capital not having full international recognition and also the fact that a sovereign state of Palestine does not exist and has no control over the city, unlike Israel which treats it as its capital. I think it is too much to include in one sentence in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that the claim of Palestinians on Jerusalem must be given total equal weight to the choice of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. One concerns a state to come 'but' has the support of the numerous countries around the world. The choice of Jerusalem is not recognized by any country in the world due to the status of Jerusalem.

It is not to wikipedia to decide what claim/choice is legitimate. That is a purely wp:npov issue.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would keep controversies for the end of the lede. It is more important to know that this is one of the oldest city of the world and it is sanctified in 3 religions than to know its international status is controversial. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

That is certainly an improved proposal, Evanh2008. The first sentence complies perfectly with WP:NPOV, and the objection that one cannot have parity because of WP:Undue is fallacious because it assumes, that of two parties and POV, Palestinians are owed, mysteriously, less representation than Israel.

If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, the city is larger in both population and area than any other in Palestine or Israel, with a population of 801,000 residents

The emendment to the second sentence also achieves balance, though I don't think it that important, compared to the role it plays for the three monotheistic religions. To overcome the hypothetical if clause, which would require would be (as I noted above) one could simplify to:

If one includes East Jerusalem, it forms the largest city in Israel/Palestine, with a population of 801,000.

By putting 'Israel/Palestine', the sense of Mandatory Palestine is retained, while not being prejudicial to either party's claims, realistic or ultramontane as they variously are. Thanks for the work.

Agree with Pluto on controversies to the end of the lead. Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with this proposed lead is that it does not inform the reader where the city is located relative to states. It is quite important to note that the green line runs through the city. Canadian Spring (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

This is not about whos claim to Jerusalem is more legitimate or not, it is about who controls Jerusalem, and which is the sovereign state that actually treats it as its capital. Palestinians do not have a sovereign state, do not control the territory, and they do not treat it as their capital. That is why it is undue weight to act as though its the capital of Israel and proclaimed capital of Palestine in equal terms in the same sentence. There is a clear difference between the two and that has to be reflected. The introduction needs to make clear that Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, but it already does that in the more appropriate part of the lead after a paragraph explaining the status of Jerusalem is controversial etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Repetition is not an argument. You have yet to show you understand what WP:NPOV means. It is no fault of ours, as wikipedians, that the legal and lingustic complexities here exist, and that editors must walk over a minefield to avoid (as they haven't in the text we have) giving undue weight to one side, or failing to be neutral. When Ben-Gurion moved the capital of Israel to West Jerusalem, and subsequently Israeli sources said 'Jerusalem' was the capital of Israel, they were not asserting that the Jordanian East Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. They were asserting that for them, West Jerusalem was their capital, though using the word 'Jerusalem'. Editors here care about nuance. Our article deals with an undisputed West Jerusalem (Israeli) and a disputed East Jerusalem (under belligerent occupation, but 'Palestinian'). It is totally immaterial that Israel controls East Jerusalem: it does not have legal sovereignty, and its statehood does not extend there. Whatever Israel declares about a 'united Jerusalem' is its POV, but immaterial to an objective, neutral description of the city as inhabited by two majoritarian groups in their respective areas. We deal with complexity here, we don't go for simplifications that blur essential distinctions. WP:NPOV is acutely attentive precisely to the need, in border-line conceptually blurred situations, to abstain from loading the language selectively to endorse a partisan POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this proposal clearly gives undue weight to the palestinian side, by seeking to act as though the reality on the ground is equal when we all know it is not in terms of who controls it, which is the sovereign state, and who actually treats it as their capital. its one sided POV that is being proposed. The current wording is not, it accurately states Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but this is not internationally recognised. It goes on in a paragraph to explain the dispute and clearly states Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. That is reasonable, it mentions both sides situation fairly. A bias article in favour of Israel would be if this article simply said Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, without explaining the lack of international recognition (something mentioned twice in the lead currently) and without explaining Palestinians seek it as their capital. We have the moderate position which clearly explains both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is unacceptable per BritishWatcher. The only modification that may be done to the current lead is removing the "though not internationally recognized as such" clause, which is kind of TRIVIA, is UNDUE, and doesn't belong in the first sentence; the ^[ii] note sufficiently elaborates the issue. Noon (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

the only modification that may be done, means there is a veto, and that wikipedia's I/P area is off-limits to modifications of any article's textual status quo, where that status quo privileges Israel's POV? In any case, there is nothing wrong with editors insisting that a POV be represented, as you and Britishwatcher apparently do. What is formally incorrect is your dual failure to observe WP:NPOV, for you are proposing to elide the 'other' in the dispute as 'trivia'. It reminds me of the opinion of NoCal100 I posted on my page, i.e., there is only one narrative, and that is Israel's.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The current introduction is not bias in favour of Israel, as i mentioned above if we did not mention the lack of international recognition, the entire paragraph on Jerusalem's status and the palestinians wanting it as their capital then yes it would be bias in favour of Israel. The current wording is not. The first sentence of this article is balanced, these proposals totally shift that balance in favour of the Palestinian POV. This article states facts in a fair way. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Look. Several editors see a problem, and a handful deny there is one. It's not productive here to just sit down repeating you can't see the problem. It exists for several, and the issue is essentially to see how the various proposals, based on this assumption, can be refined to a point where we have a genuine NPOV alternative to the text as it stands. Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Genuine NPOV doesn't mean giving equal weight to the country that controls the city and uses it as its capital and to the state that does not control it or use it as its capital. Much like NPOV doesn't require us to give equal weight to the government of the PRC and Taiwan regarding who speaks for mainland China. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But Taiwan's role is played here by Israel. There is not a single country in the world that agrees giving legitimity to the choice of capital of Israel, whatever the real legitimaty of this choice. The annexion of East-Jerusalem is rejected by the Assembly of the Nations (read : UNO). What is the due:weight of the choice of the representatives of 7,000,000 people when the representatives of 7,000,000,000 refuses to give legitimaty to this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Galilee was right against even more people and the History confirmed he was right. Today he is a hero.

But wikipedia is not there to tell the truth, just to report the majority's pov. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

this proposal is a big improvement over the current POV wording. Go for it.86.171.210.33 (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is fine. nableezy - 15:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this biased wording to be put in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG. I don't think we have a distinction between genuine NPOV and inauthentic NPOV. Taibei is the capital of Taiwan as Beijing is the capital of the PRC. We are talking of capitals, and Taiwan is not occupied by China, nor China by Taiwan. East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel -it has no sovereign legitimacy there -, and equal weight means that must enter any definition of the city as a whole. Not to accept this is to espouse a nation-specific POV, that Jerusalem is one and unified (Israel's POV), and ignore what is staring most editors in the face, i.e. that in international law, Jerusalem is neither unified nor one, but two distinct political realities. Don't blame editors. It's what the facts on the ground, and the legal lay of the land say, and we must adapt our language to represent that complexity in respect of NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The intro clearly states that Israels view of it being the capital of Israel is not recognised by the international community. Im sorry but you cannnot give equal weight to 1 non soveriegn entity claiming the city as its capital, and a sovereign state that treats the city as its capital, and controls it. The two are clearly on differening levels. That is not to justify the current position on the ground, but the article must reflect the situation on the ground, not pretend that the two capitals are of equal status. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're confused. Read WP:NPOV. As the article itself records, there are two major demographic and political realities in the city of Jerusalem, Israelis and Palestinians. To state that 'the international community does not recognize Israel's claim' cannot justify the elision or suppression of the Palestinian presence there. The 'international community' cannot stand as a substitute for the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, and when you have two dominant narratives, NPOV requires parity of treatment: third parties who neither live there, nor constitute part of its historic reality, but simply state their formal opposition to any attempt by Israel to apply its laws as though they were expressions of sovereignty there, are not a relevant party in the NPOV balancing act. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It's you who's confused. NPOV does not require "parity of treatment". NPOV requires due weight. And a proclamation by someone who does not and has never controlled an area it doesn't and can't use as a capital is not on par with the de facto sovereign who does use it as a capital. The Palestinian proclamation does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Refresh yourself ad fontem (WP:NPOV) is broken in two key points.

(a)Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

(a1)In this case the view of Israel is shared by no other country in the world. Technically this means it would virtually run the risk of being classified as WP:fringe. Since Jerusalem as a united capital is uniquely Israel's POV, it cannot assume the absolute prominence. Indeed, the qualifying clause balances Israel's minority view with the almost unanimous counter-judgement of all other nations on earth, and abuses the 'parity' you complain about.

(b)Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. The assertion that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is 'seriously contested' but is asserted as a fact. 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (Israeli (fringe) POV), though not internationally recognized as such.

I don't think anyone wants to wreck the line. Several people are insisting that a statement of Israel's POV on a city of divided loyalties, distinct demographies and cultures, and politically riven, cannot feature the POV of one party. Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you can see the problem now.

(ec) re: "The intro clearly states that Israels view of it", so, is this something we can all agree on, that at the moment it is Israel's view of it being the capital of Israel that is being presented as a statement of fact in the first sentence (setting aside the rights or wrongs of that) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, Israel's view is that Jerusalem is its capital, all other nations however have a different view, Canada for example lists Israel's capital as blank. Canadian Spring (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Alternative proposal 2

I think the proposal is an improvement. Might I suggest breaking the two POVs into two sentences and an addition?

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
Tiamut^talk 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thats fine by me too. nableezy - 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think this is very good. That is brief, facutal and without any controversy. The claim/reasonning of each side is given as well as the main reason why the other side challenges this. That fits NPoV because everybody agrees with what is written even if he could consider the other side's claim as unlegitimate. On the synthax point of view : the number of words is nearly the same ; sentence structure is the same. Excellent. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• That is far more reasonable. I wont oppose that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed - seems like a good compromise. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm dropping my support for my version and going with this one. Great work! I was surprised to see that so many people looked at my suggestion as being somewhat pro-Palestinian in terms of presenting sovereignty claims, as that wasn't really my intention. I certainly thought that the difference between "capital" and "proclaimed capital" pre-empted any WP:WEIGHT issues. Regardless, it looks like I was wrong. I like this one a lot. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that there is a stray comma in there after "such". We will also need to change the "If... is" clause (regarding the population and area of East Jerusalem) to the subjunctive "If... would be", as Nishidani pointed out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• If we're going this route, it should note that their seat of government is Ramallah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ramallah is the administrative capital of the Palestinian Authority, not the State of Palestine. -asad (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So where does the government of the State of Palestine sit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which country is Jerusalem territorially part of?     ←   ZScarpia   01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the seat of government of the State of Palestine? Do you know where it is? I think it's important to note where their seat of government is when they proclaim their capital (which most readers would correctly assume is related to the seat of government) to be in a different city. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your first question: nothing. But it has a lot to do with the double standards and partisan reasoning being shown here.     ←   ZScarpia   04:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, could you please open a new section for whining rather than interrupt a discussion that seems to be going pretty well here? I'll come play with you there if you ask nicely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This article talks about Jerusalem, not Ramallah. If we add the stuff about Ramallah, we should add that Jerusalem is not totally an Israeli city but is under military occupation after an illegal annexion. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I withheld my reply, waiting for Evanh2008, to whom we're much indebted for providing the basic formula, to give his view, and perhaps a further tweak. It's fine by me as well, once the comma's added. I agree with Pluto, also. This cannot be expanded to carry every nuance. Good work. Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think better after coffee. Two points however still need some work. The word 'control' worried me last night. As scholars readily allow, Israel has de facto withheld the kind of retricular control and administrative process normal for states on their territory, from significant parts of East Jerusalem. The electrical and water utilities are run by West Bank Palestinian corporations. The educational curricula is not Israeli, but modelled on that in Palestinian schools. Jerusalem's municipal council radically underfunds that sector, and more importantly, several autonomous institutions like the waqf and the Christian denominations, own and administer their areas. ((Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

'From all the research on polarized cities, it appears that Jerusalem may present the most striking case of a muncipal conflict being a more extreme reflection of a national conflict. ..(comparing Belfast and Nicosia). Jerusalem can claim the dubious top honour of being the most polarized city in the world'. (pp.121, 122)

)

Operatively, therefore, Palestinians and other groups do exercise considerable local administrative autonomy there. This is how, with the comma adjusted, and the flow of balancing sentences slightly modified, I'd prefer it. I added 'their sector of the city'

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians, while retaining some (administrative) autonomy, exercise no sovereignty over their sector of the city.

I'm not happy wholly with this either, of course, because it suggests there are two parties, excluding the strong Christian element in East Jerusalem. Still, a little more input and crafting is required to cover all angles, surely? Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"though Palestinians, while retaining some (administrative) autonomy" - Strongly oppose that being included sorry. This is giving too much undue weight to the palestinian side in the opening paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean it's not true? We have cut, as I showed above, a huge amount of slack to the fringe proposition that Jerusalem (all of it) is Israel's capital, against what WP:NPOV explicitly states. I don't think you realize that in this formulation, far more has been conceded by one side in this regard. The sentence I added adjusts precisely to balance that concession. Israel does not, see its budgets, run large parts of East Jerusalem. For goodness sake, it even built the 'West' Jerusalem stadium by siphoning off funds formally allocated for the Eastern sector's administration of essential services, more or less abandoning it to its own resources.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How about, "though Palestinians, while retaining limited (administrative) autonomy within their communities, exercise no sovereignty over their sector of the city." I hate to suggest longer text, but I think this may accomplish Nishidani's point. -asad (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Pluto and Evans, in particular, are concerned about stylistic balance and neatness, which suggests, for an encyclopedic lead, concision above all (as 'over their sector of the city' could be adjusted to there, for example, which is better since contextually it would refer to 'Jerusalem' (whole and in part, and 'retaining' with its implication of a continuity some might deny, could be having). Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what exact "administrative autonomy" do the Palestinians retain in East Jerusalem again? That a private electric company supplies them with power? That's not administrative autonomy and even it was, has nothing to do with SoP. And how did the sentence jump from the State of Palestine and its proclamation to Palestinians in general? The SoP has no administrative autonomy or even official presence in Jerusalem. Also, if we're not going to explain that despite proclaiming it their capital their seat of government is elsewhere in the text, it should be in a footnote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is about nuances and precision. some defines administrative autonomy, and that is a fair description of the otherwise immensely complex conceptual mess of Jerusalem's administration. Akram specifically concludes:

‘Trying to identify which parts of East Jerusalem are fully under Israeli jurisdiction, or are as Israeli as the pre-1967 Israel parts are Israeli, is a complex, if not impossible, task.’ p.124

So it's in Akram, it's in Michael Dumper's, The Politics of Sacred Space:The Old City of Jerusalem in the Middle East Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publications 2002 p.163, or any number of sources on de facto administrative autonomy. Let's take Mosheh ʻAmirav's book. He ought to know since was actually a municipal planner high up in the echelons of power there over the last decades and has described all this well in his recent book, from Eshkol's granting of autonomy to waqf authorities, to Israel's entented with Jordan that the latter power look after the EJ Palestinjians, and Kollek and Olmert's administration. No more than 5% of Jerusalem municipal funds up from the historic 3% after occupation, goes into East Jerusalem p.117). In his view Israel has effectively abandoned the Palestinian sector to its own devices. There is no united Jerusalem because the Wall built splits the Arab city from 9 Arab neighbourhoods. Two key quotes:-

In the first years of the city's unification, Kollek was one of the people most responsible for extending administrative, economic and educational autonomy to the Arab population. Years later, he came to realize that his 'liberal and enlightened' policy was a key factor behind the segregation of the Arab minority from the Jewish majority. The Arabs chose the Jordanian option and preferred autonomy to equality'. (Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

'From all the research on polarized cities, it appears that Jerusalem may present the most striking case of a muncipal conflict being a more extreme reflection of a national conflict. ..(comparing Belfast and Nicosia). Jerusalem can claim the dubious top honour of being the most polarized city in the world'. (pp.121, 122)

People who objected to Ravpapa's attempt to actually mention this profound and unique urban contentiousness would do well to see how close his suggestions mirrored those of one of Israel's best technical authorities on the city.

Golda Meir and Jordan's King Hussein had, even after 1967, a secret entente that in practical terms the Arabs of East Jerusalem would remain under Jordanian governance, which outspent Israeli gov. investment 10 times with some $100 million in East Jerusalem in the decade of the 1970s, and effectively Israel abandoned the area to itself, apart from retaining strict control over security and building permits. In the 1990s, East Jerusalemite Palestinians were given the right to vote in PNA elections. Jordan handed over its rights to the PLO in 1988, and the PNA carries on doing what the Jordanians did under the consent of Israel's occupying authorities earlier. None of this is in the article, of course, so just reading the article to inform oneself about the town won't be of much help in understanding the issue.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel pretty weird in here. I didn't agree with Tiamut's formulation, but swallowed my POV because so many editors were shaping a consensus, and I won't get in the way of that process, esp. when supported by people who are closer to the realities than a bookworm like myself is. I'm clueless as to why a formulation that showcases a fringe assertion at the outset, and meekly requests that the other side's reality be hinted at, now finds objections. The sensible thing is to accept a victory, and show grace in the conquest, as one bows to an uncontested reality on the ground.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were close to building a consensus in terms of the initial alternative proposal 2, I do not see the need for a change to this introduction, but i said i wouldnt oppose that change happening. But now instead of a reasonable brief sentence mentioning the palestinian position being moved to the top of the introduction, we are getting bogged down by issues around if they exercise some control of areas within the city in terms of local government. This is totally giving undue weight to this issue for the first paragraph of the introduction. The proposed initial wording was factually accurate. the "state of Palestine" has no sovereignty or control over the city of Jerusalem. Its brief and simple whilst making Palestinian claims to the city right at the top of the introduction despite many of us believing it is not necessary to be there. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means that the majority underwrite a passage that then assumes a certain authority textually, thus it takes time, requires close study, so that those underwriting it are fully aware of the implications. It is not an overnight rush, and we do it quietly. Generally the process so far has been illuminatingly sensible and civil. As per my source, the 'most contention-fraught city in the world', which by the way, the lead should add, but doesn't, we simply cannot gloss over the Palestinian presence and its POV as a claim counterpoised to a fringe POV assertion by Israel that it is the capital. That is the POV problem the added suggestions attempt to solve. By the way have you read the details above, which were in response to NMMGG's query?Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No only is it undue weight, it's mixing two unrelated issues. One is the capital of the SoP (still waiting to hear where their seat of government actually is, if anyone knows) and the other is whatever "limited autonomy" there is there, which is not exercised by the SoP, obviously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The world does not recognize Israel's position on Jerusalem, by a majority of 193 to 1. The majority of states recognize The State of Palestine by a majority of 130 to 63. If you want a debate about WP:Undue, you'd lose on that score alone, since, as I noted, the current opening line gives undue weight to a fringe position. Still, we're here not to quarrel, but to find a sensible arrangement for an inadequate lead. I'm happy to withdraw my qualifiers if the current majority prefers the text as Evansh2008 and Tiamut tailored it, by the way. Since the SoP is a state occupied by Israel, arguments of the kind you are adducing do not apply. We do not underwrite power arrangements here, we simply state what the best sources agree is the case, which here, is that Jerusalem is not wholly in Israel, is occupied, and the occupied Palestinian part is more or less left to its own resources in managing the mess in its quarter. Since the article deals with all of the city, there's no way of equivocating over this, and trying to maintain NPOV while relegating the Palestinian fact to a footnote. Britishwatcher accepts the Evansh/Tiamut suggestion. You haven't expressed your specific view on it, and perhaps it's time for some positive input. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If only you had a source that says that lack of recognition of a capital means something, or that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, maybe you'd have a point. I also notice that the "precision and nuance" you say it so important is a bit lacking when discussing the SoP, like the fact it doesn't have a functioning government, controls no territory, or in fact possesses any of the hallmarks of a state, except for recognition. But that's ok, we all know what the reality is and I think most of us understand that even if you were able to change wikipedia to fit your POV, it would not change the reality on the ground.

As for the current suggestion, I have expressed my specific view on it, but let me reiterate in case you missed it. I think that if the current suggestion is used, it should be noted (preferably in the text but I'll also accept a footnote) that the seat of government of the SoP is not in Jerusalem. Considering the fact some editors here wanted to change the text to say that Israel "proclaimed" Jerusalem as its capital and we all know that Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel, saying that the SoP proclaimed it as its capital may imply that their seat of government is there. It should be made clear that it isn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I like Nishidani's most recent revision. The only thing I would tweak is the parentheses around "administrative". Let's get rid of those, if no one objects.

Accusations of POV pushing aside, I agree somewhat with NMMNG regarding clarification in connection with the seat-of-government issue, but I would much rather see that in there as a footnote than in-text. One question I don't think anyone has yet raised -- if we're going to use the full-form "State of Palestine" shouldn't we also then use the full-form "State of Israel"? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine can mean Palestine, State of Palestine, or (sometimes) the Palestinian territories. Israel, for at least the last 60 years, does not suffer from such ambiguity. But I dont really care if State of precedes Israel, I just dont find it necessary. nableezy - 20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it necessary either. I sill object to Nishidani's proposal for the reasons stated above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Id be fine with a footnote that addresses your concerns. That language would have to be worked out, obviously, but I dont have a problem with it. nableezy - 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So can we not have a footnote that deals with the Palestinian Authorities seat of government, along with the issue of the administrative autonomy mentioned. Rather than putting either of those things in the opening sentences. That initial Alternative proposal 2 is not inaccurate, despite these issues being raised. Those claims are too much for the second sentence of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If 'alternative 2' as proposed by Tiamut is adopted, I don't see any objection to footnote[s] that would be added to provide clarifications. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the "autonomy" stuff belongs in a footnote to the first sentence of the lead. It can be discussed in the section about the current status of the city, assuming somebody develops an appropriate section in the body of the article. I should note that the Waqf and churches managing their own affairs happens all over Israel and with others like the Baha'i and Druze as well, so it's not something unique to Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I try to argue from the most authoritative sources I can find, which in this case means Mosheh ʻAmirav who states

In the first years of the city's unification, Kollek was one of the people most responsible for extending administrative, economic and educational autonomy to the Arab population. Years later, he came to realize that his 'liberal and enlightened' policy was a key factor behind the segregation of the Arab minority from the Jewish majority. The Arabs chose the Jordanian option and preferred autonomy to equality'. (Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

A de facto state of administrative autonomy was conceded to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. That is admitted by someone who actually participated over that period in the administration of Jerusalem, who also documents Israel's systematic disengagement from what would be, were Jerusalem really unified, its responsibilities in that area. It even uses half of the taxes from the Palestinian quarter for Jewish developments. I.e. taxes the non-Israelis in order to get more resources for the Israelification of the rest of Jerusalem. Nishidani (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Amirav is not free of political bias, not to mention he was in charge of building roads and light rail. His view should be attributed if it is included in the article. Please explain why you think this belongs in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is free from political bias. This area is plagued by editors who have little but political bias. Moshe Amirav's statement comes from an experienced administrator of Jerusalem under Kollek and Olmert and I have no idea what his politics were, except that they ain't mine. And I don't care either. A specialist cited uncontroversibly in the area of his competence does not have to suffer attribution unless his view is fringe. It doesn't appear to be the case here. Otherwise everything cited from specialist academic sources would be under attribution.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Recap

• Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
  Tiamut^talk 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This has broad approval. My objection is to control. Israel's control is a matter of security and building permits alone by all sources I have looked at.

• Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the Palestine, though Palestinians, while exercising some administrative autonomy, lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.
  

My point is, if you mention the lack of Palestinian sovereignty, you cannot get away with the factual is clause in 'is the capital of Israel', unless you qualify the latter by a reference to the fact they do exercise some administrative autonomy. The reason is, by the unanimous agreement of all other nations in the human community, Israel does not have legal sovereignty over an important sector of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem. The text as it stands doesn't mention the sovereignty issue except to state that Palestinians lack it. Sure, but Israel also lacks it there. When I speak of 'nuance' and POV advantage, I mean things like this. I don't care how the phrasing is rehoned, but I think Tiamut's suggestion must be per NPOV reviewed with regard to 'control' and the unilateral emphasis on Palestinian lack of sovereignty, something true of that sector also of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel clearly has sovereignty and control over the city of Jerusalem, even if it was obtained by what is deemed an illegal occupation/annexation. Something the introduction already clearly goes into in further paragraphs. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends the exact meaning of the word 'sovereignty'. I think that Israel has the control but no 'sovereignty' on East Jerusalem. But whatever, instead of expanding the lede to nuance this, I would suggest to shorthen Tiamut's version... Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel doesn't have sovereignty over Jerusalem. An encyclopedia article can't say that with a straight face. Israel says it has sovereignty over Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are we proposing to say in the wording that it does. The proposal is simply to say Palestinians do not to emphasise the lack of control they have over the city compared to Israel. The fact Israels control of the city is disputed is covered in detail further in the introduction where it says the international community view it as an illegal annexation. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply responding to your statement "Israel clearly has sovereignty ... over the city of Jerusalem... Something the introduction already clearly goes into..." because the statement is inaccurate on both counts. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a sovereign state, it treats Jerusalem as entirely within its own territory and exercises sovereignty and control over it. It may not be internationally recognised, or viewed as illegal or what ever else by others, but it clearly has control of the city. But like i said, we are not specifically stating Israel has sovereignty, this is just about explaining the fact a non existent sovereign state does not have sovereignty over the city or control it to ensure balance, seen as its already stated that Jerusalem isnt recognised internationally as the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up what the word "sovereignty" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the state exercises no control. We dont need to get into whether Palestinians exercise any control. nableezy - 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the points I've been trying to make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is solved by using sovereignty, right? nableezy - 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gah, too many threads here. I was talking about my proposed change for the Palestinian control. On the issue of Israeli sovereignty, that is a bit more complicated. I dont think anybody actually disputes that Israel controls all of Jerusalem and that the treat the entire area as their sovereign territory. It isn't though, EJ is occupied Palestinian territory, not sovereign Israeli territory. West Jerusalem's status varies a bit more depending on who you ask. I dont think the article can state that Jerusalem is Israeli sovereign territory, or that it has sovereignty over the city. The occupier is not the sovereign power, it is the occupying power. Without using the term de facto, the article should not assert any sovereignty over the city to Israel as that is a legal issue in which Israel's position is very much in the minority. nableezy - 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

NNMNG, re: 'what the word "sovereignty" means', please, as you surely know, there is a difference between fact and opinion and we are required to distinguish between them. If we are going to talk about who has sovereignity (and I'm not suggesting that we do) then Ruth Lapidoth provides an overview of the diversity of views on the sovereignty issue for both west and east on pages 71-77 in "Jerusalem: A City and Its Future" ISBN 978-0815629139. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference between fact and opinion. For some reason you prefer opinion. I still recommend you look up what "sovereignty" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, no, I prefer facts. Opinions are pretty worthless in my world, including opinions about meaning. Still, RS and editors seem to like them. If I could delete them all with a press of a button, I would. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State ofPalestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.

I see this favours control over sovereignty. Another variation might be:

is both the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii], and the proclaimed capital of the Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no sovereignty over their sector.(

(ref: ‘Jerusalem is a unique municipality whose importance is such that it is jointly and simultaneously claimed as the capital city of Israel and the proposed Palestinian state.’ Sanford R. Silverburg, 'Palestine and the World of Law: A Structural Analysis,’ in Sanford R. Silverburg (ed.),Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics, McFarland, 2009 pp.160-172 p.163 Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"is both the capital of.... "" That is blatant gross POV in favour of the Palestinian view point giving totally undue weight. If there is not going to be a reasonable proposal accepted then there should be no change at all. If this grossly biased wording or anything like that is added to the introduction, it should be reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have the impression you are not reading the sources on which I am making several suggestions. Please focus and do not be disruptive by using phrases like 'blatant gross POV'. 'Both' in my text comes specifically from Silverburg's reference to dual claims. What I am suggesting comes from scholars like Sanford R. Silverburg or scholar-technocrats in Israel like Mosheh ʻAmirav, and they are not 'grossly biased'. If you can't evaluate proposals and sources with equanimity, I suggest you withhold your vote until other editors have tried to work out consensually an agreed upon version to replace the present NPOV-defective one. It won't be what any one editor wants. It must be what the realities on the ground as described in RS require. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not support your proposed wording. I view it as blatant gross POV and do not think it belongs in the article because it clearly gives undue weight to the palestinian position. I do not think there will be consensus for such wording. I did not think there was a need for the change at all, but i was prepared to back the initial compromise above which was reasonable. But not this. It has been explained in the previous sections talking about this why it is inappropriate to talk about it being both the capital of Israel and Palestine in a single sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your diffidence is registered, several times, in the same words. There is no need to keep on repeating yourself. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Both" can be misunderstood as "both the capital of Israel and Palestine" when it is here just "Both this... and that" ; this and that being two different things... What about fusing both sentences and going deeper in the lede to talk about this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Jerusalem's political status is complex: the city is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii] [and] the proclaimed capital of the State ofPalestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
  

Forget control, and just say though Palestine exercises no sovereignty over the city. nableezy - 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy re 'control'. Sovereignty is more comprehensive, while control is inadequate. I've provided Pluto's tweak with two notes, used earlier, to source in RS the introductory adjunct he added, which is illuminating (it is also the gist of what Ravpapa's version argued). Could all editors read the whole of Dumper's close analysis, which I've linked in that footnote, as regards how absolutely bewilderingly complex the various demarcations and powers active in both parts of the city are? For easy access see Michael Dumper, ‘Constructive Ambiguities? Jerusalem, international law, and the peace process,’ in Susan Akram, Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, Ian Scobbie, (eds.) International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based approach to Middle East Peace, pp.123-124 Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read it. Particularly where it says "It's important not to overstate this argument", which is exactly the opposite of what you're doing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's followed by "but", and is 'rhetorical'. If you are familiar with the stylistic conventions of prose rhetoric, it means quite the opposite to how you take it.

Pretty easy to read several pages just to find one phrase that might suit a predetermined objection. Try to be constructive. Anyone can sit round, and keep kibitzing negatively. We have a problem. As a child I used to watch fettler teams, and always noted how many of any crew would idle by, smoking, and plying 'expert advice', and how many actually rolled up their sleeves, worked up a sweat jemmying rails and fixing the transit. Know what I mean? Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of the "I edit articles while all you guys do is comment"? 1. Nobody cares. 2. Someone needs to keep people like you honest. 3. If you think that because you edit more articles that gives you some kind of higher status, you are very much mistaken, as anyone here will tell you.

As to your source, the sentence is not rhetorical. I know you'd like to think it is, but really it isn't. He notes some pretty minor stuff like who supplies East Jerusalem with water and electricity, or the fact they were allowed to use a non-Israeli school curriculum. Moreover, the only place he uses the term "autonomy" is in relation to religious institutions, which as I noted above have the same autonomy in other areas of Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm blushing at your elective vocation to keep me honest. It's very flattering to have such an attentive, if immodest proposal thrown my way, only I'm not a woman. Still, thanks.

No. In textual analysis, particularly as it developed in classical philology, any clash in interpretation is often resolved by looking at all available examples of similar thematic phrasing in an author, and by that criterion alone, you are patently wrong and being, if I may be permitted, tendentious.

If you wish to know why my reading correctly takes Dumper's single concessive clause as a rhetorical form which concedes in order to emphasize the opposite, all you need do is compare his phrasing here with what he says at 'ALREADY EXISTING PALESTINIAN AUTONOMY' regarding 'the extensive autonomy that Palestinians already have in many aspects of life in Jerusalem', adding

East Jerusalem has been exempted from a raft of Israeli laws, ranging from health and safety regulations to labor laws. The Oslo accords themselves permitted Palestinian Jerusalemites to participate in Palestinian Legislative Council elections as any other Palestinian living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. From the Palestinian perspective, therefore, Israeli "concessions" on Jerusalem were illusions, drawing on a rhetoric of full Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem when that sovereignty does not exist in reality.' Michael Dumper, The Politics of Sacred Space:The Old City of Jerusalem in the Middle East Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publications 2002 p.163.

Israel after 1967 tried to subordinate the autonomous bodies, religious and otherwise of East Jerusalem to the Israeli state but

'The administrative framework established by the Jordanian government remained in operation and provided a relatively advanced degree of autonomy.' p.25.

Regarding Israel attempts to get the PLO to underwrite Israeli sovereignty there in 2004, its offers to devolve administrative autonomy were rejected because the PNA already had what was being offered. I.e.

'Since 1967, when Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the neglect of the Palestinian residential areas by both the Israeli Jerusalem Muncipality (of) and the central government led to the virtual absence of basic services, infrastructure development, and welfare programs. Palestinian and foreign charitable associations, religious organizations, the PLO, and the Jordanian government attempted to fill the vacuum left by the Israeli state. In these areas, the only element of the Israeli state that is visible is the restrictive planbning laws and the security forces.'p.163

You have, in short, read a few pages and seized on the rhetorical wording of one clause in only one of three of Dumper's texts, and used it to challenge what both he, and Moshe Amariv clearly state, about de facto administrative autonomy exercised by East Jerusalemites in many spheres of their public life with the consent of the occupying power. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is piddling, and we should not be distracted by such trivial challenges to what texts clearly state.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not piddling. You are deliberately trying to confuse the reader by extrapolating the fact that some Palestinian communities manage some of their affairs that the state could (or should) be taking care of into an "autonomy" and putting it next to a statement about the State of Palestine, as if that state is the one picking up the slack. This stuff does not belong in the first paragraph of the lead, not to mention the first sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(a) 'Someone needs to keep people like you honest.' (b) 'You are deliberately trying to confuse the reader'. Um,WP:AGF. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An argument on whether Palestinians exercise any control over any services or part of Jerusalem isnt necessary, as NMMNG is right on the point that it doesnt matter for the second sentence of the article. This started as a discussion about including Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital in the lead. Palestine, the state, doesnt control any part of Jerusalem, I dont think that can be argued. The sentence is about the state, so make it about the state. Palestine exercises no sovereignty, not Palestinians do not control. nableezy - 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be prepared to support the original proposal simply with the removal of "control" if that is such a big problem for some. But i strongly oppose watering down the introduction and the attempt to undermine the fact Jerusalem is Israels capital, with this additional wording now proposed before the statement of fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital though it is not internationally recognised as such. This is totally giving undue weight to the Palestinian POV and focusing on the opinions of academics whilst ignoring the reality on the ground. The current introduction is reasonable, and we should perhaps just stick with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating what we have been informed of several times. Be assured that note has been taken.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A new proposal was put, so i gave my views on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record and to let people know, i have posted on both the Palestine and Israel wikiprojects encouraging people to take part in this debate. Thanks. [2] [3] BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this proposal. I think we can say just "control" without "sovereignty", this is the lead after all. --Dailycare (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Oy!

This lead suggestion is going from bad to worse: :Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] It's this. No, it isn't! It's something else. No it isn't that either!

Nobody cares about the poor reader? Can't we just say something, anything about Jerusalem without degrading the lead into a debating society? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the poor reader one worries about is the one who happens upon the article, and comes away disinformed. Only madmen read through the motherlodes of bullshit on the edit-discussion talk page, surely. I think there's a fair provisory consensus for a modification of Tiamut's edit, and I'll support it, even though I disagree, and gladly retire from further discussion. Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If we had stuck with going for the original compromise proposal which people were saying they would support, then this could have been resolved. Its just a shame that additional and totally unreasonable addons are now proposed which undermine the sentences. The closest thing to consensus reached so far is the original proposal by Tiamut, possibly with a footnote to go into greater detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'shame' here, and impatience on either side is unwarranted. One must take due care to see, in key articles with two POVs, that all angles are covered, and that those who express a willingness to underwrite a fresh consensual reformulation of a lead passage know exactly what is meant and implied. Since I owe my wiki life to Ravpapa, I defer to his judgement, as to several other editors with an exemplary record, and on seeing his exasperation, expressed my view above. A week is remarkably short span for an issue like this historically in the I/P area. Please note that it was also (immensely :))productive. Most would do away 'control' and just use 'sovereignty'. I hope Evansh2008 has not been put off, and if so I must apologize. He has shown himself to be a careful stylist with a flair for accommodating various views.Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive said id be prepared to support removal of control too, from the original proposal in this section. But i dont support the proposals that unjustly dilutes this introduction for blatant political reasons to undermine the fact Jerusalem is israel's capital. No evidence has been produced showing a country needs international recognition for its capital, but we go out of our way to mention that it lacks it in the first sentence. The idea we start the introduction with "Jerusalem's political status is complex:". is offensive, if that was put here i guess we better go and add that to 100s of other articles on wikipedia which could equally be described as such. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2012

"The article should begin with "Jerusalem is a disputed city, claimed as a capital by both the current Israel state, and the Palestinian people (whose formal statehood has not yet been established.)" This is really the only way to maitain NPOV. It begins the article, from the very beginning with a fair tone. The current article simply says that " Jerusalem *is* the Israeli capitol, though is not internationally recognized as such..." , and is obviously not a neutral position. Instead, the article is presenting, as fact, one position on a hotly contested issue. In the interest of fairness, please change this. 85.181.102.137 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Such wording would be totally bias and will not get consensus. There has been some discussions above about potential changes to the introduction you could join in with. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

Trial 1

I have read once more the discussions. The proposal of Tiamut brought a wide consensus. Some nuances were asked or suggested as well as some alternatives. Trying to fuse both sentences didn't get consensus as well as stating that the case was complex. On the other way, the removal of the notion of 'control' got agreement. There I suggest both following versions (A) and (B) and suggest that everybody gives his mind about the best between 3 choices :

• A for version A
• B for version B
• N for none of these (in underlying the issues of whether A or B).

---

version A : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though Palestinians, while exercising some administrative autonomy, lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.

---

version B : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though Palestinians lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.

---

• B > A - clear and short. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• N. I strongly oppose version A. I also don't like version B. What does "their sector of the city" mean? How did we jump from Palestine to Palestinians again? Why are we piping State of Palestine? I thought we agreed that was needed to disambiguate it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

N. Sorry but i cant support either of those versions.. My objection is also the "Their sector of the city". Very problematic which makes it sound like more the split of Berlin than Jerusalem. Id support the original proposal with the "control" removed. So..

"Jerusalem ( /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎‎ Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no sovereignty over the city.".

Accepting that version compared to the current introduction is a big compromise for those of us who feel the introduction does not need changing. Saying State of Palestine, rather than just Palestine is also important. I wont support any add ons to this paragraph that blatantly favour Palestinian POV or seek to undermine the fact despite lacking international recognition, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd go for B, and simply rewrite, for 'their sector of the city', 'there' (though Palestinians lack sovereignty there). I preferred 'sector of the city' because it refers clearly to the East Jerusalem where they predominate, whereas 'there' refers to the whole city. So B, yes, but if further compromise is necessary, perhaps replace the contested phrase with 'there'. I've edited Pluto's two versions to remove a slight grammatical error.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ABORTED. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Trial 2

Given reactions here above that I had not guessed from the initial reading, I suggest the following options : Option A - Tiamut's version and Option B : one that takes into account some comments made here above.

---

Version A : :Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.

---

Version B : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of State of Palestine, though Palestinians lack sovereignty there.

---

• A = B > N. These are both the same. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support A This makes the most sense, i fail to see the problem with control. it is factually true that the Palestinians have no control or sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem, no matter what examples of local decision making mentioned in the previous discussion. Id back B if it was "over the city" rather than "there.". But A is what i favour, if not A or B with the modest alteration then i favour the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Modifying A and calling it Version C. Also very similar to B. Punctuation cleanup and a wording tweak give us:

Version C: Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians have no sovereignty over the city.

This is a minimalist change from the status quo. I believe it is the most that is needed, and would support no change at all rather than anything more elaborate. I do not understand what "A = B > N" means, in any mathematical or other sense. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C - i believe that is a reasonable compromise. It is a major change to the introduction and addresses the main concern people claimed existed. It should be version C or no change. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C (although the differences between the versions are minor and all represent improvements). As a minor point, I think the correct phrase is to "exercise sovereignty", rather than "have sovereignty". A second minor point is that I prefer "control" to "sovereignty", since also Israel lacks sovereignty over the city but as said these are minor points. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

N again - I still think the jump from State of Palestine to Palestinians is confusing. It would be like saying "the Republic of Ireland proclaims <something about Northern Ireland> though the Irish people have no sovereignty over that part of the island". Also, I'm thinking the no sovereignty issue, while clear to people who participated in this discussion, might not be clear to a casual reader. And I still think it should note they have no government institutions there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record I think it's ghastly. This is the city that David built, where Jesus walked and where Mohammed flew; where the ground is soaked in the blood of thousands fighting for their belief, or their country, or their nation; the city that has become the symbol throughout the Judeao-Christian-Muslim world for peace, love, redemption, hate, apocalypse. And the best first sentence we can come up with is, "It's the capital of Israel (sort of), and maybe also (but maybe not) the capital of someplace else (Palestine? is there really a Palestine? Is there really an Israel?)" This is neither a vote for nor against, just a heartfelt protest against the sacrifice of clarity and energy on the altar of Wikipedese. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right that should not be the first sentence. Jerusalem is much more than a topic of controversy in the I-P conflict and per WP:UNDUE this information should not start the article. Where to put it is to be discussed just after. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa. Pythagoras, like many Greek thinkers, drew on the sand. This place is a sandpit where kids throw sand in each others' eyes. The last thing one thinks of is clear, gracious and accurate writing. Shackled as we are by POV-obsessed rule-orchestratiom rather than collaborative composition, we are left rattling our chains to make the right noises, while dreaming of the freedom of Bix Beiderbecke's trumpet to phrase around the lead. You're dead-right and wrote the right score, but we play trash here, and the word 'fiddle' is the operative word for what we can do, rather than what we would like to do.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries about driving me away! I was offline for a while, but I'm back now.

The reason I've been supportive of having "control" rather than "sovereignty" in there is because I somehow imagined that "sovereignty" is a controversial term that denotes legal, rather than actual, authority over a location (which is in dispute), whereas "control" is a more generic, less controversial, term that refers to the actual physical reality on the ground (which is not in dispute). Maybe I was wrong, and if the majority of others agree that "sovereignty" is better, then I see no reason to oppose that wording.

Regarding the new concern over what the first sentence should be, I think it would be somewhat disingenuous of us to deviate from the long-held standard of beginning articles on capital cities by noting their status as capitals. For others it's simple; for Jerusalem it isn't very simple, but I think we've come up with some good compromises that are reasonably succinct and address most concerns that have been raised. Anyway, I'll stop right here and note that I:

Support Version C. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Control, not sovereign. "Sovereign" is the wrong word here. Because the PA does consider itself sovereign in East Jerusalem. The fact that East Jerusalem is occupied (in the eyes of the Palestinians) by a foreign power, which by force of arms does not allow the Palestinians any control over the territory, does not alter the fact that they consider it an integral part of sovereign Palestine. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa is right. Wikipedia shouldn't say "though Palestinians have no sovereignty over the city" because it isn't a fact, it's one of several opinions. This is discussed on pages 72-74 of Ruth Lapidoth's "Jerusalem: A City and Its Future" ISBN 978-0815629139 Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, as usual, is right, and Evanh2008's instincts are sound. I'd support C if, as per several editors we simply change sovereignty to control. I.e. The key is in 'C minor', sorry 'minus'.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. To my mind, "sovereignty" represents an abstract legal concept, whereas "control", as I said, is a more concretely definable physical thing. Good call, Nishidani! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well ill support the no control over the city" rather than sovereignty. If this change is implemented i hope that neutrality template will be removed at the same time. If that is going to stay there, then i wont support any change at all because this will clearly be about a political agenda rather than making reasonable improvements to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the neutrality tag should be associated with an active neutrality discussion, if there is no neutrality discussion going on we can remove the tag. --Dailycare (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree regarding the neutrality tag. If there are no unresolved problems, it doesn't belong there. Are we approaching something close to a consensus, then? The discussion seems to be winding down but I haven't seen much opposition to the revised wording (soverignty --> control) for C so far. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Version "C for Control" per Ravpapa et al. As reasonable a compromise wording achievable for such a contentious topic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't support any of the proposed versions. If the international recognition of J as I's capital is mentioned, then so too should the international attitudes towards J as the sole capital of the State of Palestine. Ankh.Morpork 18:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite get your point. -asad (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The international attitudes towards Jerusalem as Israel's capital are cited in the lead. That being the case, the level of support for Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine should also be mentioned.Ankh.Morpork 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So what is your lack of support for "any of the proposed versions" based off of? -asad (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that sources mention levels of support for Palestine's claim to Jerusalem nearly as often as they do that Israel's claim is unrecognized. To the contrary, sources tend to say that Israel has proclaimed it the capital, but that isn't recognized and Palestinians also want E.Jer as their capital. Incidenatlly, that's what Prop C says too which is why I support it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to go with "C" with the exception of changing "sovereignty" to "control"?-asad (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus. --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"I don't agree that sources mention levels of support for Palestine's claim to Jerusalem nearly as often as they do that Israel's claim is unrecognized." I accept this but I don't agree that Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine is mentioned nearly as often as J as the capital of Israel. Yet you wish to include this? I repeat that NPOV requires that if we elect to assert the lack of support regarding Israel, so too, this must be presented with regards to Palestine. Ankh.Morpork 20:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I wish to include it, it's in fact what Prop C is all about. NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints are represented and this is a significant viewpoint, per reliable sources. You haven't established that what you're proposing to add is significant, much less significant enough for the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose change to Version C. The article currently states, "The Palestinian Authority regards East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state." That's a much mellower way of stating what the situation is from the perspective of Palestinians than what's being proposed for the lead. I would support something like, The Palestinian leadership seeks East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. But it shouldn't be in the same sentence as the one explaining the status of Jerusalem in Israel's context so as to avoid implying an equivalence that isn't borne out among reliable sources. It can go at the end of the first paragraph.—Biosketch (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do mention the Israeli and Palestinian claims next to each other: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And how many of those sources advocate terminology such as that being pushed for in version C? The answer is zero.—Biosketch (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, as discussed immediately above, these sources are listed here to establish that reliable sources exist that mention the Israeli and Palestinian claims next to each other. If you have a separate, terminological concern, you're of course free to share it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi to you too. None of your sources are about Jerusalem in the general sense that sources being used to generate content in the first paragraph of the lead should be. News articles that deal strictly with one aspect of Jerusalem – in this case the political situation as relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – are obviously going to highlight dimensions of the city that are relevant to the story the articles're covering.—Biosketch (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in WP policy does it state that the sources in the lead have to relate to the "general sense" of the article? -asad (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening

It's been said before above, but bears repeating: the opening sentence is a disappointing product of some who seem determined to bring wikipedia down from the role of "impartial encyclopia" and into the role of propaganda.

A 'Capital' is where the government is seated, but also where embasseys are located, where other nations consult the leaders of the nation. The lead sentence completely disregards international consensus and simply state the Israeli position on the matter. The first sentence of this article is equivalent to the following statement:

"I am the world's greatest lover, though the women of the world do not recognize me as such." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.Oz (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A capital is the location of a state's seat of government. Its status is the result of internal policies, not those of foreign governments. It is not a matter of consensus from the International community; it's a mater of facts and practice. Embassy locations are rightly pointed out as indicators of international opinion, but the subsequent clause - "though not internationally recognized as such" - already makes this clear.
The consensus you're speaking about is the community's opinion on what's right; the consensus Wikipedia is concerned with is academic consensus on what's true (WP:V). The International Community agrees that the actions of several states around the World aught not happen, but that doesn't change the fact that they do.
While I'm sure the lead could be worded more concisely (and perhaps have a sentence flowing the capital statement elaborate that several other parties lay claim to the city), the lead section already devotes a whole paragraph to the issue. There is only so much we can do (WP:DUE).
—Sowlos (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Positions on Jerusalem

Recently a number of editors have felt that the lead of Jerusalem needs tweaking. Remember that the lead is supposed to summarize what is in the body of the article. To begin your planned reform by changing the lead might lead to dispute if you haven't carefully studied the later part of the article which it is trying to summarize. The main Jerusalem article is not the only place these issues are discussed. One might assume that Positions on Jerusalem would contain the most detailed explanation of the diplomatic status of Jerusalem, according to the UN and various governments. Why not read that one over first if you think that there is some imbalance in how Wikipedia currently describes the status of Jerusalem. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Repetition in lead

The lead stated ...is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." This is despite a different paragraph in the lead discussing the legality of Jerusaelem which includes the sentence, "The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital". I have removed the initial statement regarding international recognition as this repetition seems unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that single sentence is reasonable for the first sentence.. however the proposals that some seek to impose on this introduction are totally unreasonable and would cause needless repetition with little benefit but to bias the article in favour of the palestinian POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not proposing to alter the POV presented in the article; that is being exhaustively discussed in other threads. What I would like to understand is why the current POV is being presented in the manner that it is, namely, repeated twice within the lead in separate paragraphs and why this is necessary. Ankh.Morpork 12:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

By your argument, the whole line should be removed, including "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," as that note is repeated as well ("Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's 'undivided capital'"). Arguing for one, but not the other, really makes your point seem like disingenuous POV-pushing that is wasteful to everyone's time. -asad (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am happy for all that information to be consolidated. I suggest you explain why this duplication is necessary as opposed to resorting to OTHERSHITEXISTS arguments. Ankh.Morpork 17:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you edit less hypocritically if you don't like to be called out on your blatant POV-pushing. -asad (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Ankh.Morpork 18:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It didn't include statements about other editors, it included a statement about your hypocritical editing. -asad (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Ankh.Morpork 19:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your interpretation of WP:NPA is noted. If you choose to leave the discussion, you are free to do so, but please refrain from further off-topic discussion. If you have an issue with an editor, take it to their talk page or the appropriate discussion board. -asad (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since your comments have been confined to editors and not article content, this may be interpreted to mean that there is no content dispute regarding the proposed changes. Ankh.Morpork 23:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If that is your interpretation, then you would be wrong. I object to your proposed change for the following reasons:

1. There is a long ongoing discussion on how the first sentence should be phrased (as you can see above). I would recommend to wait for the outcome of those discussions before this one is opened.
2. If your argument for removal is based on repetition, then all repetitive statements should be removed, not just the one that says, "though not internationally recognized as such."
3. I would not agree to the removal of this information on the basis of "duplication." If anything, it needs to be removed because I do not think that is the most relevant information to have in the first line of this article.

But thank you for taking the time to explain what your interpretation of my comments were. I hope all is clear now. -asad (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

1) None of them address this point as you are well aware

2)OK

3)Whatever. An additional reason reinforces the need for its removal.

Based on your points above, there is no related discussion to this aspect and since I am amenable to all duplication being removed from the lead, I presume that you are now in favour of this change?Ankh.Morpork 10:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would love to see that information removed from the first sentence. Be it duplication or not, I do not see the need for such recent history to be given so much prominence in an article that is about one of the oldest cities in the world. That being said, I do hope you realize the extent to which this will effect the conversation taking place above. Yes, your proposal has no direct relation to what they are talking about, but your proposed change would suddenly make all their discussion become irrelevant. If you would like to tread into these waters now, the decision is yours to make and I will not oppose. But I cannot say I favor the change out of good faith and respect for the ongoing attempts to build a consensus as seen above. So, again, I would only oppose the change if not all duplicate information is removed (similar to your original edit), otherwise I abstain. -asad (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

POV templete can not be inserted in the middle of sentence only on its end.Tritomex (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Better wording

Wouldn't it be better if the lede sentence read, "Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of Israel, though is not internationally recognized as such"? Since Israel is claiming it as its capital, but the rest of the world doesn't recognize it as that. Silverseren^C 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better if is said that. --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All you're missing, as usual, is a reliable source that says that non-recognition means it's not the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

...what? Wouldn't that mean that, with such a source, it shouldn't be called the capital at all? I'm not following your logic. Israel is claiming it as its capital. That's obviously true. But, since its disputed (and that's affirmed by the international community), then it's POV to just say straight out that it is the capital. Silverseren^C 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we're not using the same definition of "capital". I'm using the one in the dictionary, which doesn't include the words "claim" or "recognition". How about you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably not using the same definition of "Jerusalem" or "is" either. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear NMMNG, You are right that dictionaries define capital as "seat of government". Why, then, do almost all countries of the world think that Jerusalem is not the capital? Don't they read the dictionary? Ravpapa (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ravpapa, why do you think most countries of the world think that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? Allow me to remind you of the facts. Israel made Jerusalem its capital in the early 1950s. Nobody said anything. Then in 1980, Israel made "unified Jerusalem" its capital. Most countries said that law is null and void and that they don't recognize unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital. They still happily carry out their diplomatic business vis a vis their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, including sending their heads of state there. So I don't think saying they don't think it's the capital is correct. They just don't recognize it, for whatever that's worth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, using a dictionary meaning and applying it here is SYNTH. We're constrained to write what sources say, and they say more or less what Silver seren writes above. The claim that "nobody said anything" in the 1950s isn't true, since e.g. the United States actively sought to prevent countries from establishing embassies in Jerusalem. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DC, the only "SYNTH" I see here is your wishful thinking that we are allowed to redefine the meanings of words. A capital city is where the major government institutions are (the seat of government), whether "the world" likes it or not. It follows that the only reliable source is the country that put those institutions there and designated that city as its capital. That is not a "POV" (theirs or mine) or a "claim". RP, you are asking for speculation about motivation, something that may be off base for an article talk page. An editor was recently kicked off the talk page who made allegations that people or peoples were biased. Even if the countries give reasons, there may be unspoken underlying reasons involved. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if everytime someone said "A capital city is..." on this talk page they had to make a $1000 donation to the ICRC. This issue has nothing to do with opinions about the meaning of the word "capital". It will never be resolved by treating the meaning of the word "capital" as a proposition and drawing conclusions from that. The only thing that matters is that we faithfully reflect reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, the reason I think that most countries don't think that Jerusalem is the capital is because that is what they say. I need not refer you to Positions on Jerusalem, where country after country is quoted as saying that Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel. The fact that countries conduct some of their diplomatic business in Jerusalem is, as you well know, because the seat of government is in Jerusalem. Which suggests to me that, differing from the rather one-dimensional definition in dictionaries, foreign ministries seem to think that "capital" and "seat of government" are not quite synonymous.

But if you really believe that the two terms are synonymous, then why do you object so strenuously to replacing the word "capital" with "seat of government" in the lead? Perhaps you, too, think there is some subtle difference between the two terms, that you haven't divulged to us for reasons known only to yourself? --Ravpapa (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Capital" is the common, basic, everyday word. "Seat of government" helps to define it, and vice versa, and may be synonymous. Not that you asked me, but are you prepared to change "capital" to "seat of government" in the hundreds of other articles about countries (not to mention the thousands about subdivisions of countries)? Perhaps there is "some subtle difference between the two terms". Hertz1888 (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, your comment "the only reliable source is the country that put those institutions there" surprises me, since WP:IRS doesn't work that way and I know that you, as an experienced editor, are aware of that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also aware of WP:5P, #5, sentence #2, in regard to improving Wikipedia. I'm not surprised that you are surprised. It seems to me that it follows logically that if countries alone choose their own capitals, all the published sources in the world cannot alter that status, though they may contradict it. If, moreover, the chosen capital is also the seat of government, it becomes even more difficult to deny, but isn't it curious how many words have been spent in trying to do so. "Reliable" as used here is in the original and most basic sense of the word, but of course that depends on a dictionary definition. Cheers. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading that using a dictionary to define words is SYNTH really makes spending my very precious time here worthwhile. If I was the sort of person who keeps a list of favorite talk page comments, I would certainly put that comment there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, every time you write something, you confuse me more. "If, moreover, the chosen capital is also the seat of government..." Then you do believe there is a difference between the two? And if Israel is, as you say, the sole determiner of where its capital is, how is it possible that all these other countries disagree? Maybe they don't think, as you do, that it is the sole prerogative of a country to say where its capital is? That there has to be some sort of general international agreement before a place can be called a capital?

Moreover, I don't see why, if we change "capital" to "seat of government" in this lead, we have to do it everywhere throughout the encyclopedia. Do we also have to change "biggest" to "largest" everywhere it appears? Do we have to change "Eskimo" to "Inouit" and "Indian" to "Native American"? In the case of London, there is no dispute that it is both the capital and the seat of government of Britain. In the case of Israel, that is not so - there is a dispute. And there is a simple way to accurately depict that dispute in the lead without resorting to Middle German syntax - to call Jerusalem the seat of government, and push all the other claptrap out of the lead.

In short, your whole argument, and your unswerving dedication to obfuscation of this issue, are mystifying to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Following your logic, the article about Taiwan should say that Taiwan claims to be a state in East Asia but most of the international community doesn't recognize it or perhaps Taiwan is a politically organized body of people, occupying a definite territory in East Asia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not better wording, this is blatantly biased wording which has been discussed and rejected above. Israel is the capital of Jerusalem, but it is not internationally recognised as such. Please provide sources aaying that a country needs permission to decide its own capital city and that it is not a capital city without such recognition. Strongly oppose this proposal. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, do you accuse others of obfuscation whenever you miss the point? That is not WP:AGF, but never mind. You are missing the point (or points) here, so I'll try to clarify further. There is no compelling reason to change capital to a less commonplace, less straightforward term, here or in those other articles. Why do you favor such a change only for Israel? As for your "sole determiner" questions, we don't know that those other countries disagree, or what they "think", only that they withhold formal recognition, for whatever that's worth, and for whatever reasons. I won't speculate on why they do what they do. Clear enough? Hertz1888 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that all countries but one (or is it three?) refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel seems to me reason compelling enough to make the change. And as for speculating why they do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, you don't have to speculate. They all say it pretty clearly: they do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital because they do not consider Jerusalem part of Israeli sovereign territory, at least not until there is a final resolution of the conflict. They think it improper for a country to declare its capital on land not its own. Frankly, while I personally disagree with them, I can see their point.

In response to NMMNG's comment: I am not much of an expert on Taiwan, but, yes, I think it would be proper to include mention of its disputed political status in the lead. But Taiwan's political status, dubious though it might be, is still far more secure than Jerusalem's: 22 countries still maintain full diplomatic relations with Taiwan, One country, as far as I know (Micronesia) formally recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Anyway, as enjoyable as I find this rather bizarre exchange of views, I find the fruitlessness of it overcoming my urge to continue. On this matter, see my post Zugzwang above. So I will not be posting on this again for a while. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, using dictionary definitions we might also come up with (just mentioning this as an example) "Israel is a terrorist organization". Do you support including that in the lead of Israel? I don't, because I think we should simply follow the normal process and say what high-quality sources say about the subject. What Taiwan says turns on what reliable sources have to say about Taiwan. If reliable sources say Taiwan is inhabited exclusively by fluffy pink rabbits, that absolutely goes in the article. Hertz, are you suggesting that we, as an exception, don't follow policy here? WP:NPOV states quite clearly that "This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it", so we do have to follow it if we want to have an article on Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We go by policy, we state the facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but it is not internationally recognised as such. That is balanced and fair. Adding additional qualifiers here would not be in line with how numerous other articles are treated. Due weight is given, to the international communities lack of recognition of Israel's capital whilst no evidence by those demanding change has been produced to demonstrate that international recognition or embassies are a requirement for something to qualify as a nations capital. We should go with the reasonable compromise which was discussed in the section above or make no change at all. There is a blatant attempt here to bias this article in favour of the Palestinians. Its very unreasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if we go by policy, we state what reliable sources say. Not what we think are facts. --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources say the international community do not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Thats what the introduction says. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source, which says "Israel controls Jerusalem, and claims it as its (...) capital". Here is another, which says "The policy of most governments, including Britain's, is that they will recognise West Jerusalem as Israel's capital when East Jerusalem is the agreed capital of a Palestinian state". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You just added a POV tag to a sentence that was the result of a long discussion and eventual consensus, which you have been fighting against for what, years now? Please explain why you decided to add it now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DC, in years of discussions, no one has been able to show that non-recognition of a country's capital means that it is not the capital. You have been asked to source such a principle (one which is contrary to the standard definition of a capital), and have not done so. Is the POV tag your response? If so, it looks very much like an attempt to game the system. There is no consensus to change the lead, and the tag itself is a change to the lead. It introduces doubt that goes against the previous decision to make a clear, positive statement (but also mention non-recognition, as balance, though some have deemed such mention as giving undue weight). You are upsetting that balance. I am going to be bold and remove the tag.

Perhaps you will tell us exactly what city is the capital of Israel. Some "reliable" sources have said that since Jerusalem is not recognized as such, Tel Aviv must be the capital. Do we put that into the article? No, because we don't do fringe theories. As you yourself have said, we go by policy. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've always quite liked the "no one has been able to show that non-recognition of a country's capital means that it is not the capital" argument. It seems reasonable at first glance, but I think it's based on the premise that the thing described as the country's capital is, in fact, in the country. No one has been able to show that that is the case, probably because much of the "capital", a spatial object, or maybe all of it, isn't, as a matter of uncontested fact, in the country that is describing it the "capital". So, the premise is problematic. At the moment the situation seems a bit like us finding sources that say "the North dome field is Qatar's largest gas field" (not wrong) and then adding "the South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field is Qatar's largest gas field" to an article. The statement is true, sort of, but the error contained in that statement, the way it ignores the spatial relations, ownership, an entire country, is more obvious than a "Jerusalem / Jerusalem" (omitting the West+East) case only because Iran happened to call their part of the field "South Pars" rather than using the same field name as Qatar, "North Dome". I've never really seen this endless discussion of the phrasing of the opening lines as a political issue. It's seems more about the lack of clarity that comes from sources and us using the same word to describe different spatial objects. Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, West+East Jerusalem are all Jerusalem. If Jerusalem were called West Jerusalem / East Jerusalem, the problem with the statement "West Jerusalem / East Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is very clear, and the answer to the question "Perhaps you will tell us exactly what city is the capital of Israel" would be something like "not West Jerusalem / East Jerusalem but maybe West Jerusalem and maybe not". Still, this is all a load of nonsense because we have to work with the sources we have. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, this is a NPOV discussion concerning the statement in question, and the template is used to indicate that just such a discussion is ongoing, in order to attract fresh editors to the subject. While it's true that a consensus was eventually forged after the long discussions, consensus as we know can change. Hertz, these thoughts on "true capitalness" are beyond our pay grade and shouldn't be a subject of discussion on this talkpage, which is devoted to discussing article content. We should just stick to policy and edit accordingly. Sources say that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is a claim and it should be presented as such. And Hertz, see Template:POV-statement, there is no need for consensus to add the template, you should now revert your removal of the template since this discussion is ongoing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What you're doing here is teaching us that compromising with you on text in order to reach a consensus is not a good idea since you'll come back again and again to try to get it to the wording you like. I will take this lesson to heart. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

On Oct. 3rd, 2010, when agreeing to the current text I agreed to "not raise the issue again or push another version for a long time". Two years is a long time, and you've now had the benefit of having the rather policy-noncompliant version in the article all that time. It was never agreed, nor could it be validly agreed (since consensus can change), to never change the article again. In the meantime, for example, several countries have recognized East Jerusalem as territory of the Palestinian state. Also in the meantime, the source mentioned above was published which says "The policy of most governments, including Britain's, is that they will recognise West Jerusalem as Israel's capital when East Jerusalem is the agreed capital of a Palestinian state". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for validating my point. Lesson learned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are no remaining objections to Silver seren's proposal, we can go ahead with the edit in a few days. --Dailycare (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation declined. As you well know, there are strong objections, and they have not been resolved. Where the institutions of national government are located is the capital, whether internationally recognized or not. That's the way a capital is defined. The existing wording nevertheless compromises by mentioning the non-recognition, which is also covered in generous detail elsewhere on the page. I strongly oppose the proposed change. As for your addition and re-addition of the tag, anyone can add a tag—and anyone can comment that it unilaterally changes the tone of the lead, in violation of the existing agreement. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

He was just trying to get someone to respond, otherwise his bad faith tag on text he agreed to can be removed. He's well aware there are objections and he has nothing even close to a consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Herz, I believe we discussed that issue above: we have to edit according to what reliable sources specifically have to say on the subject. Reasoning on our own, which is of course very useful on many occasions, can lead us astray here as the "terrorist organization" example shows. (In more formal language, this is from the lead of WP:V: "content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". WP:NPOV says right at the top "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides".) Here is a reliable source (Reuters) which says: "While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status." If the article then says that Jerusalem is the capital, that's taking a side, not merely describing the sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to address your bad faith representation of the facts, as if we don't have sources that state unequivocally that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I'll note, just because you said it twice, that your example with the "terrorist organization" was pretty stupid. No need to respond since it's pointless to have a discussion with someone you might reach an agreement with and they'll just come back later and break it, as you have done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

These ad hominem claims ("bad faith", "pretty stupid", "broken" agreement) don't relate to article content and are therefore not persuasive. Concerning the sources, it's true (as has been discussed) that there exist sources, especially Israeli and American ones, that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. These sources represent Israel's side of the argument and don't change in any way how we should write this article. In particular, they don't change the fact that the issue of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital is a significant controversy, as we've established from reliable, international, sources, and should (per WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy) be described as such, without taking sides. The same applies to sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital, or that Tel Aviv is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The premise of this argument is irrelevant.
The Israeli government operates out of Jerusalem (there are plenty of reliable sources to attest this), thus it is the seat of government, thus it is the 'capital' of Israel. The International Community disagrees with Israel's actions (there are ample sources for this too). Those are the facts. All we can do is report them. Nothing more; nothing less.
We do not take side. We do not redefine words to make it easier to say a capital is not a capital (whether it should be or not). We chronicle facts.
—Sowlos (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, see Ravpapa's comments above concerning "seat of government". If you feel they're the same thing, would you support saying "seat of government" instead of "capital"? "The Israeli government operates out of Jerusalem" would, by the way, also sound neutral to me. The BBC has taken the seat-of-government line and I recall seeing some others too. Concerning your comment that "we chronicle facts", it'd be more accurate to say we chronicle what reliable sources say. They say there are two sides to this issue, and we should present the sides without taking sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Qouting: "A capital city (or simply capital) is the municipality enjoying primary status in a state, country, province, or other region as its seat of government. A capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of its respective government and is normally fixed by its law or constitution." So Jerusalem plainly and matter factly is the capital city of Israel, regardless of whether this or that country "recognizes" whatever. the current wording is quite good and objective. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's original research. A similar case is terrorism: according to dictionary.com it's the "use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes". The Bush administration invaded Iraq to implement a regime change plan, so adopting your line of argument, we could conclude that the Bush administration was a terrorist organization. The substantive intent behind the OR policy is to prevent that kind of editing. However, saying that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital, the seat of government or that Israel's government functions from it would be non-objectionable as far as I can see. --Dailycare (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend your analogy Dailycare. In any case, this is not only the dictionary definition, but also the way the word is commonly used. No one checks whether Venezuela or Mauritania "recognize" this or that before, in common day language, saying a city is the capital. It seems this (in my eyes and with all due respect- just silly objection) is very far from holding any semantic merits nor consensus here. If consensus is not reached in a reasonable amount of time, the tags should be removed. --MeUser42 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you regard the statements "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" and "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be a true statements in the sense that 1=1 ? Can we for example write "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and its capital" as a true statement of fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice ? I don't think the statement "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" is true in a 1=1 sense according to RS, so even using the OR approach of the meanings of words, I don't think it is possible for the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be true in a 1=1 sense. Neither of the 2 statements are facts. The appeal to common day language doesn't work well because in common day language a capital city is in the country that designates it as the capital city and that is not the case here in an undisputed factual sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You can see that it is not only compliant with the common day meaning, but with the dictionary meaning as well. I noted that in response to DailyCare, and did not "appeal to it" as an argument, as you claimed. This is starting to get bogged down with logical fallacies, and I feel it is quit apparent there is no case for such a change. To your question I see "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" as a plain matter of fact. This is not a political statement. Israel exists and Jerusalem currently serves as it's capital. --MeUser42 (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you see "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" as a plain matter of fact then you are misinformed. This is not the kind of error an encyclopedia with a mandatory WP:NPOV policy can make. It's not a plain matter of fact that anything outside of the Green Line is "in Israel". Much of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, is outside of the Green Line, and it is of course a policy violation for us to write or imply that anything outside of the Green Line is in Israel using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice. That is not to say that I advocate trying to change the current wording. I don't think it is always possible to deal with dogma given the way Wikipedia currently works, but I do think the neutrality disputed tag should stay while the article presents an opinion as a fact. There is a neutrality dispute which is based on perfectly reasonable policy compliance concerns. I'm sure there are many simple solutions based on slight changes in wording but it is just not possible to implement them at the moment. C'est la vie. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the way in which the tags are to be used. I'll quote: "In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time." Since there is no consensus for the change, you do not seem to currently advocate a change in wording, and it seems the discussion has ground to a halt, the tag should be removed. I recommend we wait for one more week and not remove immediately, in case the discussion will start again. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoting an essay to editors here won't help. I wish the presence of the tag would trigger a smart bot to implement an policy compliant solution using the policy ruleset and automated sampling of RS to bypass the human factor that has caused this impasse, but sadly we're not quite there yet. Back to reality. The dispute is about compliance with a mandatory policy and the inline tag precisely indicates the location of the dispute. It has been going on for years, since 2003 at least, and it will probably continue for years. All of the very experienced editors who have been involved in this ongoing dispute know about it, whether or not the tag is there, whether or not the last comment about it on the talk page was 1 minute ago or 1 month ago, but readers/new editors who might have questions or be able to help resolve the dispute won't know that there is an ongoing dispute unless we tag it. The objective should be to resolve the dispute, not hide it. The NPOV policy (a policy not an essay) is quite explicit about our obligations with respect to neutrality, going as far as to say "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." And yet, here we are with an apparently unresolvable neutrality dispute. Since a mandatory core policy, NPOV, has been ineffective in terms of resolving the dispute over the wording, I don't expect a non-binding essay to be effective in resolving the dispute over the tag. There is a neutrality dispute and it has not been resolved. Having a tag to indicate that there is an unresolved dispute seems entirely reasonable. Removing the tag suggests that there is no ongoing dispute, which is certainly not the case. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not assumed that all editors will agree. There should be a discussion on the basis of the stable version and if consensus is formed around a different suggestion, it should be changed. The tag per WP policy is to indicate an ongoing discussion, not an ongoing dispute, as it is perfectly reasonable some will not be persuaded. If the current discussion regarding this specific tag has shown no clear consensus for a change, per WP policy (as quoted in my previous message) it is to be removed. If the discussion has indeed now ground to halt and no consensus for change was reached, it is good practice to wait another week and then remove the tag. If the discussion will not be active, next week I will remove the tag per WP. If it will be reverted, we will take it to arbitration. --MeUser42 (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on resolving the content issue, not discuss the tag. This thread is a discussion about an NPOV dispute, and the purpose of the tag is to indicate that, and invite uninvolved editors to participate. In other words, the presence of the tag improves the chances that a solution will be found as more brains concentrate on the issue. Incidentally I agree that leaving the tag in is one way forward, as Herz suggested earlier we can make exceptions to some Wikipedia rules, and the template doc sounds to me like something we can make an exception on (i.e. by leaving the tag in until a solution surfaces), even if we can't make exceptions on WP:NPOV which is a mandatory policy. But back to the actual meat of the discussion, the same applies to the "common meaning" you mention as to the dictionary meaning, namely that using such an indirect deduction on our own part amounts to forbidden original research, see my comment above with timestamp 10:25. Using a deductive step, which is OR, to sidestep what reliable sources directly say on the matter is doubly wrong since the result violates WP:NPOV. Further, the deductive step isn't even correct as the Dutch example shows, see the first sentence in Capital of the Netherlands: "The capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam, even though the States-General and the government have been both situated in The Hague since 1588." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Once this discussion ends with no consensus, as we all know it will, the tag will be removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that we should break the WP regarding the tag. For the rest, applying dictionary and common day definitions of words to the world is not original research, it's called speaking. --MeUser42 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you see as the advantages of removing the tag ? I can see the advantages of it remaining but I can't see the advantages of removing it. Does anyone know whether the wording issue ever been taken to WP:DRN by the way ? I think that needs to happen before an issue goes to arbitration. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and its something that is baselines to argue. The neutrality of this sentence is enforced by addition that international community do not consider it as such. POV templates can not be inserted in the middle of sentence, only at its end.Tritomex (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"baselines to argue" isn't a legitimate English sentence. It's not quite clear what you mean. The statement "though not internationally recognized as such" has no effect on the neutrality of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". One is about recognition, the other is a statement of fact. A fact is a fact whether it's recognized or not. The problem is that many RS do not present this as a fact, whereas we do. That is why the template is there. I have moved the template back where it belongs "after a fact or posit to signify that just that statement may not be entirely without bias". This is consistent with the template documentation. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, how can you "know" that this discussion won't reach consensus? After all, who can say which editors will participate, which arguments will be used and what proposals will be put forward? FWIW, we've already made progress in realizing that the "seat of government = capital" argument doesn't hold water, per the Dutch example. In fact as there seem to be few credible arguments against Silver seren's proposal remaining on the table, consensus seems to be close. --Dailycare (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The only person you have convinced that the "seat of government = capital" argument doesn't hold water is yourself. Why would the Amsterdam article need to specifically explain it's the capital but not the seat of government if that wasn't the normal usage of the word?

This has been open for two weeks. Doesn't look like you're gaining consensus for your change, does it? Eventually you'll grow tired of artificially keeping it open and then I'll remove the tag. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No consensus about denying facts. Wikipedia should not be used as political or propaganda tool. Jerusalem is de facto and de jure capital of Israel, POV templates can not be inserted in the middle of sentences. This is interruptive editing.This debate is kept artificially and its beyond any rational ground.--Tritomex (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

From an international perspective that is a minority opinion. The majority opinion holds that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. For instance, the US, Israel's strongest ally does not even accept any sovereignty claims over Jerusalem outside a negotiated settlement. Dlv999 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

From an international perspective only East Jerusalem is not considered part of Israel and by the latter of international law. Israel is internationally recognized country with all of its institutions including its capital. The fact that most countries do not have embassies in Jerusalem dose not mean that they do not recognize West Jerusalem as part of Israel or as its capital, but they dispute Israeli position on East Jerusalem. There are no encyclopedic books, as far as I know, which dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. However even if international community would dispute Jerusalem as its capital, it would not change the factual situation, namely that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel --Tritomex (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israel's territory either and Israel's claim to Jerusalem as capital was opposed already in the 1950s. NMMNG, there are at least four countries where the seat of government and capital are different cities (the Netherlands, Benin, Bolivia and the Ivory Coast). During WWII, the Belgian government was in London. London, however, wasn't Belgium's capital city, or even Belgian territory for that matter. Therefore, the argument that Jerusalem would be the capital since the government is there fails since it doesn't necessarily follow that a seat of government is a capital. Of course, this argument fails also for the reasons that 1) there is a specific major disagreement internationally as to the notion that Jerusalem would be Israel's capital, or even in Israel, and 2) looking up a definition and drawing your own conclusion is inherently original research, as discussed above. In this thread, two major theories have been advanced in opposition to the proposal, the first one being the above, and the second one being the claim that lack of recognition doesn't mean that something "isn't so". This latter theory fails since the proposed text doesn't say that Jerusalem isn't the capital. The text says that it is claimed, and that the claim isn't recognized. The current text endorses the unrecognized claim. That's not how thing work. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with DC. See for instance the official UK position[4]: "Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognized by the UK and the international community. The U.K. locates its embassy in Tel Aviv.". Israel's position is a minority opinion viewed as no more than "a claim" which is rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including Israel's allies. The current formulation gives undue weight by asserting the minority opinion as fact in the wikipedia voice and not giving enough weight to the one held by the majority. It is not neutral per WP:NPOV.Dlv999 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not "official UK position" as it is not based on any official UK document, this is a newspaper article with certain assumptions. As I have said all countries that recognize Israel and there are 166 or so countries, recognize all of its institution, including its capital, by the latter of international law. Regarding facts you don't have majority or minority opinion. The international community dispute that Jerusalem is Israeli capital. However, this is the claim which is changeable, as not the whole international community dispute it( for example see US Congress and House of representatives resolution on Jerusalem) Also, as I said above all countries that recognized Israel, recognized Jerusalem as its capital. Again, the current form of sentence is claiming that whole international community is disputing Jerusalem as its capital which could be seen only as POV against Israel. While the current form "Jerusalem is a capital of Israel, although not recognized by international community as such" can be POV only in the section of sentence regarding recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital.(The first half is factual situation, if you agree with it or not, the second part is opinion which is not based on any official document from "international community" as a whole, and as this arterial debate lead nowhere, I strongly think to changeling as POV all the consumptions in the text that whole international community is "disputing Jerusalem as Israeli capital" --Tritomex (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just silly. No where does it say a capital is defined by whether it is recognized as such by the government of Finland. There is a practical, factual interpretation of the word - the city where the government operates from and designates "capital" for administrative purposes, according to which, Jerusalem is factually the capital. Due to political intrigue and conflict some are not happy with Jerusalem being the capital so the don't "recognize it". It doesn't mean Jerusalem isn't the capital, it just means some are not content with this. Words and terms are not defined by the government of Kenya. The current sentence conveys it perfectly: "Jerusalem...is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii]" Followed by an in-depth explanation when clicking [ii]. This is the most neutral formulation possible. On the other hand, the given proposal introduces bias and confuses the reader. --MeUser42 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not silly. Step 1 to resolving this issue is understanding that concerns about policy compliance are being raised by rational people, using policy based arguments, citing reliable sources. The concerns can't be addressed by saying they are silly, using dictionaries, misunderstanding the nature of the dispute or simply asserting that everything is fine because Jerusalem is the capital. The issue won't go away. Both sides of the argument have merit. There is a way to solve this. One day someone will propose it and it will get consensus but that can't happen unless people do what they are meant to do on talk pages, figure it out. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not a correct description of this dispute. One side wants to weasel word something we have sources describe as fact. They want to change the meaning of words in the English language. They also want to lead the reader to think non recognition means something which they have not provided a single source that supports. Worse of all, they make compromise agreements and then come back and try to change them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As said, I think the current version is very precise and I don't find merit to the argument for a change. I think the discussion is pretty much concluding, so I'll leave with that statement for now. If there are new arguments, please leave me a message on the talk page. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG that is a clear misrepresentation of the situation. Bona fida RS describe Tel aviv being the capital of Israel as a fact. See e.g. The Guardian, whose position was upheld by the Press Complaints Commission.[5] The British government has described Israel's position on Jerusalem as its capital as "a claim" not a fact. A claim that is in fact rejected by the overwhelming majority of the international community. Pretending that this is not the case does nothing for your credibility and will not help moving towards consensus. Dailycare has already refuted your WP:OR assertions that seat of government=capital. Dlv999 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't the reality at all. That argument is tantamount to turning Wikipedia into a platform for political advocacy, which is a far cry from the Foundation's raison d'etre. When removed from the subjective political perspectives of certain nations of the world, Israel's capital is Jerusalem, as plain and straightforward as can be. This is established in crystal clear terms by the foremost objective source of geographic information available to humankind: National Geographic. The National Geographic profile for Israel, which cares for stark reality and not diplomatic political nuances, indicates that Israel's capital is Jerusalem. Editors can try and deny reality or subjugate it to narrow political persuasions – but reality is what it is, regardless of which nation recognizes that reality as a legitimate state of affairs. Our language in its current form does a decent job reflecting reality: Israel's capital is Jerusalem, but it's not internationally recognized as such. To present it any other is to elevate political advocacy above the Project's demand for neutrality both in its articles and on the part of its editors.—Biosketch (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@DLV - You're a bit behind the times. The Guardian has corrected their silly editorial policy [6], and the PCC has withdrawn its ruling [7]. Please try again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@Biosketch, I don't believe representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint per WP:NPOV is political advocacy. I also disagree that a travel guide for Israel is the best source for this information, even one published by the National Geographic.

@NMMNG, thank you for the guardian link. I see the Guardian have changed their policy of describing Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel, but not their policy with respect to Jerusalem, which is the pertinent issue to this discussion. I cannot access the Jpost article at present so I am unable to respond to that part of your comment at present. Dlv999 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

They have changed their policy regarding Jerusalem. They used to explicitly say it's not the capital and now they don't. Other "bona fida RS" state as fact that it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

there current style guide reads, "Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel: it is not recognised as such by the international community. While the Knesset has designated the city as the country's capital, a UN resolution of 1980 declared this status "null and void". Jerusalem is the seat of government and Tel Aviv is the country's diplomatic and financial centre." [8] Dlv999 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering that a few months ago they stated as fact that Tel Aviv is the capital, I don't think they can be considered RS on the matter of what Israel's capital is. And anyway, they quite clearly avoid saying it isn't the capital like they used to, just that they decided not to refer to it as such. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming even more disturbing. How can one newspaper with well known political agenda, which is not considered objective in relation to israel by anyone, how can it be compared with apolitical and well respected institution like The National Geographic? If this baseless discussion is continuing to be kept artificially I will propose to examine the eventual POV regarding the claim that Jerusalem is "not recognized as the capital of Israel by WHOLE international community" wherever I find it in text, with the insertion of POV template.. The UN Resolution 478 does not speak about denying Israel rights to have Jerusalem as its capital, but denying Israel right to annex East Jerusalem. This is what is disputed by many country. BTW the term international community is abstract term, the only valid term which has its meaning is UN.--Tritomex (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion, like so many in the topic area, is that people keep trying to make it about what editors think, what their motivations are etc. What matters from our perspective is that there are RS that present the information as a fact and RS that present it as a claim. I don't think there is a dispute here about the notion that from Israel's perspective, Jerusalem, the whole of Jerusalem, is the capital, and the article should of course make that clear. This is just about how to deal with the undisputed fact vs claim variations present in the sources. There's no avoiding the diversity. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The "diversity" is that some sources state it as fact, some sources present it as a claim without actually saying it's not a fact, and no sources explicitly say it's not a fact. So on the balance, we have some sources that say "yes", some that say "we don't know" and none that say "no". Why do you think the ambiguity should be highlighted ignoring the sources that state it as fact? That's putting aside normal English usage. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Try exchanging the words "fact" and "claim" in your first sentence. I don't think anything should be highlighted or ignored and I didn't say that. People are trying to round up language and ignore the inconvenient messiness that is actually present in the sources. "without actually saying it's not a fact" is a null result fact-wise and of no use. There are an infinite number of things any given source doesn't say. I don't know how to deal with the messiness but it is definitely there. The usual way is via attribution. Why do you think the ambiguity should be ignored and only a statement of fact presented ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Because we have sources that state it as fact and none that say it's not true. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, see my comment above, timestamped 19:29, for these sources. Since it's established beyond doubt that the majority view is that Israel's claim isn't accepted, then it matters little that there are sources, mostly Israeli and American, that nonetheless endorse the claim. The claim that there are no sources disputing Jerusalem is the capital is untrue, see these: Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital, "and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel were null and void" (UN GA resolution 63/30, passed with the support of 163 member states). However, as noted earlier these sources don't change what we must write, namely that there is this claim, that Israel supports it but that it isn't accepted outside Israel. This is really all rather simple.

To make this simpler to wrap one's brain around, consider Cleopatra. Let's say we have sources that say that it's not known which kind of snake she used to kill herself, however historians agree it was probably a cobra or a viper. Then there are sources that say it was a cobra, and some that say viper. Obviously, we'd follow the first set of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The only things that are "established beyond doubt" here are that you don't have consensus to make a change in the text and that any compromise made with you will be subject to you coming back later to try and change it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I just checked CIA factbook regarding Israel, not just Jerusalem is listed as Israeli capital but Eastern Jerusalem is counted within Israel (regarding population and territory) [9] So if we consider US to be part of "international community" the opening sentence in this article can be interpreted only as POV against Israel. This further underline the need to open discussion regarding eventual POV and the insertion of adequate templates at in all places where international community is defined as solid, uniform block denying Jerusalem as Israeli capital- Considering UN General assembly resolution 63/30 it has again nothing in relation of denying Jerusalem as Israeli capital [10] but condemning Israeli actions in occupied eastern part of the city as well as reinsurance that the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is not considered legal by UN GA;

As by the UN charta GA has only non biding advisory role, this issue is even more clear here. Also, newspaper article can not be used here as evidence(for example it is not clear wether this individual was born in West or East Jerusalem) and as it is well known only East Jerusalem is not considered Israeli, by most of UN members.--Tritomex (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which categorically state that the United States does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. See e.g. The Washington Post "The United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital". [11]. Or Haaretz "Most of the world, including the U.S., does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The U.S. and others keep their embassies in Tel Aviv." [12] Dlv999 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what might be needed is a complete change in approach. We seem to have written ourselves into a corner with the whole "Cake is, as a matter of fact, better than pie, though not internationally recognized as such" approach. Perhaps just describing what happened rather than what "is" the case would be a better approach e.g. take the "is the capital of Israel,[neutrality is disputed] though not internationally recognized as such,[ii]" out of the first paragraph and expand the 4th paragraph to say what happened rather than what "is". It already deals with it. It could say that it was declared the capital after the establishment of the State of Israel and cover what has happened since then (much of it already being there). That way, things are attributed i.e. Israel did this, the international community did this etc. Just a thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering the US, you cant compare newspaper article with official documents. Here is US congress resolution regarding Jerusalem [13]

The Congress makes the following findings:Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995

(1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

(3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

(4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

(5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

(8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.

(9) In 1990, the congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress ‘‘strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected’’.

(10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.

(11) The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of ‘‘final status’’ issues, including Jerusalem.

(12) The agreement on the Gaza strip and Jericho Area was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transitional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.

(13) In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging ‘‘planning to begin now’’ for relocation of the United States Embassy to the City of Jerusalem.

(14) In June of 1993, 257 members of The United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United states Embassy to Jerusalem ‘‘should take place no later than . . . 1999’’.

(15) The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

(16) The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.

(17) In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry.

Sec. 3. Timetable. (a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.—

(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and

(3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

So you have claer case now, not just a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel capital by US, but also a further prove that the POV template is at wrong place--Tritomex (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, that is a primary source. You should not be drawing your own conclusions and interpretations from primary sources, we use secondary sources for that such as the Haaretz, and the Washington Post articles I cited. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies (WP:OR). Dlv999 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not a clear case by any means and I can't even be bothered to explain why. Try to figure it out for yourself. This discussion should not, in my view, include people who think the whole of Jerusalem is in Israel as a matter of fact or people who are not aware of the status of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. This issue will never get sorted out if the discussion includes the misinformed. The issues are complicated enough already. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please everyone should adhere to WP:TPNO Personal insults and editions which could be seen as threats should be avoided. For example:

• • Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.

This is a clear example that the point of view can not be standard for inclusion/exclusion of anyone from this or any other talk. Personal point of view should be left aside and no one should search about the "thinking" or "awareness" of other editors. --Tritomex (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I said. Copy/pasting a large portion of text from the Jerusalem Embassy Act here and then drawing the conclusion that it is a clear case of recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by US is both incorrect and unhelpful, in my view, even if well intended. Editors need to have sufficient knowledge of a topic and policy to be able to contribute constructively to a discussion. Being misinformed is not a crime, it's an opportunity, but talk pages are not for educating editors and correcting their misunderstandings (although they have done that for me on many occasions). We're trying to write an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say in a way that is consistent with policy and guidelines and resolve what is probably one of the longest running and bitter disputes in Wikipedia's history. If everyone could focus on the issue with an open mind and try to find RS/policy based solutions (which may be completely different from how we handle things now) it should be possible to resolve this. If we can't resolve it, perhaps dispute resolution should be tried. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, the change we made in 2010 was an improvement from the previous text. I believed it then and I believe it today. Concerning consensus, this is a discussion in process. You write below that you intend to refrain from participating further in this discussion, which is perfectly within your rights but doesn't give you a veto on any changes that may be decided. Moving to the issue at hand, how about this: "Under Israeli law Jerusalem is Israel's capital, although it isn't internationally recognized as such." This would have the benefit of being neutral in the sense that the unrecognized claim isn't endorsed, and it would go some way meet Hertz' viewpoint mentioned earlier. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be misconstruing something I said. I would not support such a wording change. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to this comment of yours: "the only reliable source is the country that put those institutions there and designated that city as its capital". Therefore, if we replace "is" with "is under Israeli law", according to that logic there's no change in the meaning. "I would not support", by the way, isn't a policy-based objection. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed misunderstanding or misusing my statement, as that's not its logic. Putting those institutions there and designating that city as its capital makes it the capital. To reason otherwise is your POV and pure SYNTH. It is well sourced that the institutions of government are located in Jerusalem and Israel is governed from there. It is not reliably sourced that any outside party determines or vetoes one's capital. That inconvenient reality remains after years of editors looking for loopholes around it. Adding "under Israeli law" would be restrictive and a major change in the meaning. The same goes for RP's "seat of government" proposal. The article already gives what contradictory sources have to say. The present wording is accurate and balanced. It really is time to conclude this discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite a specific policy that says we can't change the meaning of text in an article, even in a major way? Not that this is a major change, BTW. Placing the institutions there makes it the seat of government, and the designation makes it the capital under Israeli law. Both proposals, "under Israeli law" and "seat of government" are plain, correct and non-controversial. Unlike the present wording, which is a clear violation of a core policy of the project since it takes a side in a controversy. --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that your response addresses any of my points. We are talking past each other.

There is no controversy as to what makes a capital a capital. Not just "under Israeli law", and without needing a circumlocution (such as "seat of government"). Changing the meaning of words defined in the dictionary is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

To quote you, "We're also entitled to use our common sense." (Dailycare, 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC))[14]

In my opinion, this discussion is becoming more and more futile. I wouldn't count on another response from me. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I gather that you didn't formulate a policy-based objection to the "under Israeli law" proposal as you didn't name a policy. We can wait a few days and take it from there. --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You gather wrongly. For the record, I've given you several such objections over the past few days that seem either to have made no impression or that you don't care for. Please stop coming back here with more demands, accusations or misrepresentations that call for yet another response on my part. This is getting us nowhere. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Basic Law, BBC. --Dailycare (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As there seem to be no policy-based objections, it's time to go ahead with the edit. --Dailycare (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Filibustering

The discussion isn't going anywhere other than no consensus. That much is abundantly clear. But it's now deteriorating to the point where one user's attempting to apply mccarthyistic admission requirements for other editors in good standing wishing to contribute to the discussion, and that's altegother inconsistent with the values of our Project.

The Template:POV-statement, which was supposedly added to attract fresh voices to the Discussion page, may have actually fulfilled that putative objective had the template added the article to a corresponding category that was patrolled by nonpartisans committed to purging Wikipedia of POV content, in which case there would be an uninvolved assessment of the discussion here and most likely a conclusion that no consensus among editors is possible and that the template is useless.

Since no one's inctroducing any new ideas and the discussion's stalled and going in circles, I propose that anyone who wishes to do so log their statement below for the record and that the discussion be concluded. Otherwise, editors'll just continue filibustering to no end as a pretext for preserving their template in the lead.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for making accusations against other editors and it is disruptive to the purpose of the talk page. Your claim that no-one is introducing new ideas is totally false. Sean.Hoyland made new suggestion as to how to approach this issue today (timestamp:08:58). Dlv999 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Dlv999, for agreeing with me that this isn't the place to make accusations against other editors. If you read my comment more closely you'll note that I addressed the appalling suggestion of the user to whom you're referring without referencing the user by name and confining the characterization of his benighted suggestion to the suggestion itself.

Would anyone like to go next?—Biosketch (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My name is Sean. Your concerns are noted. This section won't help resolve the dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sean, I also disagree with your suggestion. The first sentence of the lead should state this is the capital like it does in every other article about capitals, regardless of international recognition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you think that but I assume you would acknowledge that it is not like every other capital in several important respects. I'll acknowledge that the statement is not really wrong enough for me to be particular bothered by it personally but I do think it is a policy violation and there may be better ways of dealing with it.

• What happens if you replace "is" with "functions as" in the first sentence ?
• Or what happens if you replace the "is" statement with something like the "Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital"" from the 4th paragraph ?
• Or what happens if you break the link between the "is" statement and the international recognition statement ? I mean something along the lines of describing what happened in the first sentence rather than what "is"...along the lines of "After the establishment of the State of Israel, Jerusalem was declared its capital" from the article body and cover details including the international recognition in the 4th paragraph ?

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, I will not agree to any watering down of the wording we currently have, for several reasons. First, like I've said before, we have sources that say Jerusalem is the capital. The POV that it is not recognized as such (the meaning of which we are still waiting for an RS to explain) is also in the lead, so as far as I can tell NPOV is satisfied. Second, it is obvious to me that any compromise I may make with you will just be used as a starting point for another discussion on how to water down the statement even further. Probably even by someone who agrees to a compromise now just to come back later and reopen the issue. Color me disillusioned with the wikipedia compromise process.

I think I've explained my position quite clearly several times now and I don't see any point in going around in circles, so I will not be responding further. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with No More Mr Nice Guy-this debate have to be closed.--Tritomex (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and no new input addressing the core rational of the current stable version formulation, namely: a simple use of language, as in the dictionary and other Wikipedia articles, side by side with a clear and very well put explanation of the international politics aspect of the capital status. My points in full can be seen in the above debate. I dropped out of the debate once it was obvious it was going nowhere. I fully agree with the claim that continuing to "grind water" over the proposed change is completely useless. Prelonging this already extremely long debate can indeed be seen as filibustering, as it is clear it is light years from consensus over the change and no consensus will be formed. I support the current version be maintained and the debate to be archived. ==MeUser42 (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The current formulation does not represent all the viewpoints that have been published in RS and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV. There are clearly sources that do not represent the notion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as a fact but rather as a claim not recognized by the international community. You are entitled to withdraw from the debate but you cannot stop other editors moving the article towards NPOV by representing all viewpoints that have been published in RS. NPOV is a core principle of the encyclopedia and cannot be superseded by consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support maintaining the existing wording and structure as-is (minus the tag). I agree that it is useless to expect a consensus for change. Closing and archiving all sections of the discussion is overdue. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the sticking points appears to be the perception of "watering down of the wording". So, how about doing the opposite ? Would anyone who supports the current wording object to changing the wording to "Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), is the capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem, including both West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel" or something like that ? These statements have the same meaning as the current statement but they make it clear to readers that Wikipedia is saying that the entire city of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If there are objections to these by editors who support the current wording, I would like to know what those objections are, specifically, in detail. For me, all of these statements mean the same thing. The degree to which they comply with policy is the same but they differ in clarity. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Try, try again

Even though there is just about nothing new that can be said about this, I am going to take another shot at reaching some kind of agreement about this lead. First, let me summarize what people don't like about the lead:

• The pro-Israel campers don't like the fact that the lead puts the conflict front and center. No other article about a capital city takes this in-your-face approach. Take Pristina, capital of Kosovo, and site of some of the most heinous war crimes of our generation. What does Wikipedia have to say about Pristina? That it is served by the Pristina international airport.

• Conflict takes a front seat not only in the first sentence, but also, more subtly, in the third. Why, ask the pro-I campers, can't we simply say that Jerusalem is the biggest city? Why all this couching in provisos - if this, if that, then, and so on.

• The pro-Palestinian campers, on the other hand, don't like that the lead says "capital" at all. After all, they say, no one besides Israel seems to think it's the capital. Moreover, if we say it is the capital of Israel, we should also say it's the capital of Palestine. One fiction deserves another.

• They also don't like the biggest city business. "If my aunt had a moustache, she'd be my uncle," wrote someone about this sometime back. Moreover, it isn't even the biggest city, or at least, not the biggest metropolis - Tel Aviv and its close satellites (Ramat Gan, Givatayim, Bney Brak, Holon, Bat Yam) is bigger by far.

• I don't like the lead simply because it's awful. It is so convoluted and polemic that the average Wikipedia reader (high school student reading level) simply won't understand it.

Second, let me state some truths about the current version of the lead and about the issues:

• The lead, as it is currently written, is not, as many have claimed, the result of a consensus. On the contrary, the description of Jerusalem as capital of Israel has been a source of contention for at least five years. The addition of the proviso "though not internationally recognized" was added in October 2010, in the course of a bitter argument similar to the one going on now. There was never an attempt to gain consensus for this version, and the only reason it was not edit-warred away during the month of October is that editors feared sanctions. So the claim that consensus is required to change this consensual version is wrong; there is no consensus to change it, but there is and never was any consensus to keep it.

• There is no agreement - not among sources and not among editors on this page - that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But there is universal consensus that it is the seat of Israel's government. The pro-I campers don't like this expression, but they do not dispute its accuracy.

Before you guys scream your knee-jerk opposition to replacing "capital" with "seat of government", consider the advantages: It means we can dump the "not internationally recognized", and we no longer have to argue about its also being the capital of Palestine. And the average reader, untutored as he or she is in the minutiae of this dispute, will never notice the difference.

So, here is my suggestion for the lead:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i], the seat of Israel's government, holy to Jews, Christians and Moslems, is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It is also the largest municipality within Israel's jurisdiction, though not the largest urban area.

This version, my friends, is much closer to the milquetoast leads of other capitals: it eschews all hint of conflict; it emphasizes the history, the beauty, the importance of Jerusalem, with all the bile distilled out. It cleverly disguises Jerusalem as a normal place, and at the cost of a mere word. Can you live with that? --Ravpapa (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The phrase It is also the largest municipality within Israel's current borders is inaccurate. nableezy - 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I made a change. Is it okay now? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Slightly better. I would substitute within Israel's jurisdiction with in Israeli-held territory. I would also specify that this is only true if you include East Jerusalem. nableezy - 15:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about why the sentence was allowed to stand in Oct 2010 is false. Nobody feared sanctions. There wasn't a threat of sanctions or even a very long discussion about the issue. It was presented as putting the sentence here in line with the one in the Israel article and that's the end of it. I naively thought an agreement is an agreement. I won't make that mistake again. That goes for your list of "advantages" as well. If your suggestion was agreed to (which I don't if that wasn't obvious), Dailycare will be here next week or next month or next year to push exactly those statements back into the article even if he says he won't. And if it's not him it'll be someone else. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, I haven't counted how many times you've insinuated that I'd have broken the agreement of October 2010. If you do it again I'll report you to AE, which I'd rather not do, so just quit doing that. Concerning Ravpapa's seat-of-government proposal, I agree that would resolve the NPOV issue. I'm not sure if we need to mention the "largest municipality" bit but I don't mind much either way. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me. I'm curious to see what they think of your behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, there is nothing new about your suggestion. It was already proposed and discussed. I (and others) opposed this change. I strongly suggest the discussions be merged. --MeUser42 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? nableezy - 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I excuse you for needlessly repeating previous suggestions, thus wasting our time, considering this all argument is over the word capital, and not the other things you said. I would also excuse your false characterization of this as a "Pro-Israel" vs "Pro-Palastinian" debate. You don't know what my, or any other of the editors politics is. I can tell you I'm far from pro-Israel. I think the current formulation is more neutral than the proposed change, and I explained my position in length above. Please note that this is not some "give or take" bargain by which one bias is "evened out" by introducing another. Given that, note that you have not raised any new point or argument. I will again drop out of this fruitless debate until all the participators from the side that did not establish consensus will realize that the such a change has no consensus, nor will it have given the arguments I've seen so far, and so the tag should be removed. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This will be much easier if you pay a bit more attention. nableezy - 02:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

MeUser42, what Nableezy is trying to tell you is that it was I, not he, who made this proposal. It is unclear to me which side you are talking about that didn't establish consensus; it seems to me that both sides are equally responsible for the lack of consensus, and the inability to reach an agreement. What is clear, from both your post and those of NMMNG and Dailycare, is that issues of trust and feelings of betrayal have injected an emotional tension into the discussion that clouds objective judgement. Therefore, whatever your personal political views are, I urge you to reread and reconsider the proposal. It is a vast improvement over the current lead in every respect. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Destroyer of good times. I really wanted to see what the next response was going to be. nableezy - 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Than see my post as addressed to you. As for the lack of consensus, it's not my "fault" or any side "fault". Not every proposition for change should conclude in a change. Me and many others think that given the definition of the words involved and the international politics status the current formulation is very neutral. So oppose a change. It's not a "fault". --MeUser42 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is the same as the position the BBC took during the Olympics or thereabouts, no ? It works for me but I can't help thinking that this issue should perhaps be handed over to something like WikiProject China or WikiProject Statistics to resolve. They would probably have it all sorted out pretty quickly on account of not caring... Sean.hoyland - talk 06:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

...and I'll just make a note for the record that the "seat of government" approach is used on the BBC country profile. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Love it.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We are running out of bits

So, after a long time, we should see where we are standing. I kindly ask all participants who took time to contribute to this large discussion, to state their position regarding its future in the mentioned aspects below. Which of the following best describes your position?

1. I support the change, removing the word "capital", but I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.
2. I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.
3. I support the change, removing the word "capital", and I think the argument might reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.
4. I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument might reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.

-- MeUser42, 5 October 2012

---

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months--Tritomex (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months. --MeUser42 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.
  —Sowlos (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version sans the lead duplication, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months. Ankh.Morpork 23:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• I support the change. --Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Comment It is beyond strange to bolt on a meta discussion about whether editors personally think it is possible to find consensus within an arbitrary time frame to a good faith discussion to actually find a consensus. If people insist on having the the meta discussion it should have been kept to the section that has already been started [15]. It is disruptive of efforts to find consensus here. Dlv999 (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not too late to move this section. Perhaps it could become a sub-section of Talk:Jerusalem#Filibustering, the place you pointed to. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

1. You may think it's beyond strange, but it's how Wikipedia works. We look to establish consensus and avoid protracted periods of uncertainty and debate. We are here to build a factual encyclopaedia, not a collection of political statements that ebb and flow based on an indefinite debate.
2. Look up the definition of meta-discussion. The line of discussion you've started is itself a meta-discussion.
   —Sowlos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not start any line of discussion I simply pointed out that the Meta discussion should have been kept to the section where it has already been started and not brought here where it is disrupting good faith efforts to come to a consensus based on sources and Wikipedia policy. Dlv999 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A meta-discussion is one which the subject is a discussion. You are discussing the discussion; MeUser42 was trying to see where debate stands.
Please keep on topic and don't try to discredit and remove a topic line you disagree with. If you feel people are looking at the issue wrong, bring in up in it's own section.
—Sowlos (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This thread has been derailed from discussing a proposal to reach consensus based on sources and Wikipedia policy to a vote on whether editor's personally believe it is possible to reach consensus within an arbitrary time frame. This discussion about editors belief's on the likely hood of consensus being reached within an arbitrary time frame has been started elsewhere on the talk page (Talk:Jerusalem#Filibustering). Thus bringing it here is disruptive to the efforts to gain consensus, which in my opinion is the only relevant discussion to have here. Dlv999 (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't see the point in voting on beliefs whether a discussion will eventually have a particular outcome. --Dailycare (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I think a question/strawpoll that asks a much simpler question, something like, Does the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" comply with the WP:NPOV policy ?, with answers restricted to yes/no and an optional single sentence explanation, would provide much more valuable information. The objective should be to evaluate whether a policy based WP:CONSENSUS for the current wording actually exists (as opposed to some other form of consensus, like a "we're tired of this issue", or a "this is unresolveable" consensus). If the results suggest that a WP:CONSENSUS doesn't exist, and I think that is already pretty clear (which sort of makes a strawpoll futile), the next step is meant to be some form of dispute resolution, probably WP:DRN. Wikipedia claims to have mechanisms that help editors resolve disputes. No one can know whether it's possible to resolve this so I don't see much value in asking people to provide their personal opinion about whether and when it might be resolved. What is clear is that there is a dispute and the dispute appears to be about compliance with a core mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the existing text as such needs consensus, rather we need consensus to make changes. And, looking at this discussion, it seems to me that we're already quite close to WP:CONSENSUS. My suggestion would be to continue here, and in case we don't reach consensus (which again I consider to be less likely than reaching it), we should proceed to more formal dispute resolution. --Dailycare (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we rephrase the question:

• I support the current version that emphasizes the conflict over Jerusalem's status in the first sentence
• I oppose the emphasis on the dispute over Jerusalem's status in the first sentence.

--Ravpapa (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as an almost entirely different question, not a rephrasing. The capital issue has been the primary bone of contention in these discussions (perennially), and needs closure in its own name. Also, you haven't specified here what opposing "the emphasis on the dispute" would involve. (If you mentioned it previously I may have missed it.) I suggest for now that we not refocus the question. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

But, Hertz, that is my whole point. If you use the word "capital" in the first sentence, you have to say that there is a dispute over calling it the capital. If you say "seat of government" - which you yourself have repeatedly said is almost the same thing - you don't have to mention the dispute. Using the word "capital" means putting the conflict in the first sentence. These are not different questions, they are the same question.

I will put it another way: why do you support saying in the first sentence that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as capital? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that using the word "capital" requires the advancing of international perspectives, lumping together the various disputes and equating them is not an optimal solution. For example, nobody has yet stated why a legality disquisition should be included in the fourth paragraph and also be alluded to in the initial sentence. Not all of the delineated editorial disputes are not as intractable as suggested and while I consider your precis of the standpoints accurate, I don't think it reflects their relative merits. Ankh.Morpork 19:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

|}

Neutrality tag

It is clear that some still have problems with part of the introduction, so the neutrality tag is going to have to remain in place for some time. I think it should therefore be put in the correct location, it is the whole of the sentence "is the capital of israel, though not internationally recognized as such", that is disputed. Not just the first part of it. So the neutrality tag should be placed to cover the whole part of the sentence that this dispute is over. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there is a specific NPOV issue with the claim that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is presented as fact, when it is only one of several viewpoints that have been published in RS. Some RS refer to this as a "claim" or "designation" by Israel, not as a fact. Until that issue is resolved the tag should remain in place for that specific claim. Dlv999 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with British Watcher and I already pointed this out. The current form represent disruptive editing. Also there is a NPOV issue with the abstract wording of "internationally recognized as such" this should be replaced with UN GA, as international community represents everyone, and as this discussion is going to be prolonged I am preparing to formally challenge the neutrality of this claim --Tritomex (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I would make over 50 edits to this page if I thought a few of them might stick, on issues regarding what I see as its non-neutrality, which applies to the whole article. The tag applies to the whole article. The Jordanian exclusion of Jews from sites and their destruction of Jewish buildings is not balanced by the fact that immediately post 1967 several thousand Jerusalem Arabs had their homes demolished, the Mamilla graveyard is being destroyed, the whole Muslim and Byzantine period is systematically dug through in archeological excavations to showcase the putative capital of the theoretical kingdom of David, the Mughrabi quarter and its medieval mosques were destroyed, and rules disallow Palestinians under 45 from praying on Friday at the Temple Mount, harsh restrictions make West Bank access to Jerusalem (except this summer) extremely difficult. Two sides of the one coin, only one of which is displayed, etc.etc.etc.etc. The UNGA bit is rubbish, again. We write to sources (Sally J. Cummins (ed.) The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state, Digest of United States Practice in International Law. 2006 International Law Institute, Washington ‎2008 p.537, to cite one of hundreds of sources). There are NPOV problems all over the article. --Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani What you are promising here is nothing less than edit warring and more POV, in unbalanced one sided way of editing. Would you for example mention the massacre of Jewws in 1843,1929 or 1936, the fact that 38 000 ancient Jewish tombs were destroyed between 1948-1967 or that 58 out of 59 synagogues in Jordanian occupied part of Jerusalem were destroyed and desecrated while Jews who were close to 70% of Jerusalem population in 1948 were (as the Palestinians from other section) expelled from Old City? Also where are the facts regarding the destruction of Herodian buildings on Solomon Stables section of Temple Mount in 2007 where ancient Israelite, Hasmonean, Ptolemaic and Herodian artifacts were systematically destroyed by Islamic Waqf and dumped as garbage to the Kidron Walley. Would you mention dozens of suicide bombings in Jerusalem which killed or wounded hundreds of innocents, including children. Would you like to include to this article some of the most important archeological places in Jerusalem like Hezzekiah tunnel, the Broad wall, Siloam Inscription, Israelite tower, ancient tombs, Second Temple period tunnels and buildings, or you are interested only to present the Palestinian issue from 1948 and from 1967? I have nothing to do with Israel or with region personally, I live far from it, however I will protect here and elsewhere the neutral and balanced approach toward Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I fell obliged to protect also the right of Israel to be equably treated and presented as the Palestinians are. Considering the source you have mentioned it is fine as much as it is the source regarding Jerusalem as Israels capital.--Tritomex (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to protest one's absolute neutrality while invariably editing or commenting over many pages from an uninformed and identifiable POV angle on one topic. People can read, you know. In fact the problem here is reading, and I don't mean only RS books, whose use in an article like this should account for 99% of the references (make an analysis of sources). By reading I mean stuff like this.

After 1948, since the old walled city in its entirety was to the east of the armistice line, (a) Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, denied Jews access to Jewish holy sites, (b) many of which were desecrated. (c) Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites.[136] (d) Of the 58 synagogues in the Old City, half were either razed or converted to stables and hen-houses over the course of the next 19 years, (e) including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue. (f) The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, with (f) gravestones used to build roads and latrines.[137] (g) Israeli authorities razed many ancient tombs in the ancient Muslim Mamilla Cemetery in West Jerusalem to facilitate (h) the creation of a parking lot and public lavatories in 1964.[138] (i) Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were demolished and replaced by modern structures.[139] (j)During this period, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.[140

If you translate this into 1967, you could write

After 1967, since the old walled city in its entirety was taken by Israel, (a) Israel was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to international law, expropriated houses and evicted Palestinian residents. Muslims under 45 were denied their right to pray on the Haram on Friday prayer eventually, and were denied access to many areas where they traditionally dwelt in. Two mosques were levelled, in line with a general practice throughout the occupied territories of destroying Muslim religious shrines, which were converted into IDF war memorials, synagogues, yeshivas, in total some 100 mosques where levelled in Palestinian villages, six converted to residential use, sheepo-pens or stables, carpentry shops, storehouses; six serving as museums, bars, and tourist sites,, and two converted in part for Muslims to pray in though banned as places of muslim worship (Benvenisti 2000:289). The Mamilla cemetary was desacrated.etc.

Neither the first nor the second is anything but grievance writing. The first gives several details of mainly Jewish grievance,(a)(b) (c) (d) (e) (f), and 'balances' this with two generic points (h) (corresponding to (f), and a generic (i). Then you get the concluding but sentence (Jordan and Israel destroyed each others sacred sites, but only Israel allowed its enemy's sanctuaries to undergo renovations.

This kind of poor writing, the consequence of POV battling, is all over the page.--Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The introduction is correct, it has nothing to do with point of view and everything to do with facts.--Savakk (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Introductions aren't 'correct'. They either conform to reliable sources, or balance points of view. You are ignoring that as a contested city, this is all about balancing points of view by meshing what reliable sources which refer us to the positions of Israel, the international community, and Palestinians, say.

No need to move the tag. It will be removed once the discussion has died and clearly failed to reach consensus, which is not long from now most probably. This is the WP on the matter. The tag only indicates an ongoing discussion. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are repeating claims thoroughly discussed. In short, the international community is not the definition of the word. It's objections noted, but the language stays the same. Please discuss the matter at the proper thread (after reading it) where it can be in context. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to write comprehensive English, and avoid vagueness. 'It's' = 'Its', as any kiddie in elementary school learns. Nothing you wrote above says anything, except articulating an opposition.--Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, I don't understand you. Do you want another topic ban for misrepresenting sources, flouting Discussion page guidelines, and insulting other editors? Because it seems like that's what you want.—Biosketch (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

'Seems like' introduces what is known as projective wishful thinking. Your three links are meaningless for the cast of intention you attribute to them. And now to Sunday lunch and good company.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nishdani, I wouldn't want my messages to cause you such distress. Please account for only the last sentence. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani by inserting your comment in Savakk comment, you have altered the meaning of his comment in way that is unacceptable by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Savakk comment was referring to my previous comment and not to yours, as it looks now, after the insertion you have made. Therefore I ask you kindly to revert.--Tritomex (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just the term international community is abstract term but in this case is factually fraud term. All countries that recognized Israel, recognized its institution in accordance with Israeli law. 22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition. Although by the latter of international law there is no specific need to recognize the institutions of the state, if the recognition of the state is already done, this countries have did so. What they objected was 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel capital. See (Mosheh ʻAmirav,Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, Sussex University Press, 2009 p.27) The term international community in this case is POV.--Tritomex (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you cited that admirable book by Amirav, which I'm familiar with. It serves to kill two birds with one stone

Biosketch said earlier I was distorting sources, which was nonsense. My source said Israel declared West Jerusalem its capital (Michael Dumper) the prior source just said Israel in 1948 declared 'Jerusalem' its capital. Dumper is correct. The 1948 declaration did not declare that the capital of Israel was partially in Jordanian territory. It declared that its capital was in that part of Jerusalem held by Israel. Amirav again clarifies:-

'In 1948, Al Quds came under Jordanian rule, while the western part of the city, which was declared the capital of Israel, became known as Jerusalem p.21

'what the Ben-Gurion government did in the 1950s when it declared West Jerusalem to be the country's capital.' (p.26)

In other words, Biosketch accuses me of misrepresenting a source, when the source I added says exactly what I said it did, and a further source, by a Jerusalem policy expert, confirms that when Israel declared Jerusalem its capital, it referred to the western sector. This is what I mean by refusal to look at RS, refusal to compromise when RS clarify terms that are ambiguous. You are all culpable of a stubborn refusal to accept what RS that are not generic, but specific, written by Jerusalemite urban planning experts, or authorities on the city, quite clearly say.

To address your specific point.

• 22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition. Although by the latter (sic?) of international law there is no specific need to recognize the institutions of the state, if the recognition of the state is already done, this (sic?) countries have did (sic) so. What they objected (sic?=to) was (sic =the) 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel(sic=i/'s) capital. See (Mosheh ʻAmirav,Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, Sussex University Press, 2009 p.27)

It's understandable that your English is somewhat awkward. Unfortunately, this means you are a poor reader of what English books say, which, when added to your frequent WP:OR hermeneutic divagations, makes following your argument a laborious task. One can hardly argue with someone who cites a book and twice capsizes its its evidence and argument.

You confuse the past present tense (have) with the past tense. Thus Amirav says 24 countries 'agreed to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transferred their embassies there' (p.26) in the 1950s. He then says 'Twenty-two of the twenty four countries that had previously recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel moved their embassies out of the city' following the passage of the Jerusalem Basic Law of 1980.(p.27) The remaining two, Costa Rica and El Salvador, joined the boycott in 2006. So you have utterly distorted your source, and interpreted a withdrawal of recognition by 24 countries in the source into a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It is a rather monstrous thing to do, this WP:OR interpretation of Amirav, which changes documentation by Amirav that 24 countries reneged on their recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital into 'What they objected was 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel capital.'

Your editing, and arguments here, are troublesome because they are poorly explained, distort sources, and press rather vigorously for 'solutions' that strike many other editors as negligent of WP:NPOV. It's very difficult to sustain a dialogue if this pattern of distortion and neglect continues. Most people indeed seem to have dropped out of the discussion, and I can understand why.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of the neutrality of that line is being dealt with partially here, if you are following the details.

Please move this discussion to the proper thread ('Better Wording'). --MeUser42 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I now see what Tritomex is doing. He is, as with his argument about Annexation, also here not looking at sources. He is reading a wiki page, and culling sources from that page without even verifying them independently. In this case, his incomprehensible ref to 22 countries recognizing the country comes from the Jerusalem article before I just now changed it (which used the figures 20-22). He cited Amirav without checking it. This is fundamental to editing. Wikipedia, to repeat what I said earlier, is not a reliable source, and editors should not pretend they have read a source, when all they have done is read the wikipage citing that source.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think now there is a need for administrative intervention regarding the edits of Nishadani. This is going beyond POV, and misinterpretation. Here is the online editions of the book [16] nowhere the wording "withdrawal of recognition" is mentioned. The relocation of embassies was in protest of Israel annexation of East Jerusalem and there was no "withdrawal of recognition" I do not think that Nishadani do not know the difference between relocation of embassies and withdrawal of recognition. His reacting to arguments shown here by directly and immediately making edits in to the article based on his own believes and by misinterpreting different sources without even looking for any consensus. For example he directly translated "relocation of embassies" in to "withdrawal of recognition" I will not engage myself in further dialogue with him.--Tritomex (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Smoke in the eyes. You quoted Amirav for the following statement:'22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition.'

Where on p.27 does Amirav say that? Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

To all editors: page 49: "24 countries recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" AND all moved their embassies to Jerusalem. Clear indication that the recognition and relocation of embassies are two different process which do not need to be combined and can not be used as synonyms.--Tritomex (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked you where on p.27 does Amirav say what you quoted him as saying in support of your thesis. Now you refer me to p.49. In any caase, you are ignoring with snippets Amirav's context, which I bolded. Secondly, you are engaging in WP:OR which only underlines you are unfamiliar with the topic. It is WP:OR to make an inference, as you are doing, from two distinct passages and then declare thee inference to be either a fact, or what the author thought. Secondly your inference is wrong, as even a slight familiarity with the diplomatic and legal literature will show. It's original research and bad research at that.--Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also OR to interpret "had previously recognized" to mean they revoked their recognition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Shlomo Slonim, Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy, 1947-1997, Martinus Nijhoff.The US Consul General in Jerusalem in 1958 wrote to the State Department ‘Many other countries mark their respect for the internationalization resolutions by establishing embassies in Tel Aviv thus avoiding recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and, by implication, as Israel’s de jure sovereign territory.’ p.186.

That's an old one I've chosen because it reflects the diplomatic interpretation of those gestuire in the 50s when Tritomex's 24 countries did what they did. There are dozens more that people who make bold to assert inferences should familiarize themselves with before they broach the subject. Everyone in the diplomatic, historical and political world knows exactly what the Security Council of Resolution 478 (1980) on 20 August 1980 asked and how its first and second points led to relocation by states. Not the UN. It was the Security Council by a 14-0 vote. If you don't know the background you can play all the games you like. People are fixated on the lead, and ignore fixing the body of the article. It isn't even true that Costa Rica and San Salvador kept on there till 2006. They originally withdrew, and then reconsidered. There's tons of stuff like that to care for. No one reads articles. They read the leads alone, apparently.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, can you confirm that you understand that that section of the book is talking about West Jerusalem ? When we say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" are we referring to West Jerusalem ? If so, we should change it to say that. This article is about the whole city though, including East Jerusalem, so when we say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", we are referring to the city described by this article, the city "complete and united" that Israel has declared as the capital, which includes both West and East Jerusalem, hence the neutrality dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course I understand that Sean. Can you give me the definition of East Jerusalem borders which is not based on Israeli Jerusalem law? If such definition, regarding seize, population, exists we would know what he have to exclude from the current wording. Do you know that A-Tur, Jabel Mukaber,Ras al-Amud Beit Hanina, Beit Safafa,Shuafat, Sur Baher etc are considered part of Jerusalem only based on the same Jerusalem law? So should we than redefine East Jerusalem borders to the recognized boundaries of 1948 and adjust this article in accordance with this, or should we keep this article in factual situation created by Jerusalem law?--Tritomex (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article is about the entire city of Jerusalem, whatever that means over its long history. There is an article about West Jerusalem and an article about East Jerusalem. For the PNA, East Jerusalem is part of the Jerusalem Governorate and I don't know what criteria they use to distinguish between city and not-city, but it isn't relevant to the disputed issue here. The dispute is caused by ignoring the green line and stating as a fact that the city described by this article is the capital of Israel including the parts of the city of Jerusalem across the green line. That means we are saying they are in Israel. Think about the consequences of that statement if we cascaded the spatial relations that follow from that statement to other articles. It follows that the Western Wall is in Israel, the entire Old City is in Israel etc. Those are not facts according to RS. We have contradictions in spatial relations between articles. It isn't clear why the people who advocate the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as an NPOV compliant statement don't do it properly by adding "complete and united" or "including East Jerusalem". What's the problem ? Why not cascade the spatial relationships that inevitably follow from that statement to other articles ? If it is a fact that the city this article is about is the capital of Israel, many things follow from that simply because of topology. Apparently the only people with the balls to make those kind of changes across article space, to say that the Old City is in Israel for example, to explicitly label places across the green line in East Jerusalem as being in Israel etc are so sure that they are right, so sure that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a fact, that they are willing to be blocked and topic banned for it. They might be wrong according to reliable sources but I admire their commitment, consistency and honesty. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a source that says a capital can only be in territory a country has de jure sovereignty over. Until you do all your assertions are nothing more than your personal opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That is an odd request. That line of argument will take you somewhere you don't want to go. We know that a city can be proclaimed/declared/designated/pick-a-word as the capital (and consequently be described by sources as the capital, the proclaimed capital, the declared capital etc) without there being de jure sovereignty over the city or even de facto control. We know that's possible because that's exactly what both Israel and Palestine have done and reliable sources talk about it. We have a source, Israel's basic law, that explicitly states as a fact that "Jerusalem", the subject of this article, is the capital of Israel, and another source, Palestinian basic law, that explicitly states as a fact that "Jerusalem" is the capital of Palestine. Neither case establishes that it is an undisputed objective fact that Jerusalem is the capital of anything to the extent that we can present it to readers as if it is the same as saying 1+1=2. It's obvious that these are not facts but the positions of the parties to the dispute and need to be presented that way. We already know something is wrong here because we have a source, an important source given that it is from one of the parties to the conflict, that explicitly contradicts, or at the very least, calls into question the factual nature of the statement in the lead, and that is without even looking at the thousands of independent reliable sources that deal with this issue in a whole variety of ways. What normally follows at this point, as soon as sources are mentioned, is the policy violating, time wasting, nonsense of using dictionary definitions of the word capital to "prove" that the entire city described by this article is the capital of Israel and only Israel as a matter of fact. This is of course original research and not allowed. But what is worse for me, setting aside the policy violation, is that it's a method that doesn't even work. A city isn't, as a matter of undisputed objective fact, a capital because it matches one, many or all of the attributes dictionaries use in their definitions such as "city...that is the official seat of government in a country...", "city...that functions as the seat of government and administrative centre of a country...", "the seat of government of a country" or whatever. We know this because the method fails for various cases such as the Netherlands. A method only has to produce an invalid result once to know that there is something wrong with the method. Editors surely know this so it really is very odd for editors to try to use a method that doesn't even work to violate a core policy here of all places.

I think the problem for you and everyone who wants to retain this statement of fact are the policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you want to make an unattributed statement of fact in this article, it's you who has to prove that the city described by this article, the whole city, is the capital of Israel as a matter of undisputed fact. I don't think anyone here has ever done that, or knows how to do it, and given the nature of Wikipedia's rules and the variation in how sources handle this issue, I don't think it is even possible. There has been a failure to demonstrate that the statement of fact complies with policy. It nearly complies but falls short. Reasonable alternatives that could end this dispute once and for all have been suggested.

I'm not sure where you think my opinion comes into this. You have said things like this a couple of times without pointing out precisely what you are referring to. Perhaps you mean my opinion that the statement "X is the capital of Y" where X is a city and Y is a "a country or other political unit" implies the spatial relations Y contains X and X is within Y to the reader in Wikipedia's voice. I think that is a reasonable assumption about how readers will parse that kind of statement because that is how things normally work for capital cities. I suppose an exception might be Kinshasa-Brazzaville if the combined name becomes more widely used, 1 city in effect, 2 capitals, both within different countries.

While you are pondering the next "Please provide a source that says..." question to ask editors, why don't you find a source that says that a city can only be designated as the capital by the country/political unit with de facto control over the city. Perhaps the international community can decide what the capital of Israel is. Perhaps a basket of red herrings can make the decision. Without a source that says they can't, someone could argue endlessly that it's hard to tell and more time would be wasted not just looking at how sources deal with this issue and applying Wikipedia's content rules to it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I gather that the tldr of all that is "no, I can't provide a source". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you gather incorrectly, but you have reminded me why trying to resolve disputes through discussion doesn't work. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not just if the wording "not internationally recognised" is accurate or not, the problem is there is still a dispute on this page if that belongs in the opening sentence like that. The entire sentence has some neutrality concerns by people regarding different parts (some on the capital of Israel and some regarding stating something in the first sentence that is already stated more clearly further down the article intro). For that reason the neutrality tag warrants encompassing both points. At present the tag position suggests the fact Israel is the capital isnt seen as neutral, yet the next part of the sentence is entirely accepted. That is not the case.. Clearly putting the tag at the end of that part of the sentence still encompasses the fact the whole issue arond Jerusalems status has concerns. Its the only reasonable wayto be balanced. Of course ideally as there is no consensus for a change, no tag should be kept there. Most oppose the changes a small number of editors are demanding.BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

POV tag on lede

I've added a tag to the lede section. Within the first paragraph, the lede needs to represent both the Palestinian and Israeli view in order to remain neutral, given the fact that the "UN and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital." Here is what was reverted:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]

and is sought by the Palestinian Authority as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included. with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km² (48.3 sq mi).^[iii]

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The revert was fully justified.

• Only East Jerusalem is "is sought by the Palestinian National Authority" as the capital of a future proposed Palestinian state
• Dead links were used as sources
• Most importantly, intentions of any state or future state do not goes into the lead. Vatican intend to see Jerusalem as international city under UN or similar administration. That does not mean that we should include this intention of Vatican in the first sentence. --Tritomex (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The State of Palestine declared Jerusalem its capital, not East Jerusalem. nableezy - 14:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but is that the city's primary role? Is it really the best idea to start the article by bluntly stating Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel? The opening of the article ought to define the article's subject, and "a major city in the Levant" serves the purpose just fine. Jerusalem's capital status could then follow that opening phrase. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The way it was seems to be the common, standard way of writing articles about capital cities on Wikipedia. Compare with Paris, Cairo etc... EscEscEsc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable. The introduction is balanced at present by saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though not internationally recognised as such. That balanced, giving both sides views and providing the facts. Attempts to try and add the fact there is a palestinian claim to the first sentence is just unreasonable, as has been debated extensively above. There is NO consensus for certain changes being proposed, and there is no reasonable case for an entire POV section tag when there is already inline neutrality tag for the primary issue people seem concerned about. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable"..no, sorry, but that simply isn't true as far as I can tell. The evidence suggests to me that it's the other way around. Where is the Palestinian POV in the introduction ? The international community isn't Palestinian. The Palestinian POV doesn't appear until the 5th paragraph of the lead despite the Palestinians being the other party to the dispute with an equal claim to the city as their capital as far as RS are concerned. Frankly I think it's lucky the Palestinian POV is mentioned at all given that we have so many contributors here whose ability to deal with this issue neutrally is apparently damaged beyond repair or who are insufficiently informed about the issues and their policy obligations. If editors followed the advice at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors_counseled this would have been sorted out years ago. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Im saying there is clearly an attempt here to insert Palestinian POV, not that the current article is Palestinian POV. Whilst i would prefer to see some changes, i believe the current wording is balanced, making clear Israel is the capital of Jerusalem, but this is not recognised by the international community. That is perfectly balanced and reasonable. What is not reasonable and what is blatant POV pushing is the attempts to try and make out like a claim to the city is somehow worthy of being in the same sentence as the fact it is the capital of ISrael. The proposal above is the latest flawed proposal, yet there has been even worse ones in recent months too. It is simply not appropriate for the first sentence to be vandalised with POV. There are many disputed states and territorial claims, the first sentences do not tend to put a claim in line with the factual realities on the ground. For example.. Northern Ireland says "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It is variously described as a country, province or region of the UK, amongst other term.". It does not say, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and claimed by Irish republicans who want a united Ireland." To do so would give undue weight. Same applies in this case, the palestinian claim is clearly explained in the introduction already.. it does not need to be pushed into the first or second sentence, which will give undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use an entire section POV tag for the introduction. Use inline tagging for the specific claims people have concerns about, the vast majority of the facts and information in the introduction is accurate so people should not be confused about how accurate any of it is. Undermines the entire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable.British Watcher

The international community isn't Palestinian. The Palestinian POV doesn't appear until the 5th paragraph of the lead .Sean Hoyland

Im saying there is clearly an attempt here to insert Palestinian POV, not that the current article is Palestinian POV. British Watcher

BW. In short, you are not listening, but rehearsing your position. There are 3 POVs. (a) Israel's (b) The international community's (the legal lie of the land based on corpus separatum); (c) the Palestinians'.

The Palestinians are not some discarded pariah element in the equation. Their claim has parity per WP:NPOV, but is textually downplaced, repudiated, or absorbed into that of the second party. If you wish to challenge that, use policy and RS-based arguments. not personal opinions.--Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The palestinian claim to Jerusalem is already mentioned in the introduction. The question is here about preventing [{WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] by biasing the introductions first sentence with Palestinian POV. A claim to want to control the city at some point in the future is very very different to the fact it is the capital of Israel and acts as such. We ensure balance by including very clearly after that this is not recognised by the international community (which includes the palestinian view). The claim by palestinians to jerusalem is better handled in the other parts of the introduction as at present. You will find many articles saying that Israels capital is Jerusalem but that this isnt recognised by the international community/, yet do not go on to say in the same sentence or paragraph about palestinians wanting it as their future capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh come, now. Please try to make a cogently coherent argument. The point made by several editors is that Israel's claim is in the first sentence, the Palestinian claim isn't. So what on earth has WP:Undue to do with the fact that in violation of WP:NPOV, one of the three parties is not represented in the first sentence? You are saying that compliance with WP:NPOV would violate WP:Undue, one of the most extravagantly queer twistings of policy I've encountered in 6 years of editing. --Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do mention the Israeli and Palestinian claims next to each other: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added the section tag. In order to adhere to NPOV, the Palestinian viewpoint needs to be represented in the first paragraph, just as the Israeli and international viewpoint is shown. (BW, inline tagging is not possible because this is a structural dispute.) Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I support Somedifferentstuff's assessment. Israel's viewpoint is given in the first paragraph, as is the viewpoint of the international community. The Palestinian viewpoint should not be relegated to further down the page. As Dailycare has shown Reliable source coverage of this topic present the Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints on this issue consecutively. The current arrangement is not neutral and does not represent how the issue is handled by RS - thus it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A more precise description based on the sources Dailycare provided would be that some RS occasionally also mention that the Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. I don't see how not putting that in the first paragraph of the lead is an NPOV violation, considering it's an aspiration, not something that's actually happened it doesn't deserve the same weight. Just like the article about Taiwan doesn't mention the PRC's claims and aspirations over that territory in the first paragraph of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the already well labored point that significant RS describe Israel's position on Jerusalem, not as a fact, but as a "claim" or a "designation", that has been rejected by the international community (or some similar formulation). Dlv999 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the already well labored point that significant RS describe it as fact, while no significant RS say it's not a fact. That some RS take no position ("claim" or "designation" doesn't mean it's not a fact) is not a reason to water down the language here when we have RS that do take a position. Non-recognition, the significance of which nobody has found a source that explains, is already right next to the statement of fact, which is supported by RS. All the POVs are represented in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A source saying something is a widely rejected claim is not the same viewpoint as a source saying something is a fact. As the article stands only one of those viewpoints is presented in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Non-recognition is mentioned in the lead. I'll remind you again that we don't know if that has any bearing on the factuality of Jerusalem being the capital, since we have yet to see a source that explains it. Apparently neither do the sources using "claim" otherwise they'd just assess whether it's a fact or not rather than take no position. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

2 POV issues, both in the first paragraph. My suggestion to avoid having a permanent POV section tag on the article. First, rewrite the lead -- Jerusalem, located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, is one of the oldest cities in the world.[1] According to the Israeli government, Jerusalem is the nation's capital (although it is not internationally recognized as such.)[ii]

The second POV issue, the Palestinian vacuum in the first paragraph, also needs to be remedied. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite fascinating that you think there will be a "permanent POV section tag on the article" if you don't get your way. Putting that aside, your first suggestion has already been made and has failed to find consensus. To recap, it looks like all articles about capital cities state that in the first section of the lead, so there's really no reason to deviate from that. There's also no reason to introduce "according to the Israeli government" when we have RS that state it as plain fact.

The "Palestinian vacuum" in the first paragraph is also on par with other articles. We don't tend to give aspirations the same weight as facts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There will be a permanent POV section tag as long as the article continues to violate that policy. Israel's claim of capital status is not recognized by most of the world, which is precisely why the term "Israeli government" is essential in creating a neutral lead. Pretending that Jerusalem is "just another capital city" is laughable at best. And ignoring the Palestinian vacuum within the first paragraph will not lead to a consensus, I assure you. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The POV tag will be removed once the discussion is concluded one way or another. If you think you can keep a tag on an article until you are personally satisfied with the text, you are mistaken. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. In order to remove the tag you need to look at the general consensus (all editors present). If the general consensus is not to do so due to a continued violation, then the tag remains. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that if there's consensus to keep the tag, there would be consensus to make the edit and then the tag wouldn't be needed. Tags don't stay on articles indefinitely. There's a discussion and it will be concluded one way or another. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The palestinian viewpoint appears in the first sentence already as they do also not recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Their claim to the city cannot be given equal weight by being placed in the first sentence when there is clearly a massive difference between one entity claiming the capital for a future state, compared to one serving as the capital of a state, despite lacking recognition. There has been no consensus on previous attempts to bias this introduction by giving undue weight to the palestinian claim. I never said that the palestinian claim is never mentioned in article on this matter, i said there are many that do not because the primary two factors are "Jerusalem is Israels capital" and "the international community do not recognise this". The palestinian claim is handled in the introduction still, it is not as though there is no mention of it, but the view has rightly been it does not warrant inclusion in the first sentence.

I fail to see why in line tagging does not solve the issue people claim to be unhappy about. People are saying they just want a change to the first sentence.. the first sentence is tagged with the neutrality. How does that not cover the issue? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

BW, if sources mention the claims consecutively, why can't we? I think the "massive difference" or lack thereof is something that ought to turn on what sources say, not on editors' opinions on the matter. --Dailycare (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It already is mentioned! It is detailed in the introduction, it does not all fit nor can it be stated in a neutral way if its put in the first sentence, it simply does not work. It will be gross bias to try and treat the fact its the capital of Israel in law and in practice, just not recognised by the international community... with the fact the Palestinians claim it for their future state. It just cannot all fit fairly. And every single proposal we have seen in this latest round of the attempts to add palestinian POV have been proposals that are very clearly bias and which is obviously going to be unacceptable to many on this page. There was a vote above.. it showed support for the current wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind of the capital issue is moved out of the first sentence overall, in fact not nearly all sources place Israel's and Palestine's "capital claims" in the first sentence. --Dailycare (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though it is not internationally recognised as such. There is no justification for removing this from the first sentence. We are not hiding facts simply because people are demanding the Palestinian POV be added and given undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

My vote is to move it out of the first sentence. It's a contentious issue and will be better suited with a move. The following first sentence is one of the best, if not the best, first sentences I've seen: "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is an ancient Middle Eastern city of key importance to the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert by Tritomex

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is no consensus for the change introduced by Dailycare. This discussion is long, convoluted, and has taken place against the backdrop of other ongoing discussions on this page which make arriving and a productive conclusion difficult. However, I have taken all viewpoints into consideration, and when disregarding those which are irrelevant, I can see that there is some weak support for the current status quo.

To start, Dailycare's initial edit was made with the edit summary "after discussion on talk". However, discussion on this page has been far from clear. I feel it is troublesome to unilaterally arrive at a "consensus" viewpoint by method of disregarding comments from other editors which one deems to be invalid. The arguments in opposition can be summarised as:

1. The change introduces unnecessary repetition to an already complicated and difficult-to-read lead, since the controversy over Jerusalem's official status is already amply discussed.
2. The sentence in its original form was already balanced, as it states that Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as the capital.

The arguments in support of Dailycare's change can be summarised as:

1. Dailycare's original justification that his edit was based on the result of talk page discussions (a claim I find hard to ratify).
2. The fact that the edit introduces repetition doesn't matter, as there is already a lot of other repetition in the article and we would need to remove all that too.

I find the first of the arguments in opposition to be valid, if only weakly compelling. I do not find any of the arguments in support to be valid, particularly the second.

The latter half of this discussion derailed into a long-winded discussion about semantics and the morality/legality of Israel's seizure of East Jerusalem. I find this part of the discussion to be irrelevant to the outcome of this discussion, since the sentence in question makes no bold claim about the legal status of East Jerusalem. I find attempts to derail the discussion by speculating what is implied by the sentence to be particularly unhelpful.

For reasons of clarity, I feel it important to declare (to those who do not routinely investigate) that I am not an administrator and as such this is a non-admin close. However, I have no iron in this fire and have never edited in this area before. I have done by utmost to be impartial. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Tritomex reverted an edit of mine here. However the edit summary merely says "no consensus" and "not acceptable" which isn't sufficient, as on the talkpage no substantial policy-based objections to the edit came up in discussion, above. Unless such objections surface here in a couple of days, I'll re-do the edit. Comments along the lines of "I support the current version", "I don't support any change" etc don't carry any weight per WP:CONSENSUS ("The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.") Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You know you had no consensus for that edit. It had exactly nobody supporting it and at least one person objecting to it, and that's putting aside the people who said they think the current version is fine. You do not get to decide if other editors' arguments are valid or not. Luckily for you someone reverted your edit before I saw it but if you do it again I'll be going straight to AE with no further warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for Ankh's removal of though not internationally recognized as such. nableezy - 18:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

where is this consensus?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you dont want to look I wont do the work for you. But the fact that the line has been in the first sentence for two years should help you figure it out. Edits like this should also help you. nableezy - 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're the one making the claim so you have to support your claim. I did notice you tracked down a bunch of diffs from years ago so I see some work was put it. However those diffs don't really support your claim. I'll remove it now pending support for your claim, of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I promise you, AE is the next stop. You know full well you have no consensus to remove material that has been in this article for years, and if you do so knowingly then we can see what happens. nableezy - 20:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My edit was proposed long in advance and nobody has yet explained why the repetition is necessary. What does the phrase I removed add more than that which is already mentioned in the 4th paragraph? Ankh.Morpork 19:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that any neutral editor who just read the section above would even waste a moment of their life to consider taking what you just wrote seriously? I have not seen one objection to your proposed edit on the basis of anything else but the following: [17] [18]. I don't find this amusing and I can guarantee that any more application of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will not be addressed through this forum. -asad (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Isnt it also mentioned in the fourth paragraph that under Israeli law Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Why didn't you remove that bit of repetition from the first sentence? Oh, thats right, it wasnt about removing repetition, it was about removing what you dont like. I get it now. nableezy - 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the personal attack is necessary. Ankkmorport doesn't like it as much as you like it. Everyone has ulterior motives except for you. Disgraceful.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack? Preceding all that? Wow. nableezy - 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand personally why should we have repetition about the status because later the legal matters are thoroughly explained. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So why should the sentence on it being the capital be in the first sentence? The point is that saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a non-neutral statement, it omits a rather important POV on the topic. So if you want to remove the sentence on it being the capital and just have it in the fourth paragraph then fine. What isnt fine is only removing material that The Greatest State would like to disregard. nableezy - 22:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Threatening AE here and on another user's talk page multiple times. Knock it of Nableezy. We all know you aren't going to AE since the edit wasn't bad enough to warrant it and you would just get a boomerang. Stop trying to wield it like a big stick since you have successfully used it a handful of times to knock off editors who deserved it. You are next on the chopping block anyways. The proposal a couple sections above is perfect and everyone should chill out and consider how it could be a benefit to the reader. It would also save a lot of bickering.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, say the same thing to NMMNG and I might take you seriously. Actually, probably not then either. Your belief on who is next on the chopping block is one of those things in this world that do not matter, even a little bit, to anybody besides yourself. nableezy - 13:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I was honored personally in the name of section I feel the need to reflect on few assumptions.

I don't know what entitle anyone to qualify its personal point of view as "substantial" and to disqualify the majority opinion made by six or seven editors as unsubstantial. The evaluation of the "quality of arguments" is beyond any objective measurement and as far as I have noticed no one who opposed changing of current wording seems to be impressed by those arguments. As many editors here I have opposed any change in current wording, especially double negations, based on my assumption that the current wording is already reflecting balanced and neutral position. To in force someones personal view or other motivations on this or any article through force or WP:EW is against Wikipedia guidelines and could constitute WP:VAN --Tritomex (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is a line-up parade. The opinion that this is 'neutral and balance' is predictably identified with one set of editors, whose belief is opposed by another set. There has been, in this tiresome rehearsal, only one editor who has tried to rise above the fray and propose creative solutions, successively modifying his proposals to reflect input. Despite this, they were worn down by absurd filibustering. Thus, everything is stalled. If people will not come to some fair adjustment, the lead should remain as it was, i.e., as satisfying no one. No one is replying to the lockstep proposals and votes because they are meaningless, and even arguing here is a waste of time. The only way to fix this, given the lack of goodwill, would be for admins to tell everyone to fuck off, and put in accomplished article outsider FA writers to fix it.--Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Saying I "knew" there was no consensus for the edit is wrong, since exactly one person commented on the proposal, by opposing it on the basis that, wait for this, it would change the meaning of the sentence. This isn't even remotely a substantial policy-based argument, and therefore doesn't affect the existence or non-existence of consensus in any way. I challenged the user to identify a policy he was referring to, which he failed to do. In this thread, by the way, I currently see exactly zero policy-based objections to the edit. Therefore not only did the edit have consensus to begin with, it still has consensus. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting theory. We'll have an opportunity to test it at AE if you make that change again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You to, huh? Not to appease Nableezy but simply to mention it to you both that threatening AE over and over again is not helping anything. Aren't you guys suppose to be working together to settle the settlement issue? This talk page is a trainwreck. I'm going to enjoy a sandwich and marvel in the calamity. But that one well thought out proposal above is stil better than anything else that has happened here in years. Can we start ARBIA3 yet?Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare What you currently see or do not see is your personal issue. Seven editors here do not see that you have a right or consensus here to make changes which you try to enforce above all of us. I have said and I will not repeat my self every time you come back with threats to report someone, or to force upon everyone your personal believes and impressions. Jerusalem is a capital of Israel (Fact) it is not recognized by most of international community as such (Fact) Those two facts function independently from each other and the neutrality of this sentence can be achieved only by combining them. As the first half of sentence may look problematic to you, the second part has even more bases to be challenged by others. This is why the current form is balanced and neutral. --Tritomex (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, is it a fact that East Jerusalem, the part of the city that is across the green line, is part of Jerusalem ? I think we would all agree that the answer to that question is "yes". If "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a fact, and East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem, it follows that it is a fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel. But it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel because it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is in Israel. It is the opinion of the State of Israel that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel. Can you see the problem ? There is a contradiction. It's shining brightly. Please can you confirm that you can at least see it ? It seems to me that many editors cannot see it or choose to ignore it, whereas many reliable sources recognize this contradiction and deal with accordingly through careful wording. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, Jerusalem was declared capital of Israel in 1950, so this fact has nothing to do with the annexation and extension of Jerusalem city borders in 1980. East Jerusalem had only 6,4 square km in 1967-under Jordanian occupation, which means that if we would fully ignore Israeli Jerusalem law of 1980 we would have an article about a city with 300 000 inhabitants(internationally recognized East+West Jerusalem) and 55 square kilometers. Also we should refer to almost all Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem as villages outside Jerusalem (this is their legal status from 1948 and even from 1967 Jordanian occupation) as they were declared part of Jerusalem unilaterally by Israel, under Jerusalem law. Also such Jerusalem would have only 50 000 Palestinian citizens. However we have article here which use Israeli Jerusalem law referring to the city of more than 800 000 inhabitants and 125 sq.km.

Again, the extension of Jerusalem is as much (Il)legal as the annexation of East Jerusalem, as it is based on same law, which was not recognized by UN or by most of international community. So technically speaking, yes the borders of Jerusalem, its population and neighborhoods, could be as much in dispute as its status. However, the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel predates the 1967 war and this fact is independent from international recognition or negation.--Tritomex (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You're extremely confused. When Jerusalem was declared the capital in 1950 it was not a declaration that Jordanian Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. (b) there was no formal annexation of Jerusalem in 1980 according to authoritative legal opinion (c) you appear to be wholly unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, which obliges editors to respect neutrality, even those editors, as your above screed shows, who can see only one side, Israel's, to a complex question. Whatever Israel determines as its 'facts', is a partial perspective, and per policy, must be balanced by other perspectives, be they of the international community or the Palestinians. The refusal to acknowledge that there are two perspectives here is getting rather blatant. The policy reads:'This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. It's a curiosity that administrators never force compliance with this non-negotiable policy in this area.--Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, don't fall into Sean's trap. His assertion that "But it is not a 'fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel because it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is in Israel" is nothing more than his opinion. You may have noticed that some editors like to redefine the word "capital" to include all kinds of limitations and conditions that don't actually appear anywhere the word is defined. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, East Jerusalem is in Israel now? nableezy - 19:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a trap. What you have done there is assume bad faith. There is no reason to do that. I think you have also misrepresented me. Can you point out where I redefined the word "capital" or any other words such as "Jerusalem", "East Jerusalem", "green line", "Israel", "fact" etc ? As far as I'm aware I'm using all of the words in the same way you or anyone else would use them. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani I am very much familiar with WP:NPOV and I do adhere to it. I am also sometimes surprised "that administrators never force compliance with this non-negotiable policy in this area" As for example in the case of your main page, where you are narrating solely the Palestinian perspective in a way that is a clear example what WP:NPOV is not.

Please familiarize yourself with the terminological meaning of annexation. [19] Annexation as occupation is unilateral move and an established fact regardless of authoritative legal opinion or the legality of such act. This mean that annexation can be legal or illegal as well. In its terminological construct annexation do not allude or determine the legality of such action, (although it imply to unilateralism) it simply reflect the action without its repercussion. In this way annexation cant be non existing if it happened. What I have pointed out is that this article is using geographical, population data based on Israeli Jerusalem law regarding seize of Jerusalem and its demographic composition. As we have said already everything in this dialogue and there is evidently no consensus I do not see any reason to artificially prolong it. Although I reserve my right to respond I will not take part anymore in the artificial prolongation of this debate especially as I have already stated my opinion on this subject.--Tritomex (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Assertions count nothing against evidence. You are apparently not familiar with basic editing protocols. You ignore the obligations of WP:NPOV, and now you cite a wiki article Annexation as evidence for a fact, again showing that you are unfamiliar with what all practiced editors know, i.e.,Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You are consistently ignoring policy, and confusing an identifiable political-partisan position with facts. Israel's position is one of several facts, and NPOV requires that in composition, the other "facts" be included in order to avoid passing off one tilted perspective as the only one that counts.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, you rely in your argumentation on what you call facts. This is in fact not in-line with what policy states, since we should rather edit based on what best sources say, than on what we consider to be the facts. However, arguendo, do you think it's not a fact that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law? Applying your fact-based theory, it seems that my edit is in fact better in-line with it than the longstanding wording, since it's a noncontroversial, bland and universally non-contested fact that Jerusalem is, under Israeli law, the capital city of Israel. On the other hand, the General Assembly has recently passed, with overwhelming support, a resolution stating that the proclamation of Jerusalem as capital is "null and void". To the extent that you're advancing your fact-based theory as a policy-based objection to the edit, which policy are you referring to? This source, by the way, describes objections to the notion of Jerusalem as Israel's capital already before 1967. --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

UN GA has no power by its charta to pass biding resolutions, as such power lies only in the domain of UN SC. As in the previous case mentioned, international recognition, do not change facts such as occupation, annexation, declaration of independence, and facts regarding capital of each state. Political opinion has its dynamics [20] and as I will say this for the last time, if the wording that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel (which is in my opinion POV against Israel, due to the abstract meaning of the term "international community" and due to absolutist wording of this claim) is included in leading sentence, the avoidance of further POV could be achieved only by keeping the current form. By inserting double negation, this article would be transformed from good NPOV in to Palestinian political pamphlet. Definition of capital [21] I do not see any connection between the substantial meaning of this term and international recognition of the same. --Tritomex (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, the negation of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' is the statement "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel'. As far as I'm aware, no one has proposed that a negation of the current statement be used. That is not what the vast majority of reliable sources do so there is no reason to do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, if you will again make a change to a 1RR article after it has firmly and extensively been established that there is no consensus for it, as you are aware, I will request you will be blocked. --MeUser42 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The level of discussion on this talk page seems to have hit rock bottom. It may be helpful if we all go back to basics: Assume good faith and stick to discussion relevant to improving the article based on policies and evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree DLV999, Dailycare was fully aware there is no consensus and this is a 1RR article. This can't go on. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The change made by DailyCare was totally unacceptable and was rightly reverted. There is no consensus for such a change and it was obvious that would be the case considering the extensive debates that have been taking place on this page. Strongly oppose any change to the current introduction at this stage. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this thread, I still see zero policy-based objections to the edit, so it appears to still have consensus. As noted above, saying "no consenus" or "I object" doesn't affect the presence or absence of consensus in any way. In detail, Tritomex, who reverted the edit, has failed when challenged to name a policy he's referring to. A self-revert on his part to restore the edit would therefore be in order. MeUser42, I'm assuming you're genuinely under the impression that consensus is determined by some kind of vote. This isn't the case, and I invite you to read WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As there haven't been further entries in this thread, I've requested closure by an uninvolved party to determine if there is consensus for the edit. --Dailycare (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DC, as you constantly demand "policy-based objections", I'll give you a few. Attempting to misuse, contradict or reinterpret the meanings of terms defined in the dictionary to serve your own agenda appears to violate the policy against original research, and is POV. It must be said again: Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel is governed from there. That much is well sourced. It is not sourced that recognition or approval by any outside party is relevant to what makes a capital a capital. Therefore, adding a modifier such as "under Israeli law" is restrictive and misleading. Repeatedly ignoring, or branding as invalid, arguments that contradict your position, and falsely claiming consensus for a change (or that none is needed), can be seen as disruptive—another policy violated. You recently (11 Oct.) claimed (with astonishment) that an editor objected to your edit on the basis that ("wait for this", you said) it "would change the meaning of the sentence". Strange, I can't find that phrase anywhere in this discussion. However, controversial edits often do seek to change the meaning of a text, and that is indeed the effect of your proposed change. I hope your "uninvolved party" will readily see that the existing text is a proper representation and that consensus to change it is lacking. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit says "Jerusalem (...)is the capital of Israel under Israeli law". Which dictionary meaning is violated, and which OR conclusion is drawn? Israeli law does state Jerusalem is the capital, something which is also sourced in the edit. The edit doesn't say that recognition is needed for anything, so we don't need sources for that. You objected to this edit in your comment timestamped 20:06, 2 October 2012 by stating "Adding "under Israeli law" would be restrictive and a major change in the meaning". I'm sure you agree, that isn't a policy-based objection and indeed when challenged you were unable to name a policy that says we can't change the meaning of text in articles. To the extent you seem to me making the same argument again, I challenge you once more to name a policy that says we can't change the meaning of text in an article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask the same basic questions over and over, you are likely to get the same basic answers. Once again, you can't change the meaning or usage of words as defined in the dictionary and use them as you please. That would be POV and OR. As Jerusalem is both designated by Israel as its capital and where the government institutions are located, it complies with the commonplace dictionary definition of a capital city and is simply the capital. You keep insisting on altering that simple statement with superfluous, limiting modifiers.

OR and POV-pushing come in when you maintain that embellishment (in this case restrictive language) is called for, rather than the simple, direct statement we have in place now. Israel's capital, not just "under Israeli law". The capital, period, full stop. The recognition question is related because without that factor there is no justification for a restrictive statement and your edit would be pointless. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat my question: which dictionary meaning is violated by saying that according to Israel's laws, Jerusalem is the capital? The Basic Law states plainly that it is, and the edit doesn't say that according to other laws it isn't, so it's not in any way "restrictive" either. (not that using a dictionary like you're proposing is a valid argument to begin with, or that there would be anything wrong in restricting meanings)

Concerning your claim that Jerusalem is "simply" the capital, I'd like to hear how you square it with e.g. this source which says "While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status." Or for that matter this one, which says "Although it's evident that functionally the city is the Jewish state's capital, even close allies such as Britain say that to give formal recognition would be to legitimise the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem when talks with Palestinians are meant to decide its status, even if an agreement looks a distant prospect." According to sources Jerusalem is anything but simply Israel's capital. Which brings me to my next point, namely do you think that sources matter to begin with? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking sources to prove a point is not exactly good faith editing. Have you forgotten there are sources that state as fact that it's the capital and none that say it isn't, or do you think that sources that don't agree with the agenda you're pushing here don't matter to begin with? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I cited some sources, let's see what Herz has to say about them, and I'm of course also curious to see what his dictionary says about Israel's laws. Concerning your question, no, I haven't forgotten but you do seem to have forgotten that I've addressed that point here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One way or another, we've been over basically this same ground before, all too many times. Along the way I have expressed my policy-based objections as requested, and won't repeat them here. What makes a capital a capital is readily ascertainable, and applicable. Anything further added to the statement in question is obfuscation, and irrelevant. It may be technically correct to say "under Israeli law", but unless you intend to add "and in every other way", or the like, you would be "poisoning the well", because saying "under Israeli law" implies "only under Israeli law", as I'm sure you know or ought to know. Such tendentious errors of omission are not "good faith" editing. What Britain (& other outside parties) may have to say is also irrelevant; they can disapprove, but they cannot make it not be the capital. If it could be shown otherwise, I think it would have been by now.

You may be willing to misapply or selectively use sources and disregard elementary logic to make a point; I'm not. That does not mean I disrespect the policies on reliable sourcing, as you repeatedly imply by your questioning. Don't bother asking for details or posting more interrogatories for me; I've said all I care to say, and can't spend all my time on this. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I gather you mean to say that yes, you do believe that sources matter. You don't, however seem to be able to square your claim that Jerusalem would be "simply" the capital with the sources cited that in fact say the whole thing is really rather more complicated than that. In other words, you can't maintain both that sources matter and your "simply the capital" theory. Concerning the "Israeli law" point, the idea there is precisely that the edit doesn't take a side, rather it describes the sides. The edit doesn't say that Jerusalem "really" is or isn't a capital city, it simply states facts that are not in dispute. WP:NPOV states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The notion that Jerusalem would be the capital is rejected by the international community. It is not disputed or rejected that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. --Dailycare (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What I can or can't do is not appropriate content for this page. Don't make assumptions about my abilities. Per my point that capital is a well-defined term (one that you keep trying to obfuscate and redefine), the existing simple, direct statement is not a point of view.

I ask you again not to keep coming back with further posts directed at me. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, The problem is, your own personal opinion about what constitutes a capital (and the conclusions about Jerusalem you draw from that opinion), are not supported by what scholars say on the matter. See for instance Daum, Andreas (2005). Berlin - Washington, 1800–2000 Capital Cities, Cultural Representation, and National Identities. Cambridge University Press. p. 31. ISBN 0521841178. While a seat of government can evolve into a capital - as the case of Washington demonstrates- the distinction can remain quite clear. The Netherlands' seat of government is the Hague but its capital is bustling, commercial Amsterdam, the national cultural center. (p. 31)

I think it may be useful for you to consider that others that do not share your opinions, or are putting their opinions to one side and simply basing edits (and proposed edits) on what RS have said about the topic of this article are not behaving tendentiously, they are simply following our WP:NPOV policy.

(Sorry for responding to your post, but if you are going to make comments you have to accept that other editors are at liberty to respond to what you have written). Dlv999 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is how the BBC does it.

"Israel and many of its supporters regard a united Jerusalem - Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 - as its undivided capital. Most major powers do not, including the US which, like many other countries, has its embassy in Tel Aviv."[22]

Note the use of the word "regard" and the unambiguous description of Jerusalem as "united", "undivided" and including East Jerusalem. This is about perspectives not facts. Regarding "What makes a capital a capital is readily ascertainable, and applicable." No it isn't, but that doesn't matter, because more importantly, an argument/objection based on a dictionary definition of a word like capital isn't a policy based argument, it's a policy violation, so we can forget about that. These dictionary based synthetic arguments have never been and never will be relevant to this dispute. They need to be put aside so that people can focus on how sources deal with Jerusalem. Putting the dictionary based OR aside doesn't change anything in the sources that deal with Jerusalem, so it's no loss to anyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A request for closure has been made here]. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 18 November 2012

The article states that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,though not internationally recognized as such"

Jerusalem is internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, the only time it is not recognized is when it is someone's personal belief. However internationally, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Please change this. 152.71.178.51 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. From the sources I can find[23][24]Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is. If you have a reliable source to prove otherwise please provide it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur and am closing request;. Please provide reliable sourcing as the basis for a discussion to determine if there is consensus for such a change. Rivertorch (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur a third time, request wasn't closed. Closing for now. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Of course what the article says is true, but it is also meaningless and POV. Countries don't "recognize" each other's capitals, so you could say the same thing about Moscow, London, Rome, Dublin or whatever. Kauffner (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Placing one's embassy in a particular city might be considered tacit recognition of a capital. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A question

I noticed the flag, coat of arms, and mayor of Jerusalem in this article are all Israeli which makes me wonder, has Palestine given the city a flag or coat of arms? And should not the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem be stated as such as the current article gives the impression he is the mayor of all of Jerusalem, even the half located in Palestine. Any information would be appreciated.

And I do feel it necessary to voice my opinion that the lead is currently highly biased towards the Israeli perspective, though that seems to be par for the course on wikipedia. Sepsis II (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All of Jerusalem is not part of the Palestinian territories, only East Jerusalem is. If there is a Palestinian flag or CoA, it's the flag/CoA of East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so if the Palestinian flag or CoA is just for East Jerusalem, that would mean the Israeli flag and CoA is just for West Jerusalem, as East Jerusalem is not in Israel. We should change this in the article than clarify those flags are Israeli and look at adding the Palestinians symbols, with parentheses to state for Palestinian Jerusalem. Sepsis II (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Proclaimed capital

Just hoping this is a compromise that satisfies both sides. Alertboatbanking (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but it has already been shown not to do so. Please familiarize yourself with the lengthy and intensive discussions above on this Talk page (which also extend into the archives). The existing wording itself is the result of a compromise. There has been no consensus for further changes in the wording. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What was the compromise? When did it occur? How have you been measuring consensus?     ←   ZScarpia   17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A link to a conversation on Hertz1888's talkpage where he defends the current wording. Paraphrasing, the wording is as it is because, despite opposing viewpoints, a group of editors believes that, factually, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Ignoring what other laws and principles may apply and what other parties may say, as proclaimed by the Israeli government, countries, including Israel, have the right to declare any place they want as their capital. A particular dictionary definition definitively prescribes how the term "capital city" is used. The implication is, somehow, that the "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" neutrality rule has not been breached or that it does not apply.     ←   ZScarpia   17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing leaves much to be desired as an accurate representation of what was actually said in the discussion cited. Rather than get into particulars here, however, I prefer to defer further discussion to the pending mediation, with one exception. You asked (above), about the compromise and when it occurred, and in the Sept. 2011 discussion you stated, "The current wording isn't the result of agreement, but of stonewalling." A compromise was indeed struck, here, that apparently was a further compromise on an earlier compromise. The resulting wording, agreed upon in Oct. 2010, has been in the lead ever since, more than two years' time. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

From that discussion, let me quote Dailycare:

This compromise would align the text with what we agreed on Israel after a long discussion and I'd be OK with that. It's not perfect, but much better than the current wording. For my part, I'd be OK with removing the tag and can promise to not raise the issue again or push another version for a long time if it's adopted.

I'm increasingly under the impression that there is no point of mediation, considering Dailycare's obvious inability to keep a promise or shortsighted definition of "a long time". And that's just assuming this is the first time he's raised the issue since then, which I doubt is even true. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I made this exact same point weeks ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement under discussion is the one which asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. However, the conversation here pointed to by Hertz1888, and quoted from by Tariqabjotu, offers no compromise on the wording of the part of the first sentence where that statement is made. True? As to whether mediation will be worthwhile or not, that'll depend on whether the editors who have been pushing the Israeli point of view as a fact decide to desist, I think.     ←   ZScarpia   23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The compromise involved diluting the impact of the first part by adding the second part, and rejecting modification of the first part (specifically by the addition of "proclaimed"). The wording of the first part had stood for three years previously, and two more to date makes five. And yet, here we are again. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Diluting the impact! The article is asserting that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, isn't it? Tell me, is that assertion agreed on, or disputed, by sources?     ←   ZScarpia   00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What did I just say? "I prefer to defer further discussion to the pending mediation". Hertz1888 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it is not a foregone conclusion that the mediation request will be accepted. There are understandable reasons that it may not be, namely that certain people have not agreed to participate. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A Yes, No or Maybe is too much to ask for?     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no point repeating the "Is it supported by the sources?" question. I know you say no, and you know I say yes. We've been through that. The question was about the compromise, and that has been answered. Presumably you were not part of that discussion, so you aren't really under any obligation to agree with what came out of it. However, there comes a point where those who were involved, and those who acceded to its results (and that includes Dailycare), have an obligation to defend it, even if that's not ideally what they want. There's no point in agreeing to a compromise if they'll continue to push for more as soon as the next Tom, Dick, or Jane comes in questioning it. -- tariqabjotu 00:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

But, the question being asked is, "Do sources dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," not, "Do sources say that Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" Looks to me as though Dailycare said that "the compromise" was a step in the right direction, not that it was an acceptable overall solution.     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, in that case I know you say yes, and you know I say no. The positions of everyone who has commented on this matter are well-known. I don't know why you keep asking the same thing over and over. And, no, please do not respond by telling me I'm wrong. I know you think I'm wrong, and you should know that I think you are as well. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not even close to true. here is the version of the article with the tag included. Notice where it is? After the discussion linked to above, conveniently titled "Compromise on the first sentence" (emphasis mine), the first sentence was amended. That was the consensus Dailycare ostensibly agreed to. Pretending that doesn't include the whole first sentence is so dishonest I'm surprised even you would do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Some compromise! That was magnanimous. I had forgotten, I admit, that the first sentence, prior to 2010, didn't even mention the international community's view. However, the wording added after "the compromise" made no difference to whether or not the article was asserting that Jerusalem is, no matter what, Israel's capital, which is the point under discussion, isn't it? I don't think that Dailycare is under any obligation to attempt to block further changes to what he regarded as a partial solution.     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Total nonsense. He explicitly agreed to the compromise twice -- once here and once on the Israel article. Yes, he said he didn't think it was perfect -- but that's the point of a compromise. Notice that there were some (e.g. NMMNG) who said they preferred the previous wording, without the clause about international recognition. But, do you see NMMNG suggesting we remove it, two years later? No, because he agreed to the compromise and he now has an obligation to defend it over his ideal solution. If you think it's okay to come back a couple years later and ask for more, you don't know what a compromise is. If Dailycare didn't think the wording was acceptable (and I said acceptable, not perfect or ideal), he shouldn't have said so back in 2010. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hertz188:

Well, users can decide for themselves how accurately I've paraphrased, can't they? The central issue is that you've avoided facing the fact that on Wikipedia you cannot state as facts things which are seriously disputed such as whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. You said: "To you it's an opinion and a viewpoint, to others a fact." As pointed out, it doesn't matter an iota's dangleberries what editors think about Jerusalem's status. What matters is that it is disputed in sources. Therefore, stating as a fact in Wikipedia that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is pushing the Israeli point of view as a fact.

In a conversation about whether the article should state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, if you point to a conversation where you say a compromise was made, the conversation should actually discuss the wording of the bit of the article which currently asserts that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

Editors can judge for themselves whether stonewalling was employed by looking at conversations such as the one which started round about Archive 13, continued through Archive 14 and came to an inconclusive halt in Archive 15 (1, 2).

Apart from very quickly performed reverts, the article has been pushing the Israeli view for over nine years now. I think that if the editors responsible don't quickly mend their ways, they're due for a spell in the Wikipedia naughty spot.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting really tired of these threats. The complete inability of some in favor of a change to see anything valid in their opponents' arguments is undeniably aggravating, and -- again -- I have no intention of entering any sort of mediation with someone who holds such positions. So if you plan to bring with you the stance that your opponents should be sanctioned rather than heard, please let that be known sooner rather than later. Agreement to mediation is an agreement to mediate in good faith, and I'm seeing concrete evidence that you and Dailycare did not understand that when you signed on to participate. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the threats. He makes them so often while never actually following through that it has become a running joke around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So you say. And, as pointed out before, you seem to have a habit of making comments about other editors which you can't or won't justify. So, where are all these "threats" which I've failed to follow through? Coming from someone who I think is more given to making threats which are actually threats than me, your comment is pretty cheeky. As you'd expect, I'm not really going to get even a tiny bit het up over the idea that editors who I regard as point-of-view-pushing scumsters are having a snigger at my expense. If anyone whose opinion I respect tells me that I'm making an arse of myself, though, I'll make a reformed character out of myself.     ←   ZScarpia   13:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For editors so dedicated to dictionary definitions, you and NoMoreMrNiceGuy seem to take a pretty broad interpretation of what a threat is. As far as inabilities to see merits in opponents' arguments go, perhaps the fault doesn't lie on the side you think it does? The situation here is very simple. The article can assert statements about points of view, when something is disputed, or statements of simple fact, when something is not disputed. Editors are refusing here to either present Jerusalem's status in terms of points of view or in terms of undisputed fact, such as that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/declared capital of Israel or the capital under Israeli law. Despite talk of compromises having been made, that does seem fairly uncompromising.

My agreeing to go to mediation, is an indication that I accept that editors are given another chance to explain their position. However, pending what comes out of mediation, I do think that heavy-duty POV-pushing has been going on here for years and that, rather than let it carry on indefinitely, the behaviour of the editors responsible should be brought up at one of the appropriate venues. I do hope that editors participate in mediation in good faith.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're the one who's unaware of what a threat is. The mediation is likely not going to be accepted, so make your move rather than repeating these allegations of misconduct in the hope that your opponents will change their opinions. If you think the actions of anyone here are unacceptable or if you think some of your opponents are "point-of-view-pushing scumsters", bring it up at that "appropriate venue". That "appropriate venue" is not this talk page, and unless you proceed to do anything other than obliquely refer to misconduct in response to simple statements, your threats are just that -- threats. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, what I wrote in 2010 was that I found the new wording better than the previous one, and agreed to not challenge the compromise wording for a long time even though it's obviously still not compliant with WP:NPOV. Two years is a long time, and this whole time the hatikvah brigade has had the wording in the article, the wording which is, again, against a core principle of Wikipedia. I referred you to WP:AGF only very recently but it seems that yet again you're having difficulty maintaining appropriate behaviour. You should try harder or find another hobby. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, I didn't ask for your defense or opinion, as I see no value in them. Speak to someone who cares. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bring it up at the "appropriate venue" already. We can do that and the mediation at the same time. Put up or shut up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the mediation rules. I think they say that, mediation cannot proceed alongside arbitration. But, in any case, the mediation request has just been rejected.     ←   ZScarpia  

Jerusalem is the self-declared capital of Israel, unrecognized by the rest of the world and the UN

It is important, as a statement of fact, to mention in the first sentence of this article that "Jerusalem is the self-declared capital of Israel". By stating that it is the "capital of Israel" the article is not making a factual statement as capitals, like states, need to be recognized in order for them to be so. The annexation of Jerusalem by Israel is illegal under international law and its self-declaration that it is the capital remains unrecognized globally and in the United Nations. The annexation was declared null and void by UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476 and UNSC res 478. More than thirty years after the self-declared annexation, almost all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv in recognition of this fact.

Suggest to reword the first sentence to make it an objective statement of fact and explicitly state that it is the "self-declared capital of Israel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.42.128 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You may want to add your declarative theories to the Capitals article.--Mor2 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is not any more an entity

One of the argument put forward not to treat Israel and Palestine the same way regarding their chosen capital Jerusalem was that Israel was a state whereas Palestine was an entity.

Palestine has been recognised officialy has a State on 29 November and its chosen capital is Jerusalem. We could even say that the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is recognized by more States in the world than the choice of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As a consequence, there is no more reason to treat both information totally the same way per wp:npov :

Jerusalem has been chosen as capital both by Israel and Palestine. Nevertheless, Israel's choice is not recognized by the international community and Palestine has no adminstrative control on the city. The final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the State of Palestine claim East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem, as it's capital? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, both parties say Jerusalem is their capital in their Basic Law. Article 3 of Palestinian Basic Law says "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine." (see 2003 Amended Basic Law) And that fact is absent from the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw this in the recent UN vote[25], "the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". It is highly bias to continue to only state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital while disregarding that Palestine also states its capital to be Jerusalem, especially when practically no nations regard it as Israel's capital or even regard the city to even be in Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop the presses. Did the UN just explicitly state, in a resolution supported by the vast majority of countries, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (and Palestine)? This really supports what a lot of the supporters of the current wording have said all along -- that the non-recognition does not change the understanding that Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel. At the same time though, I'm still uncomfortable stating that Jerusalem is the capital of both equally alongside each other, when you consider that Palestine has no government buildings in the city. Pluto's wording gets close to an accurate description about the issue, but something seems off about it. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's that in the sentence "the final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states" the words "by no-one" were missed out. Formerip (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu. No they stated that a it Should become the capital for both Israel and Palestine at some point in the future: "...emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". That is not even close to recognizing it as a capital for either country. PerDaniel (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The words "should become" are not in the portion you quoted, a portion I read earlier. Your interpretation is conceivably correct, but not necessarily so. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to "translate" the diplomatic language used in the document to standard english. I am not able to see any other way to interpret: "Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,". If you think that it means something else, please share it. PerDaniel (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, it's kind of a strange wording. It doesn't say "the status of Jerusalem is the capital of two States", it says "emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". I read that as "a negotiated two-state capital is the optimal resolution", as in "it isn't the capital of either now, but hopefully will be someday if the parties can agree". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel"...I guess actually doesn't mean a lot here. I did suggest a few weeks/months ago saying that it functions as Israel's capital but that was rejected. I forget the details.Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggested wording above. It makes an equivalence between the country that actually controls the territory and runs its government from there, with someone, who, well, doesn't do any of those things. One is only a proclamation and should not get the same weight.

What's going on with the mediation, btw? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't understand what you say.

In any case, the equivalence is total. Both Israel and Palestine are states, both have been recognised as such by UNO and by a great majority of states. Both have a capital. It is Jerusalem. For both this choice is discussable. For Israel because nobody in the world recognises this (which is not anecdotical). For Palestine because they don't have contorl of the country (which is not anecodtical). Numerous States and UNO explained their recultance to support more openly one or the other claim because all the conflictual issues between Israel and Palestine must be solved throught negociations. All this is clear and I don't see which of the affirmation here above is false (even if nuance is always welcome).

I don't think there is the need of any mediation. There is no conflict. More, since Palestine is now a State and no more an entity, most of the arguments of the opponents of the perfect parallelism have been thrown away.

Some modifications or rephrasing can be done but blocking the movement is not acceptable.

What is to be modified to improve the proposal ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes an equivalence between the country that actually controls the territory and runs its government from there, with someone, who, well, doesn't do any of those things.

It's simple. One clan had land, and it was indwelt by their members. Another took it after clan warfare broke out, and exercised full control over it, while both sides made a claim to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn't decided anything for donkey's ages, but the respective petitions were given due and equal weight in the appeal process because both claims to title in law, by use or prior occupation, cannot be prejudiced before a final determination is made. It would be sheer nonsense in a court of law to allow the victorious clan to present itself as owning the land, and the dispossessed clan as only 'claiming' to own the land.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a court. Please stop blogging. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

? You state your opinions here, but if I reply, it is blogging? What's your problem?Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. One party has de facto sovereignty over the city and runs its government from there. The other has only a proclamation. The two are not equivalent. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Make an argument, not a personal deduction. And ps. to make an analogy from law, is not to argue a law case in court. Try to focus on the technical issue of NPOV and avoid personal dislikes.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG : like Germany from 1945 to 1949. It didn't prevent at the time Germany to be a State.

The last argument is to refer to the 'de facto' occupation and control of Jerusalem but this 'de facto' occupation is illegal and the occupation and annexation of Jerusalem by Israel have been recognised as illegal. It is totally wp:undue weight for an encyclopaedia to give weight to a point of view that is consiered as illegal and in parallel denying the other one. Parallelism is total and the point of view of the international community is now that the final status will result of peace discussions between parties. My proposal is perfectly neutral and in total accordance will all wikipedia principles. The only point to discuss is on potential nuances in order to improve this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't address the issue of whether it's a state or not (but Germany was a state after WWII because it was a state before WWII. The situation here is not the same). The issue I was talking about is that they don't control it or run their government from there. It's their capital in proclamation only. It is Israel's capital, assuming we want to use the normal definition of "capital".

I didn't know wikipedia considers whether something is legal when deciding how much weight it should get. Could you give a link to the relevant policy/guideline? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you write above that "One party has de facto sovereignty over the city and runs its government from there". If this is your argument, are you OK with saying Israel's government operates from Jerusalem, instead of the current wording? Along the lines we've discussed above, "using a definition" inherently amounts to violating WP:SYN: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C". In this case A would be "Israel's government is in Jerusalem", B would be "The location of a government is a capital" and C would be "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". Of course, we have several examples of cities that are seats of government but not capitals, so B isn't a comprehensive definition to begin with. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the usual dishonest argumentation. You forgot to announce again that you have consensus because everyone who disagrees with you is not making valid arguments. I'm not interested in discussing this issue with you outside of mediation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi NMMNG,

Where is the wikipedia policy that explains that a State must control a territory to establish its capital there ? Because that is your only point. I add that when it was pointed out that East-Jerusalem was not in Israel and that nobody recognized it as a capital, it was argued that a State is the only one to decide where it establishes its capital.

You ask me what is the policy considering whether something is legal when deciding how much weight it should get. It is wp:npov. Because all countries of the world have laws and majority of people are expected to follow them. When a point of view is majoritary, per wp:due weight, we consider this one in wikipedia.

Once more, how can we improve what is proposed ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How can the current proposal be improved? Well.. "Jerusalem has been chosen as capital both by Israel and Palestine." is totally unacceptable, giving clear undue weight to a non sovereign state that does not control the territory and wants the city as its future capital, compared with a sovereign state in full control of the city and which has it already acting as its dejure and defacto capital. "Nevertheless, Israel's choice is not recognized by the international community and Palestine has no adminstrative control on the city. - Thats totally unacceptable because says Israels choice is not recognised but does not say the same about Palestinians.. this blatantly plays perfectly into the viewpoint that Jerusalem is Palestines capital but Palestinians dont control it. That is TOTALLY biased and unacceptable. " The final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states." - WP:CRYSTALBALL much? And a general point about the whole proposal, it is absolutely terrible for what would be in such a prominent position of a city article. Wikipedia would be a joke if every article with some element of dispute started with such weasel sentences. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, if you don't explain yourself properly then the editors here have every right to ignore your posts. You can't keep filibustering this forever with cryptic comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this threads original proposal and all attempts to muddy the waters of this article. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. until those demanding change produce evidence that international recognition is required for it to be called its capital, there is no case for a change to the wording. We give a balanced point of view by explaining it is not internationally recognised. We are not going to change this article to Jerusalem might be israels capital. If a change is made, everything else on this article needs changing too. You cannot pretend this article is not about Israels capital without also removing other elements that reflect Jerusalem is a city in Israel.. such as the city flag, emblem and mayor. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposal that is made still state that Jesuralem is Israel's capital. It remind that Jerusalem is also Palestine's capital and the rationale for this is given.

So, "I strongly oppose to your strong oppostion".

Unless you or NMMNG start a fair discussion about how to improve the proposal, I will introduce this and after you revert me, I will go to the ArbCom because the refusal to work a constructive way is obvious.

By the way, if you want that we write that "Jesuralem is the capital of Israel and Palestine" instead of "have been chosen", it is ok for me and I think for most people. In fact, it is exactly the same for those who consider the "choice" is predominant on the international recognition of the choice. It would be wp:npov to keep "choice" for those who consider that the "choice" is not predominant on the internationl recognitation. But never mind. It will be less pov'ed.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you plan to take unilateral action by trying to introduce this wording that lacks consensus, go ahead. it will be reverted. This proposed wording is one of the worst that has been discussed in the past couple of months and i have given very specific reasons why it is inappropriate. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also you seem to imply that to be constructive we must agree with your proposed wording or suggest alterations to it. Well im sorry but i dont agree with any of your proposed wording and i support the current version. To suggest that it is unacceptable to support the articles very long standing wording would if right have massive implications on wikipedia. It is simply not the case though. Some support change, others oppose change. It is for those who want change to justify a change and propose wording that gets consensus (as the current wording had some time ago when it was agreed). BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, I'm going to repeat what I said to ZScarpia: Don't make threats. If you want to bring this matter to ArbCom, bring this matter to ArbCom. Issuing ultimatums and proposing conditions, especially ones that you know will be met, that will lead to a request for arbitration accomplish nothing toward resolving this issue and instead raise the temperature.

Moving on, I'm not entirely sure your proposal does say it is the capital of Israel. It's still hedging. And, more importantly, it seems to, for someone without background information, present the two claims to Jerusalem's status as capital as nearly equal. While it rightly states that Israel's claim is not universally recognized and Palestine has no control over the city, it omits two points. First, it doesn't say that Palestine's claim does not have universal recognition either. The final status of Jerusalem is subject to negotiations, and the current status does not fit the concept of a capital for Palestine beyond a simple desire. One way you could fix this is by simply stating that both capital statuses see limited recognition and that their final statuses are subject to negotiations. Second, it omits the point that Palestine has no governmental institutions in the city. By using the phrase "chosen as capital" (or "is capital", as you've proposed as an alternative) for both Israel's claim and Palestine's claim without highlighting this second point, you give the misleading impression that their claims have similar manifestations. We know that's not the case. These two points, especially the latter, are particularly important. Your wording seems like a step in the right direction for a more detailed discussion, but that's already done in the appropriate section in the body anyway.

But I don't know how much can and should be said in the lead. I think some reordering could be done in the first paragraph; unlike with many other capital cities, when people think of Jerusalem, its status as capital of Israel is not the first thing they think of. The first sentence could, at the very least, be more interesting. Nevertheless, as I've said many times before, I think the current wording, regardless of where it's placed in the lead, is fine for a brief summary of this capital issue:

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.
• Palestinians claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, but they have no governmental institutions in the city.

These are all statements supported by sources. The desires to dilute the first point with the word "disputed" or "proclaimed" are just oversimplified introductions of the second point, and do nothing to educate the reader about the situation. Calling Jerusalem a "disputed capital" or "proclaimed capital" leaves the wording open to interpretation (by design, I'm sure), in an unnecessary state given we can just describe what the dispute is -- something that's already done by noting that the capital status is not recognized and providing a lengthy footnote with even more detail. At the same time, if we take the stance that it is not correct or accurate to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, we leave ourselves with some important questions. Namely, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is? Is it Tel Aviv? Few or no one in these threads have suggested that -- it's really indefensible -- so that leads us to the question, can a state be without a capital? I believe the answer is no. If it has a government, it has at least one capital. But, if the issue here is with the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" -- and we all know it is -- you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe -- sorry, what the sources say -- Israel's actual capital is, or whether it has one at all. -- tariqabjotu 10:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat the three points, and offer a lead sentence.

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.
• Palestinians claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, but they have no governmental institutions in the city.

I.e.

Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as the capital of their respective states. The former, unlike the latter, has its seat of government there, but its status as Israel's capital is widely challenged.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be equivalent in meaning, but it's unnecessary evasion. I'm speaking mostly about my first point. I can't imagine any other capital city article including the sentence "X claims Y as its capital, and its primary governmental institutions are in the city". That would just be written as "X is the capital of Y". -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand why we need to look at other capital city article[s]. What other state has declared its capital to be outside of its territory? These comparisons all fail because the circumstances are not sufficiently similar. nableezy - 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sufficiently similar... according to you. I doubt anyone outside of this conflict would hear that a country has proclaimed a city as its capital and placed all of its major governmental institutions there, and then, when asked if that city is the country's capital, ask if that country is legally governing the city according to international law before answering. Because that point is totally irrelevant. -- tariqabjotu 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anybody unfamiliar with the conflict would think to ask what country this supposed capital city is located in, because nobody unfamiliar with the conflict would think that a country would, or could, declare a capital in a place outside of its territory. And, to begin the parrot act, the point is totally irrelevant... according to you. Is there another country on the planet that has declared its capital to be outside of its territory? Because if so then you may have a point in your opening rejoinder. If not, well, then it was just an example of why there isnt a point in "discussing" this. nableezy - 20:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, duly noted. You don't have to participate then, just as you felt disinclined to participate in mediation due to your supposed trivial hand in this dispute. So, don't. But I have explained why I think the comparison is apt, and I will continue to use it, without your input at every corner. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My supposed trivial hand in this dispute??? My hand in this dispute has been raising that the arguments in favor of your preferred wording are based on asinine comparisons that have no basis in the sources. I may well continue to do that. I recognize there isnt a point to doing so, as this article is controlled by a group of people with either the inability or the disinclination to engage in a reasoned and rational discussion. To that point, I have duly noted that you have neglected to answer the question posed to you, that being is there another country on the planet that has declared its capital to be outside of its territory. I understand why you dont want to answer the question, namely because it makes a mockery of the claim that the comparison is apt. nableezy - 21:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "if we take the stance that it is not correct or accurate to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, we leave ourselves with some important questions. Namely, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is?", I disagree. That isn't relevant at all. Also "you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe -- sorry, what the sources say -- Israel's actual capital is, or whether it has one at all." No, no one has to do that, nor should they. If anyone is stupid enough to do that, they probably need to be article banned or at least have a nap. No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, so the question simply doesn't arise. The sources say all sorts of things ranging from statements of fact to statements that use words like claim, proclaimed, declared etc and the objective is to reflect them. If intelligent people are genuinely incapable of finding some compromise that reflects the diversity present in the sources then we may as well change it to something like "Just like many other undisputed facts, God is Great, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, God created the Earth in six days, Jesus Saves, and such like, it is a simple matter of fact that the city of Jerusalem, complete and united, including parts that are across the Green Line, is the capital of Israel, and only Israel, although it is not internationally recognized as such." Call me cynical but this seems about the same as the current wording to me, only much clearer. If we are going to present dogma that people value highly and accept as fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice despite the mess in the sources then we might as well be honest and really go for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? Oh really? Then what's wrong with saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that statement but for the fact that they believe there are some sources or some people or whatever who believe it isn't. This has been explicitly stated by some opponents to the current wording. For example, Zscarpia stated "The view of what we term for convenience the international community is that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" (13:33, October 29). Right. So what do they believe it is, if that's the case? Do they believe Israel has no capital? The issue is and always has been the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". How much is said in an accompanying clause or in the following sentences has always been negotiable, but it has rarely been the focus of the discussion because there has been an implied or expressly stated concern that the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not necessarily correct and, by extension, the sentence "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not necessarily incorrect, at least according to some sources. Please don't play semantics. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed things like saying, instead of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", e.g. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law", "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government" or "Israel's government is based in Jerusalem". These are amply sourced in reliable sources. I vaguely recall that some editors have used "Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital" as a kind of strawman to argue against, but no-one has AFAIK suggested using that language in the article. Saying it is the capital, or that it isn't, aren't the only options. --Dailycare (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I probably didn't make myself clear in my earlier response to you, if you noticed that, so let me say it in a simpler fashion: you have proven your input to be of no value, and so I have no interest in it. If you perceive me as directing any questions toward you or soliciting your opinion or acknowledging a comment of yours, you are wrong. I'm just not interested, and will make zero effort to respond to your comments or positions, here or anywhere else, regardless of their nature, from now on. Consider it a self-imposed interaction ban, and I'd prefer if you'd respect it. -- tariqabjotu 00:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully support the current wording and I do not see any reasonable argument beyond POV to change the lead. Those who refused mediation should in my opinion avoid this discussion.--Tritomex (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? Oh really? Then what's wrong with saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"?

Plainly, there's a difference between what I would myself say and what I think WP should say. Personally, I happen to think that Roger Moore was the best James Bond and that Chomskyan linguistic theory is fundamentally mistaken. But I appreciate that reasonable people have different views on these questions, so I don't force mine on the leads of the relevant articles in Wikipedia's voice.

I think Dailycare's point is that only one side of the debate is trying to impose their view on the article - the other is just trying to present the issue as one that not everyone agrees about.

That's the beginning and end of the whole thing, really. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I never said there has been an explicit suggestion to include the phrase "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" in the article. That would be absurd, obviously, less so because of its factual inaccuracy, but because of its uselessness. I'm also against "Sydney is not the capital of Australia" being in the lead of Sydney. But the objection to the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" on the basis that there are "different views" implies that there are sources that believe it is not the capital of Israel. Zscarpia plainly stated that he believes "the international community" believes it's not the capital of Israel. At least he was clear. But it is silly to suggest there are "different views" on the issue and state that no one believes Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. One can believe it is or it isn't. There's no in between. This goes back to why simply stating there is limited or no international recognition (which does not necessitate the belief that Jerusalem is not actually the capital) is the most accurate way to describe the issue. If we're all in agreement -- as some of you seem to conveniently suggest now -- that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not supported by any sources, what exactly is the problem here? -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not complex. If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it is also the capital of Palestine given the parallelism is perfect. And if Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel it is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine. Both are recognized States by many other States. Both have been recognized the status of State by the UNGA. Both chose to establish their capital there. One sees this choice rejected by the entire world and one chose a city it doesn't control. Again : parallelism is total. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The parallelism is far from perfect. It is the de facto capital of one side, which runs most of its government from there, while the other side doesn't even have a token government presence there since they don't control any of it. The Palestinians can't use it as a capital because they don't control it. All they can do is say that it is their capital. That's not even close to being parallel with the Israeli situation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This was answered.

Why would a 'de facto' occupation be more relevant than an international recognition ?

You didn't answer to main point of only block the process. Regarding what you say and what is the current version, you are a pov-pusher. I will remind this as an a-priori for all future interactions with you. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Those are also points I made several times in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the foolishness involved in going from Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not supported by any sources to arguing that it therefore follows that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" can be stated as a fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Regarding "One can believe it is or it isn't. There's no in between.", setting aside the irrelevance of "belief", that is an either-or fallacy that is contradicted by the actual data in the sources that editors are required by policy to deal with in a way that complies NPOV. The simple fact that many reliable sources, the data we are required to use for content decisions, present something as a claim rather than a fact is enough to render all arguments that it is okay for us to present it as a fact null and void. This is obvious and no amount of arguing will change the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Once more this discussion is blocked. There are sources that state Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. It was claimed it could not be placed in parallel because Palestine was not a State (despite not from reliable sources) Now it is a State. So there is no reason to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. So, there is no wp:rs sources to state the contrary.
Another option is to keep the current wording but just after this add next to the current wording : "Jerusalem is also the capital of Palestine whereas the Palestinians do not control the city."
The discussion proves to be impossible. I personnally consider it is not a content issue but a behaviour issue. What is next step to solve this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are an experienced Wikipedia editor. You know the tools at your disposal. You are free to use them if you see them as appropriate, but again please don't make threats, even ones disguised as rhetorical questions. Given the increasing number of editors who seem unwilling to treat this as a content dispute, I'm not going to continue commenting on the substance of the current wording (or alternative wordings). This thread, like most others before, is clearly going nowhere anyway, and I refuse to allow my reasonable disagreement to be twisted into "blocking" or "pushing the Israeli view" or "refusing to work in a constructive way". Good luck. -- tariqabjotu 08:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I will simultaneously make a proposal and withdraw my support for it given the atmosphere. -- tariqabjotu 09:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well the proposal is a good improvement on the proposals here which are awful, but i cant support such a change. I believe it is totally reasonable to state in the first sentence Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but not internationally recognised. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what we currently have, of course. This is more about me being on the record, addressing some of the issues I felt the other proposals had. But I'm not currently supporting it; at this stage, there is no point. -- tariqabjotu 12:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but u have to propose something that builds consensus, the fact those demanding that cant because some of the proposals have been so outrageously biased is not the fault of those opposed to change. You say everything has changed.. no everything has not changed. In the eyes of the UN it may be a non member observer state, but it is not a sovereign state and it is not in control of the territory. By the way does the UN recognise Jerusalem as the capital of this "new state"? As for you violation of WP:AGF, suggesting we are somehow misbehaving because we support current wording and reject biased wording is offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are totally bad faith and you should be blocked from editing wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: "First, I'm going to repeat what I said to ZScarpia: Don't make threats." Exactly what are these "threats" you keep on claiming that I have made? To me, the first sentence here is what a threat looks like. It says, unless I do something, something unpleasant will be done to me. To me, the first sentence here is what a warning looks like. I suspect some editors may perceive it as containing a threat, though. As a point of principle, I try to avoid writing threats. That is, normally, I don't tell people that I will respond in certain ways unless they do something I want or refrain from doing something I don't want. I'm pretty sure that I didn't mean to convey threats or warnings in anything I have written on this page. If you've perceived threats in anything I have written here, perhaps those threats are products of your own imagination?     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think Pluto makes a valid point above. IMO, this seems a rather simple issue of presenting as a claim something described in sources as a claim. Or not describing an unrecognized claim as a neutral fact, which is a less ambitious but equally worthy goal. We discussed earlier how to proceed and decided above to have a go at mediation. Sadly the mediation wasn't accepted since a few of the 19 parties didn't agree to go along with it. Concerning speculating about bringing the case to AE or Arbcom, I think we should decide what to do and then do it, even if it is then AE/Arbcom. Maybe we could write to Jimbo Wales and ask him to make a ruling that would settle the question? At least, until the two-state or one-state solution finally fixes the real-life dispute. Should we choose instead to continue content discussion here, we might adopt some kind of more formal approach to suppress noise and promote signal. --Dailycare (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree and am happy to go along with whatever way forward has majority support amongst those who don't think the current wording is neutral (short of just throwing in the towel). By suggesting that it might be time to go to AE, I was flying a kite to start a discussion. At the end of the day, what is needed is for somebody or somebodies authoritative to make a judgement about consensus (that is, which arguments are most valid, not just a head count).     ←   ZScarpia   23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"I agree and am happy to go along with whatever way forward has majority support amongst those who don't think the current wording is neutral " - Your attempts to merely bypass the significant number of editors on this page who support the current wording is offensive and not the approach followed on wikipedia. You cannot simply dismiss the fact the current wording (Which was agreed by consensus and has been in the article for a long time) is supported by a lot of editors and we have given our reasons for supporting the current wording. Again.. it is for those who demand change to propose specific change. So far no proposal has in any way got the level of support required for the article to be altered. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that sentence was in reference to how to handle the alleged misconduct by those who support the current wording. ZScarpia is saying, at least how I read it, that he wants input from those who don't find the wording neutral as to how to proceed with addressing the misconduct he perceives, or at least trying to get the wording changed. Obviously, those who support the current wording will not have anything to say about that (although perhaps we have in saying their allegations are misguided). -- tariqabjotu 22:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My imagination? No, your words. I read your words and respond to them, as written, not as you choose to retroactively describe them. Sorry. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, exactly what are these "threats" you keep on claiming that I have made?     ←   ZScarpia   13:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you haven´t volunteered an explanation, don´t repeat your slur.     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat the obvious to someone who refuses to hear. Multiple people have pointed out your threats, but you reduce these remarks to "slurs". No explanation I could give would satisfy someone who has an answer for anything, so I won't even try. -- tariqabjotu 23:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's simple: I've given a definition of what anything that might be construed as a threat here is and pointed you to an example of a threat made by NoMoreMrNiceGuy. If you can't either point to a fault in my definition or explain how anything I've written conforms to it then keep your insulting personal comments to yourself. Note that the rules specify that you should be able to justify any personal remarks you make. No explanation you could give would satisfy me? Well, that doesn´t excuse you from trying, now, does it? Multiple people? Just because you and NoMoreMrNiceGuy choose to make accusations doesn´t make them true. Who here is refusing to listen? Perhaps it´s the one who has been, and is, pushing the Israeli point of view on the status of Jerusalem as a fact in the article despite what other editors have been writing for years.     ←   ZScarpia   18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Tariqabjotu presented the following two points:

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.

I'd say that the following present the situation more neutrally:

• Israelis claim that Jerusalem is the capital of their state. It has been annexed to Israel and declared its capital under Israeli law. The primary Israeli government institutions have been moved to the city.
• The international community does not view Jerusalem as either Israeli territory or as the capital of Israel. Israel's unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are viewed as illegal and of no standing. Legally, Jerusalem is seen as having the status of an international city.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia "The international community does not view Jerusalem as either Israeli territory or as the capital of Israel" this is a prime example of WP:OR. I have no knowledge that "international community" although such thing hardly exist as defined entity, dispute that West Jerusalem is part of internationally recognized State of Israel. --Tritomex (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you don't believe something is the case because you have no knowledge of it. Can you provide a source that says the international community recognize West Jerusalem as part of the State of Israel ? I don't think that is the case, at least in terms of sovereignty. This, for example, is what Ruth Lapidoth says in Jerusalem: A City and Its Future ISBN 978-0815629139, "Most foreign nations have not adopted a clear-cut policy on the status of west Jerusalem...Foreign states were not prepared to recognize the legality of Jordanian or Israeli rule over zones of Jerusalem under the latters' control. One manifestation of this attitude has been that foreign consuls stationed in the city have refused to apply to Jordan or Israel for permission to carry out their functions in the city."(p.72). And also, "To date, foreign states have not recognized any sovereignty over Jerusalem, but they have acquiesced in de facto Israeli control over west Jerusalem, while claiming that east Jerusalem is occupied territory" (p.89). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an Information Clearing House article which gives a convenient summary of UN resolutions concerning Jerusalem. You can see that the resolutions tend to refer to the whole of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem. For example, Resolution 252 "declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem 'invalid' and called upon Israel 'to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.' "     ←   ZScarpia   00:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I provide a source that says the international community recognize West Jerusalem as part of the State of Israel?-I can provide hundreds of sources that Israel is intentionally recognized state within 1967 borders and West Jerusalem is within 1967 borders of the State of israel. Even so I can provide numerous reliable sources which simply states that Jerusalem is capital of Israel, without mentioning the international dispute.

Responding to the unsigned comment immediately above, it's true there are sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. These sources represent Israel's side of the argument and don't change in any way how we should write this article. In detail, they don't change the fact that the issue of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital is a significant controversy, as we've established from reliable, international, sources, and should (per WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy) be described as such, without taking sides. The same applies to sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital, or that Tel Aviv is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Sources you don't agree with "don't change in any way how we should write this article"? Funny how that works. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources that say Jerusalem is the capital, like those that say Jerusalem isn't the capital, or that Tel Aviv is the capital, don't change the fact that the issue of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital is a significant controversy, as we've established from reliable, international, sources, and should (per WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy) be described as such, without taking sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, A little correction to the common misconception regarding the section title, which refers to the UN vote of 29 November. First in the UN 'Palestine' is the designation for PLO and second the vote only upgraded the PLO observer status in the UN(which it held from 1974). It gives PLO more power in the UN and symbolic but doesn't recognize the state, or more importantly give them sovereignty. Furthermore, recognition is an interesting thing, all the international recognition of Palestinian rights(including the last UN vote) is tied to PLO and its institutions, which leaves negotiations the only way to achieve a change in status, per the international agreements they signed.--Mor2 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"why make an edit when you know you don't have consensus for it?"

Curiosity mostly. Alertboatbanking (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was expecting the rapid response team to be well... more rapid. Ya'll need to organize yourselves better. Anyway its good to see people caring so much.Alertboatbanking (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity as a motive in this situation amounts to disruptive editing to make a point. It should be obvious any such changes are far from having a consensus here. Your changes have now been reverted twice. You have made your point; now please comply with WP:BRD, and note this article's WP:1RR restriction. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Should BRD be complied with outside of the lead? nableezy - 21:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't know: per WP:BRD, "BRD is not a policy", but can be a useful method, and "making bold edits is encouraged". Every edit to this long article does not require prior discussion, but once reverted, discussion is preferable to edit warring. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I was aware, thank you very much. However, here you are saying that another user should comply with WP:BRD, and right now you say but once reverted, discussion is preferable to edit warring. Your actions dont exactly coincide with your words, given that you reverted an edit that had already been reverted, and still havent said one word about it on this page. Silly me, discussion is preferred to edit-warring for others. I got it now, thanks. nableezy - 02:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? Surely you're not supporting Alertboatbanking's edit warring? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

nableezy is probably talking about this sequence of edits as an example of selective enforcement.

17:13, 11 December 2012‎ Hertz1888 (talk | contribs)‎(Reverted 1 edit by Pluto2012 (talk): Consensus applies primarily to lead section, not to entire article. (TW))

17:05, 11 December 2012‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎(Undid revision 527422598 by Tritomex (talk) - This article is the result of a long consensus. Any modification should go by the to talk page.)

22:13, 10 December 2012‎ Tritomex (talk | contribs)‎(→‎Division and reunification 1948–1967)

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner! nableezy - 07:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you choose to take the following (I wouldn't recommend it) please add a grain of salt:

To be honest hertz's statement is completely valid. I was making a point... actually not really a point I wanted to see what would happen, in fact I can totally live with the lede enforced by the pro-israeli (Hertz nomoremrniceguy Tritomex tariqabjotu# etc) hasbarists, I mean editors:

1. Because it is now and will always be a more accurate description of reality regardless of whether its a good thing for humanity or not.

2. Because it not only mentions the discord among silly humans on the ground, it also weakens trust in the wikipedia article right off the bat. There is a highly dedicated group of editors who politely and systematically manipulate wikipedia's rules and content to conform to an israeli nationalist world view, there is no way the fickle reasonable passersby and the fanatically pro-arab/islam, (usually terrible editors *shiver*) could bring any sort of balance against such a determined force. I am not the first nor the last to state this.

The only avenue open is to draw attention to their efforts via prominent npov tags which thankfully though they wish they dare not remove. attempting to bring balance to controversial issues is hard enough but against such a group it is impossible which is kind of poetic as it is a reflection of the real world situation.

anyway for the reasonable playing at home I hope you keep watching and keep those npov tags there till these silly people forget their silly hatreds. FYI I'm an atheist scientist living in Australia who abhors all religions and nations and is very disappointed in homo-sapiens generally and should stop wasting time here.

1. I don't know if tariqabjotu is a pro-Israeli nationalist, he probably isn't... though on the other hand why would someone whose original name was JO TUrner suddenly change his name to tariqabJOTU profess devotion to islam, focus on islamic articles get elected administrator then change again and spend so much time here arguing over such a little thing as how much of a capital Jerusalem is to whom and react in this way:

QUOTE

And who "deserve" to participate? Those who agree with you? PerDaniel (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

People who aren't going to respond to simple statements by being an ass, like you just did. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

UNQUOTE

I'm sure he wouldn't have used language like that when he was trying to get administratorship:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tariqabjotu_2

The reasons for his mysterious behaviour is probably far less interesting and far more geeky than a hired mosad agent trying to infiltrate wikipedia! :D

Alertboatbanking (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Making points, Ad hominem reasoning, personal attacks etc aren't you the life of the party.--Mor2 (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - status of Jerusalem

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.
• NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
• Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Partial explanation of editing from a neutral point of view:

• "Avoid stating opinions as facts."
• "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
• "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."

I'd say that:

• The status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not universally accepted, which is related to the non-acceptance of Jerusalem as Israeli territory.
• Reliable sources state that that status is not universally accepted and explain why.
• It's probable that the non-acceptance is the majority view.
• Some editors here, in some cases for years, have, contrary to the neutrality rule, been arguing that one point of view, the Israeli one, is a fact rather than a point of view.
• The job of editors is to fairly represent what the reliable sources say, not to argue that one point of view is correct by advancing arguments based on dictionary definitions or carrying out votes on who thinks that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel etc.
• Not only does the first sentence of the Lead breach the neutrality rule, it doesn't even properly summarise the body of the article.
• It has already been explained to the editors breaching the neutrality rule that they are breaching it (in some cases repeatedly over a period of years).
• The editors who have been breaching the neutrality rule will probably go on quite happily breaching it.

Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   18:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the AE process is capable of dealing with issues like this ? I'm not sure. I've filed a couple of AE cases specifically to test the process without success, in the sense that I didn't learn much from the results. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114#DionysosElysees was to test whether a violation of a guideline, WP:POINT, presented in the context of the active arbitration remedies statement "After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing." would result in sanctions. The editor was blocked for sockpuppetry before I could find out. The other test was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive87#Uruandimi to address "non-stop soapboxing and refusal to get the point on the talk page." The test did show, in my view, that AE is not well equipped to deal with situations that involve reading a substantial amount of evidence and making the effort to understand it in context. The editor stopped editing, so again, no result. I would have liked to have filed a lot more test cases to address specific issues but it's time consuming. Soapboxing and original research on talk pages in the topic area is an important one for me. I think there should be a very high cost to editors for doing that. At the moment the cost is paid by everyone else having to wade through it/address it. That is just wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking to myself that this page isn't busy enough and what it could use is a hollow threat and some discussion about the failings of AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to consider how to proceed with this issue as the discussion above has been closed with a finding of no consensus. While I don't agree with everything the closing editor said, I accept the finding and I'm grateful he dedicated the time and effort to look at the issue. The options I see now would be to consider this a content issue and pursue mediation, or to consider this an editorial conduct issue and involve ArbCom. --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

[EC] I think that it's clear that the current wording is not neutral and that it results from long-term point-of-view pushing, point-of-view pushing which it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that it is such. What the latter takes is showing how editors have insisted on presenting something that is not an established fact, that is, in Wikipedia terms, an opinion, something reliable sources don't agree on, as a fact. First you establish that there is disagreement about the status of Jerusalem, then you list the reasons that the various point-of-view pushers have given for why the Israeli point of view is the "correct" one. I think that could be achieved simply and clearly. As far as I can see, there are two, complementary, approaches that could be used to get out of the current situation: to have problem editors removed and, if necessary, to ask for adjudication. To simplify things at AE, I would suggest taking problem editors there individually, one at a time, rather than making a request against a group.     ←   ZScarpia   20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia, in all fairness (and, as you know, I support removing the word "capital" from the lead), you are misrepresenting the argument of the pro-capitalists. They contend that calling Jerusalem the capital is the neutral point of view - that, in the ordinary, everyday use of the word, Jerusalem is the capital. Moreover, they argue that removal of the word capital would be a capitulation to political opponents of Israel, thus rendering the lead non-neutral. So the argument is not between neutral and non-neutral positions but over what is neutral.

While I disagree with the pro-capitalists' position, I respect that they are arguing for what they see as neutrality, in an arena where neutrality is, I believe, a pipe dream. I also believe that with a little flexibility on both sides, the issue could be resolved. However, the rancor that has become injected into the discussion renders that impossible, at least for the time being. So I say, give it a rest. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many editors are arguing for what they see as neutrality, but that is the problem. Content is being defined by what editors can see rather than by the rules and the sources. We already know that time won't bring flexibility. There's nothing to lose by trying something different. I think the rancor is just a way of avoiding addressing the content issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Three questions: have opinions been stated as facts; have seriously contested assertions been stated as facts; has the relative prominence of opposing views been indicated? If the answer to any of those is No, then the article is not neutral. I think that the answer in each case is No and that the reason is that a number of editors have been pushing the Israeli view for a very long time. Imagine if the article was to state that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel but that Israel disagrees! Point of view pushing happens when editors are so wedded to a particular view that they cannot admit that it is only a view and that is what has happened here. The status of Jerusalem is disputed. It does not matter if some editors feel that their own point of view is a neutral one; if they fail to present their point of view as a point of view, they are point-of-view pushing. The wording of the first sentence has been argued over for years. We came close to a resolution a year or so ago, but it was blocked by someone with more hardline views. I think that some editors have already made it clear that they are not prepared to be flexible.     ←   ZScarpia   12:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll stick my neck out. I've no doubt 'Jerusalem' is the capital of Israel. I've no doubt 'Jerusalem' refers also to East Jerusalem which is not a part of Israel, has never been formally annexed, and is disputed occupied territory. In this sense, that East Jerusalem legally does not form part of the capital of Israel, since you cannot place your capital in land not belonging in international law to the state. The conceptual confusion is elementary. I understand why several editors in good faith find objections to the use of capital suspicious (the anti-Israel/antisemitic perspective used to interpret almost any attitude not consonant with Israel's self image) and counter-factual. I understand why many editors in good faith find the use of capital to denote an area that is belligerently occupied and not a legally constituted part of the state of Israel, dubious, a form of preemptive ideological annexation to tilt world opinion into accepting the status quo as in fact legal. The NPOV crisis lies precisely here, in the refusal to allow that, given the denotative ambiguity of 'Jerusalem' (in Israeli rhetoric 'unified': in international law 'divided') any sentence on the status of Jerusalem must be finessed in order to (a) provide a nuance which copes with this ambiguity or(b) eliminate the word 'capital'. The division is between those who face the problem of denotative ambiguity, and those who refuse to (often on what they regard as commonsense lexical grounds (that ignore the ambiguities).Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the individual views of editors about the status of Jerusalem are irrelevant. What matters is that the status of Jerusalem is disputed and therefore any statements about it should be presented as points of view. However, in relation to the status of Jerusalem, there are undisputed facts, such as that Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in Israeli law or that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel. I doubt that anyone has a problem with those as statements of fact. Something that is disputed, though, is what the article states, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The view of what we term for convenience the international community is that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Until agreement is reached, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country and that no country can unilaterally, as Israel claims to have done, change its status.     ←   ZScarpia   13:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So what people are proposing is not just to alter the introduction of this article to give undue weight to the Palestinian point of view, but a fundamental change to the entire way the article on Jerusalem is handled and indeed potentially dozens, or hundreds of other articles on wikipedia. This is an absolutely massive and fundamental change from many years of wikipedia handling this situation a certain way... yet the small minority of editors on this page demanding change cannot even get a majority to support a alteration to the introduction of this article? Incredible. The introduction IS balanced and i take offence at suggestions those of us who oppose alterations are some how supporting a biased article. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though not internationally recognised as such. That is a balanced statement of fact that is fully in line with wikipedia policies. If such a fundamental change is to take place it will need a major discussion involving editors from different pages and wikiprojects. This single articles talk page would not be appropriate for what some people seek to impose. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might be wrong ? Everyone should do that. Can you prove that you are right, that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is fully compliant with policy using sources that discuss Jerusalem ? That's the problem I have with the statement, a statement that is certainly consistent with lots of sources. I don't think I would be able to prove that it is an undisputed fact based on a large sample of sources that discuss Jerusalem. So for me at least, there is something fundamentally wrong, and that is enough for me to think that there must be better ways out there. It has nothing to do with the numbers of editors and their views, it's about the sources and policy. I think Nish summed up the problem quite nicely. Actually I think what is required to solve this is probably very little. I think that is clear when you look at ZScarpia's statement above - "in relation to the status of Jerusalem, there are undisputed facts, such as that Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in Israeli law or that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel." Those are undisputed facts that could be stated in the encyclopedia's voice in full compliance with policy. But people are so tied to stating as a fact that 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' for reasons I don't really understand, no matter what, no matter how disputed it is, no matter that much of this capital of Israel is across the green line, no matter that it's the most contentious city in the world and the most contentious issue in a decades long conflict that has cost thousands of lives. People just need to go back to the sources, and if it can't be done here, it needs to be done somewhere else, in arbitration for example because this issue is clearly not going to go away. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The status of Jerusalem is disputed. The neutrality policy says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Therefore, to insist that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is point-of-view pushing (as would insisting that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital).

Regarding consensus, a few points to bear in mind:

• "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
• "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."
• "Many of these [consensus-building] discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."
• "In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately."
• "Tendentious editing: The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."
• The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct noticeboard may be used "to critique a long-term failure of an editor to live up to community standards."

    ←   ZScarpia   21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia Stop please repeatedly threatening editors for voicing their opinion, which you don't like, with different administrative sanctions. This is against Wikipedia rules.--Tritomex (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In what way have I threatened anybody? Where have I complained about editors who were just voicing their opinions? Who have I threatened? Why should anyone who feels they haven't broken any rules feel threatened? Quote the rules that I, personally, have violated?     ←   ZScarpia   23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have said "Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia(NPOV)." and you continued latter "Until agreement is reached, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country" West Jerusalem is considered by international law to be part of the State of Israel. To declare entire Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem, as outside of any sovereign territory can be seen as POV.--Tritomex (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia(NPOV)." That is a statement of an opinion of mine. What threat does it contain? Note that it doesn't say that unless particular editors do, of stop doing, something, I will do such-and-such.

West Jerusalem is NOT considered by international law (or the international community) to be part of Israel, but nor, unlike East Jerusalem, is it considered to be occupied. It was exactly the same with East Jerusalem and Jordan up until 1967. The BBC rules for reporting on Israel and the Occupied Territory explain the situation.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the state of Israel's capital. Nobody has yet provided evidence of how a country requires international approval for its capital city, or that a capital is only somewhere that foreign countries have their embassies. You are being selective by simply focusing on "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", the introduction clearly states it is the capital of Israel but not internationally recognised as such. That is fact and it is balanced. It is the small number of editors on here that are demanding radical changes to this article and indeed dozens of other articles, who are making a big fuss when they cannot even get majority support for a change to this introduction. How long has this article said that Israel is the capital of Israel in the way you dislike? And why all of a sudden has this become such a problem it must be changed, when there has been numerous debates on this matter in the past? Just because some editors do not like the current wording, is no reason to justify radical changes that remove facts simply to bias the article in favour of palestinian POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a fact is something which is not disputed. The status of Jerusalem is disputed, as stated in sources which have been provided. Therefore, as far as the rules are concerned, whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel should be presented as a point of view. You can say, the Israeli position is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (that is a factual statement about a point of view which nobody will argue with), but you cannot state, as a fact, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Everything you say is either erroneous or irrelevant.     ←   ZScarpia   23:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that a state cannot determine its own capital city? if it views it as its capital, treats it as its capital, and it is declared its capital in law.. how is it not the capital of the state of Israel? It is clearly fact that it is Israels capital, but its not recognised internationally and its future status is disputed.. this is ALL made clear in the introduction already. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's all totally beside the point. We're not here to adjudicate what the position should be, but, since Jerusalem's status is disputed, to neutrally present (ie. not making claims about the rightness or wrongness of views) the different points of view. Explain to me, though, by what right should a country expect others to accept a city is that country's capital if it chooses a place which is not in that country's sovereign territory? You don't stand a bloody carcass's chance in a piranha pool of producing something neutral if you go on using partisan arguments to argue that a point of view is more than a point of view.     ←   ZScarpia   01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

""Avoid stating seriously contested assertions " - It is not an assertion.. it is a fact, the state of Israels capital city is Jerusalem. It is also fact that this is not recognised by the international community, so the two points are combined into a very clear first sentence that was a reasonable middle ground. Some would rather that second bit had no place in the opening sentence at all, but it is the moderate centre ground position for the current wording. Some do not respect the fact Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland which is a country of the United Kingdom. So should we go and make lots of changes to those? Belfast is the claimed capital of Northern Ireland, which is claimed to be one of the countries of the United Kingdom, but this is not recognised by everyone with some believing it is a city in one of the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland? Where will it all end? We should not give Undue Weight to Palestinian POV by in anyway suggesting it is in a similar situation in terms of being Palestines capital compared it being the State of Israels. The key issue is the fact it lacks international recognition, something the introductions first sentence makes very clear. It is not the fact that Palestinians claim it as a capital for their future state. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) As far as "the international community" is concerned, Jerusalem is neither sovereign Israeli territory nor the capital of Israel. Therefore, in Wikipedia terms, it is not a fact, but a point of view, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I'm sure that you could provide sources which say that Northern Ireland should not exist, but please provide ones that say that the geopolitical entity with that name doesn't exist, nor that Belfast is its "capital".     ←   ZScarpia   00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with BritishWatcher. Jerusalem(West+East) under its legal status from 1948, hase only 300 000 inhabitants today, including only 50 000 Palestinians. It does not include almost all East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods, do not have the seize mentioned in this article. I do not think that international community(although this wording is abstract) can legally determine the capital of any state, it can refuse to recognize it, therefore the current wording is absolutely neutral--Tritomex (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that's tough, because the international community says differently, which is why we're in the territory of presenting points of view (Israel's point of view is such-and-such; the international community's view is such-another; those in the middle don't have a point of view). As far as the international community is concerned, any unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, including declaring it a capital, are (and were) illegitimate and have no standing.     ←   ZScarpia   00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's go back to the sources for moment. What are we meant to make of a source like the BBC ? It says "Israel and many of its supporters regard a united Jerusalem - Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 - as its undivided capital. Most major powers do not, including the US which, like many other countries, has its embassy in Tel Aviv."[26] We can't ignore it and its approach is very different from ours. We have to factor sources like this into our decision making, and there are many of them. BW/Tritomex, what do you propose we do with sources like this given that ignoring them isn't an option ? If sources like this, or sources that explicitly state that Jerusalem is the capital, are ignored in a discussion, we have a serious problem and we need help to solve it. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The other thing I'd like to say is that AE isn't just about smiting editors. It's about fixing things, behavorial issues, so that everyone is forced to comply with policy and guidelines. The original research/synthesis, personal opinions and analyses, arguments from first principals, arguments based on dictionaries, soapboxing, bickering etc etc all has to stop. It's not how we are allowed to make content decisions. AE is meant to be able to help with things like that, enforcing compliance with the rules, although I'll admit that I'm quite skeptical about that. AE could be a positive thing in this dispute to force people to focus on the sources and policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia,Sean.hoyland I have personally nothing against inclusion of third party in any dispute resolution in accordance with Wikipedia rules. ZScarpia What is in your opinion the capital of Israel? or is there some source which states that anyone from outside can determine the capital of another state? Just to repeat we already pointed out that Jerusalem is not recognized by "international community" as the capital of Israel(this is my answer to Sean question), so the only question which remains are:

1) If there is possibility (under international law or international agreements ) that some institution, state or entity from outside could determine legally the capital of another state

2) Did it happen in the case of Israel and what was determined as Israeli capital? Tritomex (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no view on what the capital of Israel is, not that my own view, or the view of any other editor, on the matter has any relevance to Wikipedia. What I think the sources show is that the capital of Israel is disputed. One viewpoint is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Another viewpoint is that it isn't. Some sources used to state that Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel; I don't know if more recent ones still do.

We're not in the business of arguing the rights or wrongs of the various positions, just trying to neutrally present them, so, unless you can point to a binding decision made somewhere on Wikipedia that, in the matter of capitals, one side's viewpoint gets to predominate, then your question about institutions has little relevance. Even if, say, there was an Institute For Specifying Capitals Under International Law, if Israel still insisted that Jerualem was its capital, we would still probably end up having to write something to the effect that Israel says that Jerusalem is it's capital, but the IFSCUIL has determined that, under international law, it isn't. Note that the various UN resolutions don't state what IS the capital of Israel, they stated that, without agreement from other parties, Israel cannot change the status of Jerusalem, including making it its capital, which is different. If arguments based on your questions were used to contend that, despite the international community's view, Jerusalem is, undisputably, the capital of Israel, that would be, in effect, trying to circumvent the neutrality rules using arguments not based in policy, that is, point-of-view pushing.

A question for you: Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?

    ←   ZScarpia   14:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Some more questions:

• Scenario: Some sources say that the duck-billed platypus is a mammal, others that it is a reptile. Question: Would it be neutral to write: The duck-billed platypus is a mammal, though some say it is a reptile?
• Scenario: Some sources say that the egg came first, others that it was the chicken. Question: Would it be neutral to write: The egg came first, though some say the chicken did?
• Scenario: Israel says that Jerusalem is its capital, the international community says it isn't.Question: Would it be neutral to write: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though the international community disputes that?

    ←   ZScarpia   16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Would it be neutral to write: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though the international community disputes that?" - Yes it would be neutral and balanced.. and that is exactly what the introduction already says. We express the facts... It is Israel's capital de jure and defacto, provide us with evidence that says a country cannot determine its own capital? But at the same time we explain very clearly in the very first sentence that this is not recognised by the international community. That is extremely balanced! Can i suggest that you guys demanding radical changes for this article make clear proposals on what wording you want in the first sentence and also what other changes you want for the article. For example what will be done to the info template if you guys had your way? Would we remove the Israeli city flag and emblem if we are wanting this article to pretend this isnt an israeli city?

Instead of asking pointless, irrelevant and meaningless questions.. how about clearly state your proposals and then we can all scrutinise them. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And your answer to the question: "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" There are years' worth of proposals in this talkpage and its archives. Read back and see if there's any that you fancy. One proposal was to add a single word, changing the text to read: Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel. Perhaps your claims of radical change are a bit exagerrated? I hope you don't mind me saying so, but it looks to me, from reading your answers, as though you're suffering something akin to a WP:IDNHT condition. My reason for mentioning that is to (gently) remind you that I've already stated that I think it's time to start reporting editors to noticeboards. I'd also like to point out (to nobody in particular) that I'm not about to be drawn into another long-conversation-to-nowhere with editors who wipe their bottoms on the principles which are supposed to govern how things are done around her.     ←   ZScarpia   02:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making more hollow threats, why don't you go ahead and start "reporting editors"? This is, what, the 3rd time in a week you are talking about unspecified editors you'll report somewhere? You can start with me if you think you have a case. Nobody here has done anything worthy of sanctions, except maybe you with the continual threats against basically anyone who doesn't agree with you. Threats that you can't follow through with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

See the response I made on 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC) above. Now, this is what I think a threat looks like (Remember it? Though I suppose you'd like to call it a warning.). It says that, if I don't do something, then the person issuing the threat will do something unpleasant to me. Here, I haven't said I will do anything; in particular, I haven't tried to coerce anyone into doing anything by saying I will do that thing; lastly, I haven't directed my comments at anyone in particular.     ←   ZScarpia   14:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Let me know when you "start reporting editors to noticeboards". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

An insult? Am I supposed to care?     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you see an insult there, except maybe in the sense of when someone calls your bluff and you feel foolish. You're not going to "start reporting editors to noticeboards" because of the discussion here and your attempt to intimidate editors who don't agree with you has failed spectacularly. We're not impressed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a question. The question was made because I was trying to figure out whether you were making a misguided attempt to offend me by writing the word "yawn" - misguided because I would only care about the opinion of someone I felt any respect for.     ←   ZScarpia   01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't say that! Your respect means so much to me! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Predictable! But I suppose that predictability has its positive aspects.     ←   ZScarpia   02:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, I predicted you'd come back to edit your post to get it "just right". It's important to you because you don't respect me. And you only did it twice! So good laughs for all involved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think that intimidation and bluffing are more in your line. I'm not trying to get anyone here to do anything they wouldn't normally do. In fact, the more the problem editors block, filibuster, refuse to compromise and generally make arseholes of themselves, the easier it'll be be to have them kicked out.     ←   ZScarpia   02:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Don't forget to let me know when you "start reporting editors to noticeboards" "to have them kicked out". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia Concerning your question "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" many RS do not dispute it, contrary to us, by our at minimum already balanced description of Jerusalem status as " not internationally recognized as such" Examples can be found at National Geography [27], CIA factbook [28] Country Watch [29] Maps of World, even official US documents (State Department documents) [30] academic papers [31] or [32] Some geographical sites states Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with fuss note that foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv, without even mentioning the dispute regarding international recognition [33]....etc I found sources (mostly political newspapers) which are explaining the lack of international recognition of Jerusalem status as the capital of Israel, as we did, but I did not found RS which categorically states that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and which claim Tel Aviv or other cities to this position. Also, I would agree with other editors that threatening other editors who do not share your opinion, is serious violation of Wikipedia guidelines, therefore I kindly ask you again to refrain from continuing to do so.--Tritomex (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So, at least you would agree that sources explain that the status of Jerusalem is disputed?     ←   ZScarpia   14:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The introduction makes clear the status of Jerusalem is disputed.. Nobody is denying that. Above you said maybe i was exaggerating about how radical the changes to this page would be if you guys got your way.. but that seems to be the position you are taking. Do you accept that Jerusalem is a city in Israel? No.. so do we need to remove the Israeli city's flag and emblem from the infobox template or put silly disclaimers? This article would need completely changing, far more than just adding a single word or two to the first sentence. This is why we need to know details of what exactly you are proposing. Are you and all the others happy with the neutrality tag being removed and this debate resolved if we simply add the word is the "declared capital of Israel" instead of just capital? Im prepared to debate that and im not entirely against such a change (as putting declared and linking to the Israeli law could make sense) though i do not think such wording is required. But some of the recent proposals have been totally unacceptable. And yes ive read some of the past debates on this matter. Just because there has been past debates does not mean after a few days of you being unhappy with an outcome you can take this matter somewhere else to complain. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have more or less everyone here on the record with the arguments that they've advanced. My suggestion is to proceed, one question I have is if we decide to proceed to mediation, can some editors prevent the mediation from going ahead by not consenting, or prevent the mediation from succeeding by claiming to "not support" the mediated edit after the fact? I recall hearing of editors who didn't participate in a mediation opposing the mediated result after the mediation concludes. Is that possible? --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new talkpage section for a discussion about mediation?     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should rather decide where we want to go: mediation, AE or ArbCom, and then go there. If we decide mediation, then we can start a new thread on details but we need to decide what we're going to do first. --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, I hadn't appreciated exactly what you were trying to do.     ←   ZScarpia   21:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good compromise to say that "Israel considers (all of) Jerusalem to be its capital, but the international community disagrees"? After all, Israel is the one currently governing all of Jerusalem. Futurist110 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that (though I'm unsure why the part in brackets is necessary). It contains two factual statements, both of which are undisputed by sources (assuming that the term "international community" is accepted as shorthand for resolutions made by the UNGA and UNSC), which is the problem I have with the current wording. The other issue to think about, given that the sentence is in the Lead, is whether they summarise the contents of the article well (which I don't as yet have an opinion about).     ←   ZScarpia   19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "considers" if we are talking about the first sentence. Id maybe not oppose "is the declared capital of Israel" linking to Israeli law.. But saying considers is totally not appropriate for the introduction. Otherwise every article on a capital city would start.. State considers it its capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as no other country's capital is disputed, your last sentence is untrue.     ←   ZScarpia   00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus disputes that Nicosia is the capital of Northern Cyprus, so it's your statement which is untrue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right? In Cyprus, it's not recognition of the status of a city which is in dispute, but a whole "state". Only Turkey recognises the breakaway Republic of Northern Cyprus. The Lead of the Nicosia article says: "The northern part of the city functions as the capital of the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ... ." Since you made the comparison, perhaps you'd accept comparable wording for the Jerusalem article: "Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel." That looks factual to me.     ←   ZScarpia   02:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Recognition of the capital is part of a wider dispute. Not unlike the situation we're talking about here.

Not that wikipedia is a reliable source for anything, but I'd be happy to consider your suggestion, if you'd explain to me what the difference between "functions as the capital" and "is the capital" is. Without resorting to OR, naturally. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My question was ironic. It was pointing out that, in the article on the comparison you chose, the "IS the capital" wording, which is in dispute here, is not used. Do you really need the difference explained? After all, it has been explained on this talkpage many times before. In Wikipedia you can only state things as facts if they are not disputed in sources. That Jerusalem "is the capital" of Israel IS disputed. As is well established, there is a raft of UN resolutions which reject Israel's moves to change the status of Jerusalem. They state that Israel's laws on the matter are null and void. Therefore, the more neutral sources are careful to explain that, though Israel's position is that Jerusalem is its capital, the international community rejects that. As has been pointed out, the BBC issued an apology and made a correction when one of its sports reporters wrote an article in which it was stated that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Whereas it is disputed that Jerusalem IS Israel's capital, it is not disputed (as far as I know) that Jerusalem functions as/serves as/is de facto Israel's capital. If that is not disputed, then it is permissible to state that as a fact, rather than a point of view, in Wikipedia. However, I was not suggesting a form of wording, just pointing out a flaw in your argument.     ←   ZScarpia   10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As you pointed out in your response, it contains two "factual statements", the first being Israel considers it its capital, the second the international community disputes this. I agree it wouldnt need the second statement, but it is a statement of fact if the UK considers London its capital city. Perhaps it would start the United Kingdom and the international community consider London the capital of the UK? Still waiting for any evidence that says a country cannot determine its own capital. Also if we did put "considers" in the first sentence, do we go and add that word everywhere.. Israel considers this the flag of the city of Jerusalem, Israel considers this the emblem of the city. Israel considers this person to be the mayor of the city, Israel considers this to be the city government.. I bet if i looked i could find dozens of locations in the article where wed have to put "considered" if we go down this path that Jerusalem is not a city in Israel and its not its capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for these fine gentlemen to decide if they want to go to mediation or Arbcom or AE or whatever and not waste time on suggestions that have been rejected in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Before you withdraw into silence, would you answer the same question I addressed to BritishWatcher: "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?"     ←   ZScarpia   10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources say that Israel declares the city its capital, and that the international community do not recognise this. Just because the international community do not recognise something does not imply it is not a fact. Several people have asked on a number of occasions, where is the evidence that suggests a country cannot decide its own capital city? No definition i have yet to see has stated that it is decided by the international communities recognition of a city, rather than the state itself. The introduction clearly states the status of Jerusalem is disputed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Very few sources dispute that Jerusalem is the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Are you including those which present the view that Jerusaslem is the capital as the Israeli point of view or only those which say, definitely, that Jerusalem is not the capital?     ←   ZScarpia   21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, there are also sources which say that is only the Israeli view and that the international community do not accept Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. And the rules say that points of view, which is what we have here, have to be presented as points of view.     ←   ZScarpia   22:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there are sources say that the international community does not recognize it. Your interpretation of what that non-recognition means is OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand in the UN, most of the world's countries have said that Israel's attempts to make Jerusalem its capital are "null and void". The plain reading of "recognize" is clear on its own, for example when the international community didn't recognize Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, it meant that it didn't consider Kuwait to be a part of Iraq. Similarly, as France for the time being doesn't recognize the State of Palestine, it means France doesn't consider that state to yet exist. I don't see any reasons why non-recognition would have a different content in this case. (The Security Council said of Iraq's annexation that "(...) annexation of Kuwait by Iraq (...) has no legal validity, and is considered null and void; 2. Calls upon all States (...) not to recognize that annexation". Sound familiar?) --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What sounds familiar is you presenting your opinion rather than a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• What exactly do you want citations for? Hopefully, after all the discussion that's preceded this, you're not asking for one for the first sentence. Have a look at: UN Resolution 476 of June 1980 (uses the "null and void" phrasing), Resolution 478 of August 1980 (uses the "null and void" phrasing), Resolution 252 of May 1968 (declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid” and called upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”), Resolution 267 of July 1969 (noted that Israel had since “taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”; it reaffirmed “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible” and deplored Israel’s further violations of U.N. resolutions, censured “in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, and confirmed “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status” and urgently called on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem), Resolution 298 of September 1971 (deplored Israel’s continued violation of U.N. resolutions, and confirmed that Israel’s attempts to annex Jerusalem “are totally invalid”, Resolution 452 of July 1979 (again deplored Israel’s continued violation of Security Council resolutions and again emphasized that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”; it again also noted that Jerusalem is included in “the occupied Arab territories”).
• From the Recognition section of the Online Britannica article on International Law: Recognition is a process whereby certain facts are accepted [my emphasis] and endowed with a certain legal status, such as statehood, sovereignty over newly acquired territory, or the international effects of the grant of nationality.
• Question: Does the non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital mean that , as far as the international community is concerned, Jerusalem is not Israel's capital?
• Earlier, I wrote that "the international community do not accept Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." You insisted that "the international community does not recognize it," calling my wording original research. Note that the Online Britannica description of diplomatic recognition defines it as "a process whereby certain facts are accepted and endowed with a certain legal status." That is, recognition is defined in terms of acceptance, the word I used. Rephrasing sourced facts is a normal process in Wikipedia (necessitated by the need to avoid copyright violations); it is not, as you claimed, original research. I've told you before that your interpretation of what constitutes original research is incorrect.
• Question: Is the use of dictionary definitions in order to justify claiming that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel original research?

    ←   ZScarpia   01:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Are you the only one allowed to ask questions, and if people answer your questions, will you consider answering ours? You ask about the international community.. They do not officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The issue is, does their lack of recognition stop Jerusalem being the capital of Israel? You have provided NO evidence that shows a capital is only what the international community endorses. It is notable that the international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israels capital, which is why it is clearly stated. Now here is my question.. You do not believe this article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That being the case... Do you propose we remove the city flag and emblem and mayor of the city from the infobox? If we want to pretend that this is not an Israeli city then all these things have to go too. If we can take the position (seen as it is the reality on the ground) that this is a city in Israel despite a international dispute.. then why is it such a big jump to stating it as the capital? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question: Iran does not recognize the State of Israel. Does that mean that Israel is not a state? How do you suggest we change the lead of the Israel article to accommodate this fact? We can't just say it's a state if someone doesn't recognize it, right? How about Taiwan? Is that a state?
• Question: do you have anything other than OR and SYNTH to offer? Because that's what your long post above amounts to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your first question, NMMNG, yes, that is correct. Are you not aware that if the whole world were to ignore someone, he actually disappears? I know a guy that happened to. -- tariqabjotu 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the use of dictionary definitions in order to justify claiming that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel original research?

I'd really like to see a definitive answer to this, because the concept of the use of a dictionary constituting original research is new to me. -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, see this comment from the earlier discussion. Using a dictionary to circumvent the fact that sources actially dealing with the subject present the issue as a substantive dispute isn't correct. See also this comment on happy Amsterdam. Concerning the Iranian recognition question, the answer is that as far as Iran is concerned, Israel isn't a state. Now that doesn't mean that Iran is necessarily correct in this, and in fact most countries do recognize Israel. Note, that no-one is proposing to edit the article to say Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, so the question misses the point. The proposed edits are e.g. that Jerusalem is the capital according to Israli law, or that Jerusalem functions as Israel's seat of government. --Dailycare (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but you are. The proposed edits are tantamount to saying it is not simply the capital. That's equivocation and dilution. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first edit hinges on the fact that (a) one accepts that dictionary definition [there are no doubt many definitions that rule out the conclusion you make] and (b) one accepts your interpretation, which -- to be honest -- I don't. For your second edit, I'm sure I'm not saying anything new when I say that that comparison to the Netherlands is not apt because Israel has declared its capital as the same city in which its governmental institutions are located.

As I said in my response to Ravpapa below, it is not incredibly unreasonable to believe that recognition is a pre-requisite for a city being a capital. (I'm not one of those people, of course.) My point is that you're making yourself look silly by hinging your position on the idea that looking at a dictionary is OR. Surely you can do better than that. -- tariqabjotu 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Amsterdam article specifically notes that it's the capital despite not being the seat of government. If the two weren't normally connected such clarification wouldn't be necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, we have highly reliable sources that clearly state Jerusalem isn't "simply" the capital. In fact, I just discussed them with you in the above discussion. Tariqabjotu, those considerations apply equally to using a dictionary to arrive at the conclusion Jerusalem is the capital. NMMNG, the situation with Jerusalem is even more unusual than with Amsterdam and the other capitals that aren't seats-of-government. For example, there is no disagreement as to which country, if any, Amsterdam can be found in. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

The issue is, does their lack of recognition stop Jerusalem being the capital of Israel? From the point of view of the international community, yes it does. Israel's unilateral moves to change the status of Jerusalem are seen as illegal. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the real issue is whether the status of Jerusalem is disputed by reliable sources, which it is. Here, if some thing is disputed, it cannot be presented as a fact, but only as an opinion (that is, a fact about an opinion). As the status of Jerusalem is disputed, it cannot be stated that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. Nor can it be stated that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. What can be stated is that, from Israel's point of view, Jerusalem is its capital. Also, you can state as facts things that are not disputed, such as that Israel declared that Jerusalem is its capital or that, under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Personally, I have no problem with the flag and emblem being in the infobox. You say that it is a pretence that Jerusalem is not an Israeli city. Of course, here, it is not editors' views of what the facts are that count, but the views expressed in reliable sources. Again, the sovereignty of Jerusalem is disputed and so we are, once more, in the realm of presenting facts about points of view rather than pure facts.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

Apparently, a number of countries do not recognise Israel as a state. As indicated repeatedly, if reliable sources dispute some thing, which I assume is the case here, that thing should not be stated, unqualified, as a fact in Wikipedia. However, with regard to Israel's statehood, there are undisputed facts that could be presented, such as that Israel is a member state of the United Nations and, that being so, under international law it is a state.

Do you have anything other than OR and SYNTH to offer? Present specific examples (and, just to make sure you understand, WP:SYNTH is a specific type of WP:OR, making what you wrote a tautology). Otherwise, as I've also told you before, stop wasting everybody's time by making accusations you can't substantiate.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@tariqabjotu 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

I'm sure that Nessie, the Yeti, Robin Hood, the biblical Kind David, King Arthur and King Lear would be upset to find that their existence is presented in Wikipedia as something other than a fact.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how this has anything to do with what I said. -- tariqabjotu 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment was intended as a reminder of the nature of facts on Wikipedia. If you can't see the connection to No More Mr Nice Guy's comment and your reply to it, not to worry, it wasn't that important.     ←   ZScarpia   08:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@tariqabjotu 02:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

In Wikipedia, editors are supposed to be neutrally presenting what sources say, not determining which of a number of disputing sources is correct.

Part definition of the term Original Research: original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." One source, a dictionary, contains a definition of the term capital city. Another source says something about Jerusalem which matches the definition given in that dictionary. Using a synthesis of the two sources, editors argue that, despite the majority view to the contrary, it is a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. As synthesis is a form of original research, by definiton, orignal research has been used.

There are difficulties attached to using dictionaries as sources. Dictionaries attempt to describe how words are used, they do not prescribe how they should be used. Many words don't have precise meanings, which means that different dictionaries define them in different ways and that the definitions given may not fully cover all the different meanings given to the words. The word capital, as applied to cities, is one such word. Conveniently, editors found a dictionary definition which matched an undisputed fact about Jerusalem, that it's Israel's seat of government. However, other dictionaries contain less convenient definitions. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the meaning of the term as "the head town of a country, province or state." From the international viewpoint, of course, because Jerusalem isn't seen as being part of Israel's territory, it's dubious that definition would be seen as applying. But then, fortunately, since, as Wikipedia editors, we're not in the business of determining what the facts are, only of presenting what sources say the facts are, none of that matters to us.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That OED definition seems perfectly in line with calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel. And I'm not going to repeat my opinion about the absurdity of these Original Research claims.

And, again, as has been said a million times over the years, there are tons of sources that say that few or no countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. No one denies that. But there are few or no sources that say these countries don't actually believe it's the capital. I honestly can't understand why this is so difficult to understand. Saying you're not recognizing something is the not the equivalent of saying it doesn't exist. If a country, for example, were to say they don't recognize the State of Israel, it doesn't mean they don't believe a State of Israel exists; obviously, it does, they just refuse to give it any credence. Unless the body doing the recognition is the definer of a concept, that recognition does not make the claim invalid. So, what the article says is what the sources support -- that most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, but it is.

Another thing I don't understand is why a wording nearly identical to what's currently in the first sentence of Jerusalem gained support as a compromise in the Israel article in February 2010 (and essentially has not been challenged since), while this is still a problem here.

But, please, let's not continue this too much here. It's not going to be resolved in the next couple days. Let's see what comes out of the mediation. -- tariqabjotu 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Overlooking for the moment that, here, facts should be properly sourced, not inferred by editors from dictionary definitions, the point made with the OED definition is that, using it, conclusions drawn about the status of Jerusalem will depend on opinions held about whether Jerusalem is Israeli or not.

There are different types of non-recognition. With what we could call implicit non-recognition, no statement is made about whether something is accepted or not. With what we could call explicit non-recognition, definite statements are made that something is not accepted. As far as the status of Jerusalem goes, the international community has stated that unilateral moves by Israel, including declaring that city its capital, are illegal, null and void. That is, the international community has made an explicit declaration that, as far as it is concerned, the Israeli moves have had no effect on the status of Jerusalem and that its true status is as was declared in previous resolutions, that is, an international city. To that effect, we have, as primary sources, the UN documentation itself and, as secondary sources, ones detailing and explaining the UN resolutions. In addition, we have secondary and tertiary sources which attempt to describe the status of Jerusalem neutrally in terms of points of view, with the position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as an Israeli view which is not recognised (accepted) by the international community. Northern Cyprus, which was brought up earlier, is an example of explicit non-recognition and you'll see that in the article on that place it is, reflecting that non-recognition, described as a "self-declared" state. You wrote, "But there are few or no sources that say these countries don't actually believe it's the capital." That's wishful thinking. The sources described show clearly that the international community rejects Israel's claims, both that Jerusalem is Israeli and that is is Israel's capital. Insisting in the article that it is a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, based on extrapolations made from one dictionary definition, violate Wikipedia's fundamental neutrality policy.

I wasn't involved in the discussion at the article on Israel and find it a bit startling that the current wording is being called resulted from a compromise.

It would be nice to believe that mediation would lead to a common position being reached, but I suspect that what would happen is a re-hashing of the arguments that have been put forward for nine years, then a failure to reach a decisive result. I'd prefer to go to some kind of arbitration, where neutral editors examine the arguments and rule on their merits.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)(redacted -- 10:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

You know I disagree with nearly everything you said, but, as I said, I see no point in explaining why at this stage. Your dismissive approach is very off-putting though. There is no "wishful thinking". What I think many of the people who support changing the wording fail to understand is that it's not like we don't know that the sources you reference exist (UN documents, the "null and void" declaration, etc.); we just disagree on their interpretations and implications to the reality of whether Jerusalem is actually Israel's capital. Perhaps a mediator will assist with toning down arguments that boil down to "can't you see these sources?!?!" and get to the root of the issue -- interpreting what these sources mean. And, yes, I know you're going to call original research, but if several well-meaning people can come to different conclusions about what a source means, obviously some interpretation is necessary (and, frankly, is a part of any writing that isn't just direct quoting).

And, yes, that was a compromise. Many editors, including Dailycare, who were staunchly in favor of removing the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel agreed with the wording in the article. Perhaps it may appear shocking that this was a compromise because there was the issue of how much weight to give to the Jerusalem capital issue in an article about the entire country; here that's less of a problem as it's the Jerusalem article and its status is capital is much more relevant.

Unfortunately, the Arbitration Committee does not do content disputes, and there is no forum for binding content dispute resolutions. So, unless you believe there are user conduct issues here -- which would be a highly controversial and inflammatory assertion -- mediation is all we've got. I'm not optimistic that will resolve this dispute, but you never know; maybe the mediator will have a different approach to solving this. -- tariqabjotu 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your 'reality' is only a point of view ... and a minority one (in the world at large) at that. 'Truth' isn't a justification for violating the neutrality policy.

Arbitration on content issues, at least informally, does happen. The outcome would be no less binding than that from mediation. For me personally, it would carry more weight and therefore be more final. I did write about 'some kind of arbitration', not the Arbitration Committee specifically.

I didn't question that a compromise had taken place. It's just that I would have hated to have seen what the original wording, or the suggestions of more extreme contributors, were. I'd meant to state that I found it startling that the wording was a compromise, not question that it was a compromise.

I do believe that there are user conduct issues here.

Thank-you for your comments on my approach.

    ←   ZScarpia   09:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC) (redacted -- 10:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

I can already tell that this mediation is going to be my least favorite experience ever on Wikipedia, and I regret returning to this page. I hardly said anything furthering the debate in my previous comment, but you found something out of which you could manufacture an issue. If you reread the sentence with the word "reality", you'll realize it also includes -- just two words later, if you can get there -- the word "whether". That was a general statement about perception of reality, with the word "whether" indicating that there were multiple options (namely, it is or is not the capital). Obviously, because you're not new here, you know my position, but how you saw that as an indictment of your position and call for you to tell me once again in your conceited tone how right you are is unclear. But because you seem intent on getting the last word in, no matter how little it contributes to resolving this issue (how many times have I said that now?), I'll let you invent one more excuse to repeat your position and repeat said position in a comment to which you will receive no response from me. -- tariqabjotu 11:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, congratulations for pointing out a fundamental flaw in the anti-capital argument. It is a flaw that illustrates the level of prevarication and subterfuge of both sides of this argument.

It is absurd to say that using a dictionary definition to justify a lead is original research. It isn't (unless the editor is also the author of the dictionary). On the other hand, it is certainly a very flimsy justification. Dictionaries are not references that give in-depth analyses of all the linguistic, political, and legal ramifications of a word. The laconic dictionary definition of "capital" - "seat of government" - doesn't come near to defining all the constituents that make up a capital.

The anti-capitalists certainly know this. The trouble is that there is no clear policy against flimsiness, only against OR. So they have, completely artificially, attached the OR standard to the dictionary argument. For most of those arguing on this page (I hesitate to say all), this appeal to an irrelevant standard is simply a way of promoting their own political agendas.

The pro-capitalists are no better. They are perfectly aware that the dictionary definition does not capture the complexity of the term capital. Otherwise, why are they so adamantly against using what the dictionary considers synonymous - "seat of government"? The reason is clear: they believe that if they say "capital" loud enough and long enough, it will somehow become true.

No, it is clear that both sides are using specious arguments of policy to grind their own political axes. The complete lack of dedication to the principles of neutrality, as Wikipedia dreams of it, is glaring throughout this discussion.

If the sides could, for a moment, put aside their political zeal for a moment, the issue, I believe, could be easily resolved. But it seems that is asking too much of mere mortals. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to request that you not repeat the characterizations and suggestions you made in your last two paragraphs. There are no doubt, I'm sure, people who hold their respective positions because of political zeal, but there are no doubt people who hold their positions because, after reading the opinions presented by those who disagree with them, still believe they're correct.

Your own description of the two sides seems to more clearly get at the problem here. There is nothing in the dictionary (or in the general definition of a capital) that makes recognition a prerequisite for a city being a capital, but there's also nothing in the dictionary saying it isn't. Likewise, there is nothing in the dictionary (or in the general definition of a country) that makes recognition a prequisite for a region being a country, but there's also nothing in the dictionary saying it isn't. Yet, in the latter case, I'm sure most here would agree that without recognition, a country is nothing, and really is not a country at all. Does the same apply to capitals? Well, we have limited situations in which this is even a question, and unfortunately the primary situation is this one, coming in the context of a bitter, and ultimately stupid, conflict. I personally think the same standard does not apply to capitals, as there is something physical (e.g. government institutions, place of residence of the head of state) to denote the capital. But if one operates under the belief that a state (and we all agree Israel is one, right?) can be without a capital, then maybe one can believe that recognition is a pre-requisite for capital status. Okay. I don't believe that, but go ahead. -- tariqabjotu 12:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, I'd prefer not to be characterised as an anti-capitalist. My view is not that it should be stated that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, but that it should be presented as a point of view that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. You can call me an anti-pro-capitalist, though.

The view of the international community is that Israel's unilateral acts, such as declaring Jerusalem its capital, were illegal, null and void. To circumvent the neutrality rules, which require, when something is disputed, that it is presented in terms of points of view, a dictionary definition has been used as the basis for stating that the Israeli view is factual and that Jerusalem is its capital. Now, the dictionary definition doesn't mention Jerusalem, so, to produce the conclusion reached, something akin to "analysis or synthesis", part of the definition of what original research is, must have been used. If you don't want to call it original research, what would you call it? Dictionaries have their legitimate uses in Wikipedia, but using them to establish facts, other than facts about the definitions and usages of words, isn't one of them.

    ←   ZScarpia   08:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A general question: is there any precedent for (which would justify) deleting the disputed sentence from the Lead, leaving the (undisputed) description given in the body of the article to explain the status of Jerusalem, until a more generally accepted form of wording is agreed on?     ←   ZScarpia   12:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[edited: 22:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)]

The sentence is the result of a specific consensus. You need consensus to change the STATUSQUO as your friend Dailycare informed me repeatedly in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus for removing that sentence so attempts to remove that sentence will be reverted. Especially if the sentence is removed then we are bogged down with months of mediation over something that has been in the article for many years. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you're an involved editor, are you willing to participate in mediation? --Dailycare (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When you decide if you want to go to mediation or not I'll decide if I want to participate or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What's with this brinksmanship? Mediation is not an indictment against editors. There are no sanctions that can come out of mediation. The proceedings of the mediation are privileged, and so they can't be used against you in the future. So why is this a big deal? Why are people insisting that there be some agreement that mediation goes forward? Why are people using "mediation" as some sort of threat and treating it as one? I don't think this issue has ever been to mediation before, so putting it to ArbCom -- which generally doesn't deal with content disputes -- will be seen as premature, while lesser forms of dispute resolution have us spinning in circles. So clearly MedCom is the answer. Do you need help creating the mediation request? If not, just do it already. -- tariqabjotu 12:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well i would be ok with some form of mediation but i am unsure if it will resolve anything. This has been debated extensively in the past couple of months, attempts to change a consensus that has existed for a very long time. And radical and totally unacceptable proposals that would totally change this article were rejected. A vote took place above some weeks ago showing majority support for the status quo. A small number of editors are demanding change after years of this article addressing the issue a certain way, trouble is they refuse to even put a specific proposal for us to debate. They insist on having in line tagging of a disputed sentence and a disputed introduction template which tarnishes the entire introduction just based on the first sentence which is already tagged anyway. I propose the editors above arguing for change, create a new section with a very specific proposal that we can all specifically discuss and debate. All the mediation is going to do is try to bring us together to discuss the situation, frankly we could do that without wasting other peoples time too.. if those demanding change actually said exactly what they want. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I can only put it in negative terms: Isn't it fairly obvious that what they want is some way, any way, not to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Or, at the very least, to qualify or dilute the direct statement more than it currently is by its juxtaposition of the "not internationally recognized" phrase. To this end they bring in one extraneous argument after another, and try to redefine the meanings of words. That indulges in OR and POV advocacy; referencing the dictionary meaning does not. The torrent of words here, year after year, does not change the simple reality. I think we would be better served by a reminder of the duck test criteria, rather than by recourse to arbitration or mediation, and wouldn't be wasting other people's time (not to mention the time of people here). Hertz1888 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking about dictionary meanings as though that were the only thing that mattered. How about the definition of occupied territory? How is that less relevant to Jerusalem's status than the proclamation, rejected by every other competent party, by one state? nableezy - 17:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good examples of extraneous red herrings. As far as I can tell, the definition of a capital (i.e., what makes a capital a capital) does not depend on either criterion (occupied/non-occupied status, universal approval). I didn't know that editors were allowed to change the meanings of words as they please. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that isnt extraneous and isnt a red herring. You, and a number of other editors who are adamant about the word capital being used on the basis of the definition of the word, have quite the history of ignoring other words that have plain meanings. You support what you like, and oppose what you dont. It has exactly squat to do with what the dictionary says. You ignore things that dont toe the Israeli party line, and support to the hilt what does. Thats fine, lots of people are like that. But at least drop the act here that this isnt what it so clearly is. nableezy - 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors accepting sources that present the information in a certain way, as a statement of fact, and ignoring sources that do not present this information as a statement of fact is wrong. It's wrong because it is inconsistent with our content rules. When editors stop doing that, we might be able to address this issue properly. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. So if, for example, I were to provide sources that do not present as fact that the State of Palestine is a state, or that actually say it is not a fact, you'd support changing the lead of that article? Do let me know, maybe we'll do a test case over there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with saying Palestine is a "declared" state in that lead, as it isn't even nearly universally recognized. Concerning mediation, I certainly didn't earlier intend to issue any threats by suggesting mediation as a possible way forward and it's a bit tragic if editors got that impression. However, speaking for my behalf I have very limited experience from mediation, I recall that the first hurdle is to get all involved editors to agree to it which is why I asked. --Dailycare (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Surprise me and put a POV tag on that article like you did here. Don't forget to insist it stay up until the issue is solved to your satisfaction. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Both these cases must be analysed at the light of WP:DUE WEIGHT.

Not what people think is the truth.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Due weight is important yes, and the current introduction has the right approach. The proposed changes some are demanding would give undue weight to palestinian POV and bias this article. Jerusalem is israel's capital, but the international community does not recognise this. That is stated extremely clearly in the first sentence of the article. For us to pretend that the reality on the ground is not the case, there must be clear evidence that a "capital" is only a "capital" when it has international recognition. No such evidence has been produced. It would be undue weight to treat a palestinian claim to the city as their future capital, in exactly the same way as we treat the fact this is Israel's capital. Quite clearly at present it serves as the capital of the state of Israel, de jure and de facto. No sovereign state of Palestine in control of the territory exists. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I finally got around to filing the request for mediation. There are a number of parties, if I missed someone s/he can be added. --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the statement "capital of Israel" results in many others taking offense, why not include the phrase "self-declared" in front of it? Just like the article on Somaliland. Otherwise, it really depends on a point of view, as Jerusalem is the de facto (it is the seat of the Israeli government) and (by Israeli law) de jure capital of Israel. Assassin3577 (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wordings such as that Jerusalem is the de facto capital, the capital under Israeli law or the declared capital have all been suggested previously, and rejected by those who insist on using the current, unconditional, version.     ←   ZScarpia   18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to try and avoid people taking offence. Its not our job to shield people from realities in the world they get angry about. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, dejure and de facto. Nobody has provided any evidence that says a capital is determined by international recognition of it being a capital, and that a country cannot determine its own capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the summary of relevant Wikipedia rules at the head of this article. We're not here to establish whether Jerusalem is or is not, objectively, the capital of Jerusalem. We're not interested in the reality on the ground, but on what sources say. Any assertion which is disputed by sources cannot be presented as a fact on Wikipedia. Editors insisting that the article states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel have admitted that the statement is disputed, yet they seem to think that it is permissible to then go on to argue that the Israeli view is factual and that any other should be discounted.     ←   ZScarpia   18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I rather think that there's a lot of unnecessary wrangling over a simple statement as whether it is Israel's capital or not. To quote the article on Tskhinvali, South Ossetia is "a disputed region which has been recognised as an independent Republic by Russia and another four UN members, and is regarded by Georgia and all other UN member states de jure as a region within Georgian sovereign territory". This format would arguably be acceptable for Jerusalem, sans the part about international recognition. Anyway, in my opinion, de facto control of an area constitutes the best argument for the wordings on Wikipedia regarding the status on Jerusalem - namely "self-declared". Assassin3577 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher, you are right that a country can determine its own capital, but one limitation is that it must be within the internationally accepted borders of that country. Israel has declared that the entire city of Jerusalem is its capital, but the entire city is not within the internationally accepted borders of Israel. This is the core of the problem. I'll give a similar hypothetic example to illustrate the problem: USA can't declare that Edmunston, New Brunswick is their capital, because it is not within the borders of USA. Because Israel has declared that the entire city of Jerusalem is their capital all countrys have moved their embassies from Jerusalem, mostly to Tel Aviv. Consequently Israel has two "capitals": Jerusalem according to israeli law, and Tel Aviv according to the international recognition. Here is one source that supports this: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/multiplecapital.htm If you think that Tel Avis is not the capital of Israel, try to google "capital tel aviv". I got 16 million hits. PerDaniel (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

USA can't declare that Edmunston, New Brunswick is their capital, because it is not within the borders of USA

Maybe if they just declared it as such, as the Palestinians have done with Jerusalem. But if the U.S. president lived there, the U.S. Supreme Court met there, and the U.S. Congress sat there -- for sixty years, no less -- it would be considered its capital. The idea that Tel Aviv is the actual capital of Israel is a point of view that no one else opposing the current wording has had the courage to back, because it's based on nothing. -- tariqabjotu 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, the UN would not accept it if USA occupied part of another county and declared that it was the its capital, just as the UN has not accepted it when Israel did it. If the claim that Tel Aviv is a capital in Israel is based on nothing, why is Israel on this list of states with multiple capitals: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/multiplecapital.htm ? I am not claiming that Tel Aviv is the sole capital of Israel, but as Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as israels capital, and most countrys have their embassies in Tel Aviv, it is a "co-capital" of Israel. BTW: I have no problem with the article stating that Jerusalem functions as Israels capital or that Israel has declared that it is their capital, what I object to is the statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", because it represents a minority or fringe POV. PerDaniel (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, the article Israel should state the capital as something else, or it should be with POV. Within Wikipedia, there are two different/wrong information.

What is the capital of Israel as per Jerusalem & Israel? It seems to me unreasonableness and no logic. As neural view, in the second line, we can mention that Palestinian authority consider Jerusalem as their future capital. --Anton017 (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

By Israeli law, Jerusalem is their capital. But most, if not all foreign nations are inclined to recognize Tel Aviv as Israel's capital. However, all of Israel's national and state institutions are located in Jerusalem.Assassin3577 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely one suggestion on the table for resolving this issue, namely saying that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. In fact, I'm not aware of real policy-based reasons for not doing the edit, so the proposal seems to have consensus by default, but the case is now going to mediation and we'll see how things turn out there. --Dailycare (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, I don't know how or why you believe you've gone into the mediation in good faith when you hold statements such as "the proposal seems to have consensus by default". There's no consensus among editors here for that or almost anything else. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering he originally agreed to this wording in order to remove something else he didn't like and is now challenging it, the assumption of good faith is long gone. Not to mention Dailycare repeatedly argued that no consensus for a change means the STATUSQUO stays in place when something he liked was challenged. See for example here or [34] (there are several more such examples in that discussion) and now he's invented some sort of "consensus by default". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, if my comment on consensus is unclear to you, you can simply ask for clarification. There is no need to speculate on lack of good faith, in fact there is a need to abstain from such speculation (NMMNG, this point applies to you too). In this case the point comes across from a plain reading of WP:CONSENSUS as repeatedly discussed above (1, 2, 3). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I don't need to ask for clarification of a plainly bad-faith point. I doubt any outsider could read this discussion and say there's consensus for that or anything else. The conclusion you made in the preceding comment can only be made if one assumes that everything you've said in these discussions is correct, a position which, obviously, not everyone holds. The fact that the evidence of your good faith is just three other comments made by you speaks volumes. It's almost impossible to believe that you actually think it's OK to defend the veracity of a remark with three other remarks made by you. Please tell me you're not considering practicing law. -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, you really need to read WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:AGF which is emphasized in WP:ARBPIA2. If your argument is that you want to understand consensus according to how outsiders would see the concept, and not according to WP:CONSENSUS, I'm sure you agree that isn't a persuasive argument. --Dailycare (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've long ago read both. WP:CONSENSUS is just text on a page; it is not a Magic 8 Ball. Your interpretation of that page is just that, just as mine is just an interpretation. There is no such thing as a "plain reading" of anything, unless you're directly quoting. Your interpretation relies on the idea that no policy-based objections have been provided, when those who support the current wording would quickly cite WP:UNDUE and WP:V. And, guess what? There are people who disagree with our interpretations. It is not anyone's place to say our reading is the "plain reading" and others' readings are not, but that's what you've attempted to do.

That being said, your interpretation, I'm sure, of the facts that lead to the conclusion that there's consensus for your preference is very unorthodox and simply self-serving. We have at least one editor, the one who closed the discussion in which all three of your evidentiary remarks were made, who agrees that it's not the correct interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS, and I'm sure that if we had 100 people come to close the discussion, at least 98 would have come to the same conclusion. As for assuming good faith, I did do just that. I could have believed that you really are so ridiculous that you think providing three comments made by you vindicates a fourth, but I don't. In the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people say, write, and believe positions that they wouldn't hold in other arenas simply because it backs up their point. I believe you're doing the same thing here. While I'm sure for convenience's sake you'll say it isn't what you're doing, I remain confident that in a less charged sphere, you'd understand the absurdity of the approach you've presented here. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, of course I agree that if editors were to present substantial arguments based on WP:UNDUE or WP:V, those would be policy-based objections that would affect consensus. However, has that happened? Editors who only show up to say "IDONTLIKEIT" deserve to be ignored and their inputs shouldn't delay anything, this is my point which is entirely consistent with the section of WP:CONSENSUS that I've repeatedly referred to. If you disagree with this point with reasons there can be a discussion, if you disagree without providing reasons you'll be ignored. I'm not going to comment on your allegations that my actions here are self-serving or in bad faith since that's not what this page is for. I'll just refer you to WP:AGF, you said you've read it a long time ago, maybe a new read would be in order. --Dailycare (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I suggest you read about moving the goalposts. This is exactly what you're doing. Everything your opponents say is merely emotional appeal, not meeting your impossibly high standards for being suitable for consideration. As a result, you have consensus, and always will, because you will never be satisfied that an opposing position is based on policy. As I said at the beginning, going into mediation with that mindset is bad faith, no matter how you try to spin it. Good luck trying to pass that off if the mediation is accepted. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at that, although I don't see how I'd be moving goalposts any more than WP:CONSENSUS which says that "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view", and "The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." I suggest that instead of trying to predict my future behaviour, we should concentrate on making the mediation a success, provided it goes forward to begin with. --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. Well, let it be known that if you repeat the statement during mediation that your position has consensus because your opponents have never brought policy-based arguments, I am immediately withdrawing from mediation. I have no interest in dealing with anyone with such arrogance and stubbornness, and there is no hope of "success" if I must. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Assassin, just for the record, your statement is not completely accurate. While all but a few foreign nations do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, they also do not recognize, nor are they "inclined to recognize", as you put it, Tel Aviv as the capital. No one has suggested that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For reasons of practicality (and also as a statement regarding the disputed status of Jerusalem), most countries have their main embassies in Tel Aviv. Am I not incorrect to say that this is a an indication that they view Tel Aviv as Israel's capital, given that all foreign embassies usually have their headquarters located in a nation's capital? Or are we viewing Israel in a different light here? Assassin3577 (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

But, believe it or not, we have sources that do say that that is what other countries believe. Sarahj2107 provided two examples of that under #Edit request on 18 November 2012. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

What do you think if we rewrite as following or refer French wiki's introduction fr:Jérusalem. (Note: The article Israel clearly mention Jerusalem as its capital.)

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. --Anton017 (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions. This suggestion has been made and rejected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Other option

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, Jerusalem is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km² (48.3 sq mi). Israelis and Palestinians both 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.^[ii]

That is another way to solve the issue. As was pointed out before, the fact it is one of the oldest city of the world and the fact it is sacralized in the 3 monotheisth religions is much more relevant than the current political struggle.

Concerning your proposal :

• Jerusalem is one's largest Israeli city but there is not reason to "include" East Jerusalem as if it could be reasonnable to do so. East-Jerusalem is not an Israeli city except in the eyes of Israel. That would be wp:undue.
• the fact the city is 'cut' with a part in Israel and a part in the West Bank/Palestine should be stated as well as the fact Israel is opposed to this division and annexed East Jerusalem in 1980.

That could be solved as follows :

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea with a total population of around 800,000 people. Due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the city was divided in 1948 in West and East-Jerusalem. In 1967 Israeli took the control of the East side and annexed it in 1980. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital but the international community requires that the question is settle by peace talks between both parties.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Or a combination of the two:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea with a total population of around 800,000 people. Israelis and Palestinians both 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.^[ii]

I like how this wording conveys the "asymmetry" of the two claims in a non-wordy way by fleshing out that Israel has institutions there, and Palestinians have an aspiration to it. The Palestinian claim has more recognition but that isn't lead material IMO. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This proposals are fully unacceptable POV pushing. Palestine is not recognized as a state by EU, USA, Canada, Australia etc and Palestine is not member of UN. Western Jerusalem is internationally recognized part of the State of Israel, and Jerusalem function as de facto capital of Israel. So this two claims are not equal, and due to WP:UNDUE can not go hand in hand.--Tritomex (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There are the usual problems here, but out of curiosity, what's the source for "the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In 1988, PLO chose Jerusalem as capital. So at worse it can be stated it is what they aspire for given don't control the territory. But why to discuss...Pluto2012 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

i Strongly oppose all of these proposals. However i would be prepared to support a sentence along the lines of "Israelis and Palestinians both 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" , but not in the opening sentences of the introduction. The final paragraph of the introduction could go into that sort of detail, whilst the current opening sentence remains the same, stating simple basic fact. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but this is not recognised by the international community. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose your strong opposition. LOL Pluto2012 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, you can't just say you strongly oppose since no individual editor WP:OWNs this article. If you have an objection to a proposed edit, it should be based on a wikipedia policy. Otherwise, your opposition will come across as simply telling another editor to not do an edit because you say so. --Dailycare (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So im not even allowed to oppose proposals? The fascist nature of some of the commentary on this page by those who are demanding the article be changed to reflect their views continues to disturb me. People propose a change, other editors are allowed to express their opinion on those proposals. Something i have just done and i even said id be prepared to support an element of the proposal, yet it gets thrown back in my face. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't say you aren't allowed to oppose proposals. What I said can be read immediately above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The fascist nautre of some commentar[ies] on this page ? Which ones ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

well attempts to imply that editors are not free to support the status quo and that those who do are being disruptive and breaking the rules and might be reported to admins simply for backing the current long standing wording. The suggestion that those who favour some sort of change should simply collaborate and ignore the views of those opposed to change.

It has been made very clear the problems with the proposals in question based on wikipedia policy. These proposals continue to give clear undue weight to Palestinian POV, ignoring the fact the circumstances between the Palestinian/Israel "claim" are very different. Jerusalem is the defacto and de jure capital of the state of Israel, that is not the case in regards to the Palestinian "state". No evidence has been produced showing a capital is only a capital if it has international recognition or that a country cannot decide its own capital city. To pretend that there is equal weight in saying "Jerusalem is Israels capital / Jerusalem is Palestines capital" is factually inaccurate and blatantly biased. My opposition to the proposals have been made clear, these latest ones have the same problem, which is why i merely stated i opposed the wording, in doing so i got accused of trying to "own" the article despite the fact my comment was even seeking to compromise, by backing some of the proposed wording, just not for the first sentence of an article. Yet that was just totally ignored. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that WP:UNDUE is part of a policy (WP:NPOV). I think this latest proposal has been designed specifically to present the differences between the Palestinian and Israeli claims. Concerning the evidence you mention, once again, no-one is proposing to edit the article to say Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital. We can try this another way: since you're unhappy with the proposals put on the table so far, can you think of a proposal of your own? I realize you described one proposal immediately above, but I'm now referring to a proposal that would address the prime concern that editors have here, which is the "is the capital of Israel" point. In other words, can you think of a way to change this wording in a way that you find correctly weighted, verifiable and also that we would find agreeable? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe a change is necessary, however i would be prepared to support some change if it resulted in consensus so we can remove the dispute tags and those involved in the agreement would commit to the wording for the foreseeable future, rather than in a months time the same editors seeking additional changes, and the removal of the dispute tags. Im not convinced that those who favour the status quo would go along with this suggestion, and im not sure if it would be enough for those demanding change either, but if it was able to resolve this matter, i would support wording like..

"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognised as such, and it's future status remains one of the core issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is one of the oldest cities in the world and located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea"

Id be prepared to back wording of that sort, but i cannot support attempts to suggest Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine in the opening sentences of this article. It absolutely gives undue weight to Palestinian POV, the situation is not "equal" as some would like. Israel, rightly or wrongly is in complete control of Jerusalem and treats it as its dejure and defacto capital, those 3 things cannot be said about the "State of Palestine". BritishWatcher (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Israel controls the city is not enough because this control is illegal as reminded in different UN resolution and as reminded by the fact the international community didn't recognize the choice of Jerusalem as capital.

There is no "attempt' to suggest that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. It is the capital of Palestine. A few months ago, it was argued it was not because Palestine was not a state but an entity. It is now a State with international recognition.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the numerous reliable sources stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine, like there are numerous sources saying Jerusalem is Israel's capital, despite some saying it lacks international recognition. Show me links to the UN documents following the recent upgrade at the UN which specifically state Jerusalem is Palestines capital? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you show "links to UN documents ... which specifically state Jerusalem is [Israel's] capital"? nableezy - 16:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No i dont have documents showing the UN says Jerusalem is Israel's capital, although i think someone may ave posted one article from one of their agencies that says it but that is not my basis for saying this article should say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I accept Jerusalem isnot internationally recognised officially as Israels capital, that is why the article specifically states that is the case in the first sentence. But people here are using the recent UN upgrade to claim it justifies a change to this article.. yet clearly it does not as so little evidence is produced saying Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If I do so, will you accept the parallelism ?

In other words : you will be convinved if, for each source that state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, a source of equivalent quality can be found that state that East-Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine; AND if, for each source that states that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/expected capital of Israel, a source of equivalent quality stating the equivalent for Palestine can be found.

Is this ok ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide numerous reliable sources saying Jerusalem is the capital of a Palestinian state today (and not merely East Jerusalem or a "future" capital for their state), then yes i would see a far stronger case for a change, because after all this debate ive yet to see such evidence. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No. It will be for East-Jerusalem of course. And it will be "equivalent to those regarding" Jerusalem for Israel. Confirm now. If not, we will just consider you are just here to block the process. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And there we have it. "No. It will be for East-Jerusalem of course" So please explain why we are being asked to state in this article that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There may be sources that say just that (although on my quick glance, few state this outright; it's mostly attributed to Arafat or Abbas, etc). However, the issue still remains: Israel has its government there, while Palestine does not. Israel has control of the city, while Palestine does not. Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital has nothing to show for it, except the international belief that there is some possibility it'll eventually become a reality. But we are not a crystal ball. While it is not unacceptable to mention the Palestinian claim, it is ridiculous to do so without qualifying it in a way that notes that Israel's claim, as it stands now, is substantially stronger than Palestine's, without noting that the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as its capital has as much grounding in present-day reality as a claim to Istanbul as its capital would. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is it is ridiculous to do so without qualifying it in a way that notes that Israel's claim, as it stands now, is substantially stronger than Palestine's? Since when did a random person on the internet become the sole adjudicator on international law? The Israeli claim to Jerusalem, united forever and ever, as its capital has been rejected by every competent party on the planet. This idea that because a state illegally annexes occupied territory and establishes colonies and government buildings in that territory that they somehow have a stronger claim to it than the people who nearly the entire world says is legally their territory is asinine. nableezy - 16:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading proposed POV pushing I am more than sure that the only change in the lead that needs to be done is the removal of neutrality tag-artificially kept there by this marathon discussion which leads nowhere.--Tritomex (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tritomex,

Considering your attitude and your obvious lack of understand of WP:NPOV, I ask that you discuss your proposals of modificaitons in the article before performing any.

Thank you for your understanding. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal, BritishWatcher. This proposal is moving in the right direction, although it still contains the problem, namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Could you think of a proposal that doesn't contain this phrase? WP:NPOV states at the top, in bold-face: "describe disputes, but not engage in them" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". This document seems to describe the BBC's editorial policy, it states: "Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital (...) That claim is not recognised internationally" --Dailycare (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As a sanity check, look how easy it is for another tertiary source, the Children's World Atlas (ISBN 978-0756675844, p. 81), to deal with this.

• "The old city of Jerusalem is sacred to three of the world's major religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - each with their own holy sites and separate districts. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. As a result, the city is a frequent source of conflict."

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Tariqabjotu

copied/pasted from above : However, the issue still remains: Israel has its government there, while Palestine does not. Israel has control of the city, while Palestine does not. Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital has nothing to show for it, except the international belief that there is some possibility it'll eventually become a reality. But we are not a crystal ball. While it is not unacceptable to mention the Palestinian claim, it is ridiculous to do so without qualifying it in a way that notes that Israel's claim, as it stands now, is substantially stronger than Palestine's, without noting that the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as its capital has as much grounding in present-day reality as a claim to Istanbul as its capital would. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That has already been answered.

You are right that the situation on the ground is that one but :

1. Israel's occupation is illegal. East-Jerusalem is an occupied territories. Israel has been condemned for this occupation, the establishment of civils in occupied territories and the annexion of East-Jerusalem. On the other side the Palestinians claims are supported by a majority of nations. If somebody steals your car, it doesn't become his own because he admmnister and control this.

2. You claim that the Israel's claim is stronger than the Palestinian's claim. Stronger by what ? There is not a single state all over the world that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The ratio is 1:1000. The representatives of 7,000,000 people against those of 7,000,000,000. The claim of Israel is only stronger in the sense of the resort to force and this has been condemned by UNO.

All in all, let's gather sources that state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and compare them with sources that state East-Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. NPOV requires both point of views are given and WP:DUE WEIGHT requires we give these their right relative ratio.

That will be easy to conlude.

Let's see what official organisations say, political scientists, historians specialist on the topic, ...

Is this ok ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. At no point did I ever say Jerusalem (East or West) rightfully belonged to Israel. I merely stated, as I've said before, that has nothing to do with the fact that Israel's government is located there and -- rightfully or not -- Israel has control over the land. I should mention that that was the case for thirteen years prior to UN Resolution 478, and that the city has been home to Israel's government for thirty years prior to it. It's not as if something magically happened on August 20, 1980, when the UN stated an annexation not coincident with Israel's placement of its government was illegal.

2. Stronger in what sense? In the sense that it actually functions as such. The Palestinian claim is just an aspiration. They have no governmental institutions there. They have no control over the city. They have no sovereignty, really, over anything. According to your logic above (absurd, in my opinion, but let's run with it) that even West Jerusalem is occupied territory, East Jerusalem does not rightfully belong to the Palestinians. Palestinians have never had control over any of the city, and it is far from certain that the Palestinians will ever gain control over a significant portion of Jerusalem. And yet you believe their claim is equal to Israel's? A country whose government has been located in the city (and existed at all!) for over sixty years and a country who currently has control over the entire city and will almost certainly maintain control over at least the western half of it following a resolution of this conflict? Unbelievable. We don't need historians, political scientists, or other experts to say this.

At this moment, Israel's statement that Jerusalem is its capital means much more than Palestine's statement that it's its capital, as this article should be written based on reality, not on some ideal vision of the world. You should consider yourself lucky that I, or anyone else, would even entertain the idea of putting the Israeli and Palestinian claims in the same sentence, and you should drop any hope of the article doing so without clear qualification. -- tariqabjotu 20:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You fail to answer the point.

In synthesis, you say that the facts are that Jerusalem is controled by Israel and is the capital and that that it is not the case for Palestine. You say "this article should be written based on reality, not on some ideal vision of the world". Indeed. But reality is that the city is occupied and that this has been condemned. I add that what you write here is arrogant : "You should consider yourself lucky that I, or anyone else, would even entertain the idea of putting the Israeli and Palestinian claims in the same sentence, and you should drop any hope of the article doing so without clear qualification". I add that this is racist given the arguments are given and the only point behing this is that you would be your superiority or the Israeli one.

For what concerns the topic :

I explained that sources remind this is an occupation and is illegal.

I understand that your have a important misunderstanding of reality and that it will be impossible to make you understand that the "resort to force" in "real life" [sic] or on wikipedia is not acceptable.

But whatever.

You didn't answer to the other point : why are you afraid to compare what sources say and let them decide. You arguments about the "reality" are, from my point of views, the ones of a minority of fanatics. Let's dig the sources, let's find what the reliable sources say and let's see WHO STATES WHAT among reliable sources regarding the status of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and/or Israel.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Don't state opinions as facts, at best Israel legal situation in Jerusalem is disputed or rather its situation in East Jerusalem. As far as I seen Israel has a legal case for both, but politics is rarely about the letter of the law, which doesn't cover complicated situation and doesn't always provide solutions that everyone can live with. For example 478 that Tariqabjotu mentioned that came after the PLO claim accepted in 1974 was silver lined with "its implications for peace".

2. I am not certain how many recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital after 1948, but I know that it has been the capital of sovereign state for a good part of a century.(p.s only following 478 punitive action in 1980, after Israel changed the status of East Jerusalem, the UN called upon its members to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city) While the Palestinians barely have administrative power over their own territory, not to speak of sovereignty and certainly not over East Jerusalem. As to your claim that the 'Palestinians claims that are supported by a majority of the nations' you should really take a look at the wording of those documents, they always vague about the actual rights and always come with pending final negotiations silver lining(so far they have never been determined in any legal document or agreement to be sovereign Palestinian). Also your claim that 'Palestine has been recognised officialy as a State on 29 November" is false, that not what the UN bid was about.--Mor2 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

1. At best the "Israel legal situation in Jerusalem is disputed"... The famous "disputed" : read book instead of listening to Israeli propaganda and blogs.

2. No country in the world recognize Jesurasalem as Israel's capital. If you don't agree, tell me which ones ? Nauru maybe ?

2. Palestine is a non-member state of the UNO. The status of State was recognized before as a State by hundreds of other states.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Inlight of various legal arguments and views, disputed is the operative word regarding WP:NPOV. Furthermore, I suggest books without car illustrations.

2. We all want recognition, but surely you realize that Capitals are not sovereign states. Besides regardless of recognition the fact is the same, Jerusalem has been the official capital and seat of government of Israel(Sovereign state), for the good part of century. The way I see it your issues of recognition comes to play in 1980 when Israel decided to annex the eastern neighborhoods(which were outside of 1967 armistice line) a move that was indeed not recognized by the UN, as seen in resolution 478 and their status is pending negotiations.

2. I agree that PLO delegation status in the UN was upgraded, but it doesn't make your claim that "Palestine has been recognised officialy as a State on 29 November' more true, due to the fact that the UN doesn't recognize states.--Mor2 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, the fact that no countries has their embassies in Jerusalem:http://www.science.co.il/embassies.asp shows that it is not recognized as a capital. PerDaniel (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Or simply that UN members comply with UN resolution 478, which I have mentioned.--Mor2 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, else, which countries do recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel ?

If none, that means that the POV of the representatives of 7,000,000 people is given more weight in wikipedia than the ones of the representatives of 7,000,000,000. That's ~WP:UNDUE.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No? Care to back that up and show how the lack embassies in Jerusalem, show that it is not recognized as a Israeli capital, rather than compliance with UN resolution 478, which called for withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city.--Mor2 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

PerDaniel, most embassies in the Netherlands are in The Hague, not Amsterdam, the city the Netherlands calls its capital. I don't think it'd be appropriate to say other nations don't recognize the Dutch choice, and you'll observe that our Amsterdam article calls the city, rightfully so, the capital of the Netherlands. I'm just saying this for the record, of course, because the recognition issue is already mentioned in the article. -- tariqabjotu 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is why the Netherlands is on the list of states with multiple capitals: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/multiplecapital.htm The most obvious difference between Amsterdam and Jerusalem is that Amsterdam is entirely within the internationally accepted borders of the country that it is capital of. PerDaniel (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, would you mind explaining to me the history of your appointment as arbiter of what this article will say? People should consider themselves lucky that the Emperor of a Wikipedia article has deigned to allow material in, but they must not dare to upset him in pushing their luck? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you dont run things here. As far as the idea that this article should be written according to reality, I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, your manifestation of reality being that Israel's "claim" to Jerusalem as its capital is stronger than the Palestinian's is one based not on any sources, which generally scoff at the idea that Israel has any legally valid claim to East Jerusalem, but on your own imagination. Please dont confuse yourself with the owner of this article, or as someone with the sole authority to determine title to Jerusalem. nableezy - 20:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussing with you (to say nothing of some of the others against this wording) is exceedingly difficult, as you insist on arguing points that are never made. Even if you don't agree with the position that the legal status of Israel's control of the city has no bearing on its status as its capital, you should at least be able to acknowledge that that's the point your opponents are making. So, I have no idea why you find it necessary to explain again and again that you and the whole world believes East Jerusalem is illegally occupied. Okay. Great. Thanks. I never disagreed with that statement. I said this much in the comment you're supposedly responding to.

And you have some gall to respond in the jerkish manner you did. A compromise means you need to find some sort of middle ground, and some of those who support the current wording (a middle ground, as it is, as noted by many in previous threads) are willing to cave a bit further -- you know, compromise further. I guarantee you that no one who supports the current wording would accept a change that removes any sort of clarification between the Israeli and Palestinian claims to the city as capital. No one. So if you reject the notion that such a wording is out of the question, you are suggesting that you are not compelled to seek a middle ground and that you are the arbiter of what should and should not be in the article. Don't you dare deflect your arrogant, uncompromising position onto me.

But, it's not like this was unknown before. You were invited to participate in mediation, to have a mediator, or -- if you will -- arbiter, help settle this issue. And you didn't agree to participate. When asked to clarify your position, you responded with your traditional holier-than-thou attitude, saying that Cptnono "[doesn't] run shit here" and that you would "appreciate being left out of this". But all you've done since the mediation's rejection, all you've done since you helped catapult some attempt to get this matter resolved, is get involved (as if you weren't before). All you've done is butt in with your meaningless analogies, pontificate on your political views, and accuse others of doing what you publicly did by rejecting mediation -- blocking a resolution to this issue. So I just have one question for you, as you've done nothing productive so far: why the hell are you still here? -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to share my political views on this page. Why am I here? Mostly to explain to others that due to the obstinate attitude of you and a few others that there is no point in trying to rationally argue what the lead should say. That because you have appointed yourself God-king of this article, making the determination of what Jerusalem's status is as capital of Israel and/or Palestine and what weight or qualifications should be given to those statuses, and the never-ending reverting due to "no consensus" by those who have a somewhat selective understanding of when consensus applies, that everybody expecting any reasonable discussion on this topic to end with a policy compliant introduction to this article is wasting their time. Don't you dare deflect your arrogant, uncompromising position onto me?!?!?!?!?!?!? Are you out of your mind? Am I the one that has said that others should consider themselves lucky that you would entertain the notion that this article should include in its lead that a state recognized by over 100 other states has declared Jerusalem its capital? Am I the one that has said others need to drop any hope of adding material to a Wikipedia article? Do you see what you are typing, or is there some malfunction in the tubes that causes words to be attributed to your username that you never typed? If not, you may want to dial back your oh so misplaced outrage.

I asked to be left out of mediation because a. I havent really been dealing with this issue for several years, and b. there is no point in discussing this with most of the people involved. Entering mediation would require me to suspend common sense and assume that many of the people involved are operating in good faith, that they have valid policy based positions, and that they are willing to compromise. They arent, they dont, and they wont. And as far the exceedingly silly line that I catapult some attempt to get this matter resolved, no Sherlock, that was the people that were listed as parties that didnt accept mediation. You know, three users not named Nableezy. I did not reject mediation, kindly stop distorting what happened. I removed myself from the list of involved parties, if the users listed had accepted yall would have been on your merry way to a pointless discussion on a different page.

Finally, for somebody that has whined that others have misrepresented their position, you really should try to pay a bit more attention to the lowly people who should be basking in appreciation of your good will. I dont believe I have ever once said that East Jerusalem is illegally occupied. But such trivial matters need not concern the gods running this article of course. nableezy - 07:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Pluto2012's wording. This seems to be far more neutral and balanced than the current wording. It focuses first on Jerusalem's religious significance (which is its most notable aspect), and presents the Israeli, Palestinian, and world opinions on the matter of its status as a capital (unlike the current wording which completely excludes mention of Palestine). All of the complaints against Pluto2012's wording seem to boil down to "It doesn't favor my POV". Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  To clarify, you're not referring to the wording in bold at the beginning of this section (just below the "Other option" header), correct? Regardless, you know darn well that's an insulting and inaccurate summary of other people's positions. -- tariqabjotu 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What is "Jerusalem"?

Could the people who insist on the current lead wording please explain to me what "Jerusalem" means? Is it a place in Israel? Does it include East Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount)? nableezy - 07:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I already pointed out that such question may rise if the lead is changed. The current definition of Jerusalem used in this article includes municipality borders defined by Israeli Jerusalem law, while Jerusalem borders from 1948 legal status, would include about 3 time smaller city, without 80% of all of Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem which are currently considered part of Jerusalem, based on Israeli law, Legally in 1948 they were considered villages outside of Jerusalem. So Jerusalem from its 1948 status, would have today about 400 000 inhabitants of whom roughly 70 000 Palestinians.--Tritomex (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem in the sense of this article is everything that reliable sources choose to say in connection with "Jerusalem". That includes things like the Caananite history and also various disputes about borders. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The operative word here is history and various disputes, but this article is still about the Israeli capital city. Yes its eastern part is outside of the 1967 armistice line and its annexation in 1980 was deemed illegal by the UN, and it is claimed as capital by the state of Palestine aswell since 1988, and currently the PNA exercise some authority within the Eastern parts etc etc but those are details. When the Israelis and Palestinians will unlock their horns and reach agreement, we will be able to write about Jerusalem as the capital of both sovereign states, but not yet.--Mor2 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as references to the city in the later UN resolutions are concerned, the Jerusalem borders defined in the '48 Partition Resolution are still significant.     ←   ZScarpia   17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

<- "Jerusalem" in the lead must refer to the same spatial object as "Jerusalem" in the title of the article. If the same word is being used to refer to 2 different objects then that needs to be made clear in the lead. Since this isn't the West Jerusalem article or the East Jerusalem article, and the article content covers the entire city, it follows that "Jerusalem" in the lead refers to the entire city. There is nothing to indicate that it refers to something else. So the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" clearly means that it is a fact, according to Wikipedia, that the subject of this article, the entire city of Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel. If that statement is true here in this article, it must also be true in every Wikipedia article that refers to Jerusalem, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. Many other "facts" follow from this that are obvious policy violations. For example, if it is a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, then it is also a fact that the Rockefeller Museum is in the capital of Israel, and we should be able to say that using Wikipedia's voice. But we can't say that without violating policy anymore than we can say El Aaiún is in the Southern Provinces of Morocco or the South Pars field is in Qatar. The "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" statement of fact has all sorts of problematic consequences that are conveniently ignored and not cascaded down to articles about places inside this "capital of Israel". The statement has to be changed and it is easy to fix it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Id like to avoid having the entire argument in each comment. Tritomex gave an answer that Id like to delve deeper into, but Id like further participation from others on the "pro-capital side" before doing so. So, to ask directly, Tariq, BW, Hertz, NMMNG, could you please tell me what "Jerusalem" means and if it includes East Jerusalem, which would include the Temple Mount. nableezy - 18:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is entrapment. No matter what I say, you'll twist that into something that supposedly supports your side. No, sorry; see you at arbitration. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you. You wont answer a straightforward question. Does "Jerusalem" include "East Jerusalem" is an entrapment question? Really? I could twist a yes or no into something that supposedly supports my side? And you think I am the one with an arrogant, uncompromising position? Thanks for that. Is East Jerusalem a part of the "Jerusalem" that is the topic of this article? Can you give a simple answer to a simple question? nableezy - 21:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not obligated to answer your questions, just as you weren't obligated to participate in mediation. There is no other reason for you to ask this banal question, especially directed at people who support the current wording, unless you wanted to use a response here as ammo for holding your position. Sorry, not interested. As I told you awhile ago, I'd be perfectly happy if you didn't keep butting in. And, yet you persist in doing so and using my lack of response to your directed questions as evidence of stubbornness. No, it's recognition of the futility of doing so. A third party is needed here, and you rejected that offer when it was made available. That's fine, but for you to then feel it incumbent upon me to answer you directly in a less controlled setting is absurd. -- tariqabjotu 23:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that you have no defense for supporting the blatant violation of WP:NPOV in the lead? PerDaniel (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You might think it's cute to keep responding to me with your pithy baiting remarks. But I don't. Find something better to do. -- tariqabjotu 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise if the source denying Israels right to define its capital would be found, (based on 1980 Jerusalem law) than we cant just selectively pick up what we like and dislike from that law. As the Palestinian definition of East Jerusalem lacks equally international validation and there are no international (UN-security council) recognition of Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem,If we go fully in denial of 1980 Jerusalem law implications , we will have to redefine East Jerusalem (Israel was accepted as full UN member based on 1949 borders including West Jerusalem) based on its 1948 municipal borders.--Tritomex (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some sources for your claim that "Israel was accepted as full UN member based on 1949 borders including West Jerusalem." Israel was admitted to UN membership under Resolution 273. That resolution recalls Resolutions 181 of November 29, 1947 and 194 of December 11, 1948. Resolution 181 calls for the creation of a Corpus Separatum containing Jerusalem. Resolution 194 calls for areas including Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns to be placed under effective United Nations control, for the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem and for detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the Jerusalem area to be presented.     ←   ZScarpia   00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as far as I know Israel admittance into the UN did't validate its borders and/or the status of Jerusalem, infact the Israel rejected that Jerusalem had been proclaimed as part of the State of Israel at that time. As for the rest, is your lack of other objection means you agree with it?--Mor2 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, your beef in the mediation is with the users that actually rejected it, those being the ones listed as parties and not accepting it. Ive asked you above to stop saying the patently untrue statement that I rejected mediation. No, I rejected being involved in mediation. And yes, you do need to address concerns on the talk page of an article that you edit. That you wont answer the simple, straightforward question posed to you is an example of an, oh what was it, arrogant, uncompromising position. nableezy - 05:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And as far as your wish that I stop butting in, sorry, but I cant oblige. Youve invigorated me, given me a reason to edit. I thank you for that. So, if you wouldnt mind justifying your position, could you please tell me if East Jerusalem is a part of the "Jerusalem" that this article discusses? And, just so you cant accuse me of entrapment, Ill even give the follow up questions. Is East Jerusalem in Israel? Is East Jerusalem in the Palestinian territories? Is Jerusalem a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 05:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take your offtopic mediation beef to your talk pages and if you feel so invigorated that you must troll for a response, at least try to butting in after his post or start a new section, not dump it in the middle of the discussion.--Mor2 (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but start a new section? I opened this section for these questions. You and others have gone off on unrelated tangents, and now accuse me of being off topic. If you need have the same argument in multiple sections of this talk page, do it in a different one. This section was opened to establish if the people who support the current wording agree or disagree with the statements that East Jerusalem is in Jerusalem, and following that if they agree or disagree with the statements listed. nableezy - 06:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Im going to ask again. Tariq, on my talk page you accuse me of not understanding what AGF means. Please demonstrate that you do by answering the questions, asked in good faith. You question why I only direct the questions at those holding a specific position; easy, the others already agree that there is a problem with the first sentence. The point of these questions are simple. I want to know why the first sentence of this article should be Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such instead of Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Which could then be followed by Since 1967, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it as part of its capital city. Which could then be followed by Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claim have garnered international recognition. Then it could say something like Among the oldest cities in the world, it is holy to the three Abrahamic religion ... And go on from there. The entire fourth paragraph could be whacked, the next sentence incorporated along with the largest city bit elsewhere. You get a relatively straightforward sentence saying that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, I get an actual explanation of the issue, the lead actually begins to resemble the beginning of an encyclopedia article, who isnt happy here? But all of that is predicated on the agreement that Jerusalem, if it includes East Jerusalem, is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. So do you agree to that statement? Do the others who support the current wording in which Jerusalem is, before anything else, Israel's? nableezy - 06:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not answering your questions without a third-party observer or mediator, and your statement demonstrates exactly why. You have been involved in this discussion to varying degrees for years, and the position of those who support the current wording has remained fairly consistent throughout. And, yet, somehow, you still think you've found a counter-argument through this series of questions. You still go off track with these grand questions as if they have anything to do with the capital statement. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to participate I cant make you, but without a valid rationale against the edit I will make it. You cannot both ignore a discussion and force the article to abide by a certain position. This is not your playground and you do not make the rules. nableezy - 18:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And it will be reverted. See title of section two sections up. -- tariqabjotu 18:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ive made the edit, if you want to revert it you need to explain why. You cannot claim "no consensus" and refuse to participate on the talk page. nableezy - 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I love this fundamental question

I am a middle-aged white man. This is something which nearly everyone who meets me will identify and fundamentally agree with, even if they are blind. My politics will quickly become evident not long after I open my mouth; I am not one to shy from controversy. In between the time it takes for me to establish my presence and state my position, the tone of my voice, body language and chosen words will give some clue about where it is I have been. In this spirit, and in my best understanding of policy, I offer the following: "Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, a place revered by the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and since 1948 it has been the subject of a geopolitical controversy: whereas Israel claims the city including East Jerusalem as its capital, the majority of the world's nations do not recognize it as such; and whereas Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their nation's capital, many nations defer to the United Nations position that the city should be placed under international rule, eventually becoming the capital of both Israel and the State of Palestine." Feel free to throw stones at the middle-aged white man. ;) ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is a good compromise. PerDaniel (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add a slight correction to what you have written. Both parties claim "Jerusalem", using that word, as their capital in their basic laws. People often say here that the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem but their basic law says otherwise. See comment at 12:46, 1 December 2012 above for the source. The Children's World Atlas (ISBN 978-0756675844, p. 81) gets it right with the very simple "Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital."Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Sean.hoyland, so amended. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Add to that Yasser Arafat as a primary source interpreted through a secondary. Unless we see a definitive shift per Abbas. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! for the middle aged white man's suggestion!Alertboatbanking (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

At my ears, that sounds exactly the same as what I proposed. These are just facts and reflecting WP:NPoV. Those who disagree with this version say both Palestinian and Israeli claims cannot be considered equal but that the Israeli one has more due:weight because they occupy the city and they established the facts on the grounds. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've phrased this in such a way as to treat both as minority views considered separately and each one contrasted with the majority. The continuation of the article, which could be prefaced "The political reality..." further balances the Israeli claim vs. the Palestinian claim without WP:BATTLE by virtue of just talking more about Israel's actual governance thereof. It is also inherent in naming Israel first and naming Judaism first, which should please people who support the "we were here first" appeal. East Jerusalem is intentional to give WP:DUE to a predominant worldwide view about sharing it. This is an article which will be talking predominantly about Israel and displaying their actual authority. Any fatwas yet? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And if they don't agree with you, identifying you as much younger/older or as an ugly woman, will this change the fact that you are a middle aged man? Similarly here the controversy doesn't change the fact that this an article about the Israeli city/capital. Your wording ignore a basic fact(and most of the article) and put emphasis on the geopolitical controversy since 1948(part of the history section).--Mor2 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A large portion of this article covers something that is not an Israeli city. nableezy - 23:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting because other than the standard history section, all of the article seem to cover Jerusalem as defined by current Israel municipal borders.--Mor2 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel's position on what is in Israel is not the final say in the matter. East Jerusalem is not in Israel. That is a super-majority viewpoint. nableezy - 05:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No its not, nor is its status as occupied territory change the fact that Eastern Jerusalem is still part of Israel, or more importantly part of Jerusalem municipal borders, which is this article is about.--Mor2 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I cant make out what your first no its not references, and "Eastern Jerusalem", more commonly known as "East Jerusalem" is outside of Israel's territory and it is in the occupied Palestinian territories. That is something that Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention has affirmed, as has the International Court of Justices, and it is something that countless sources can be brought to document. Israel's position in the matter is an extreme minority one, despite the fervor of its supporters on Wikipedia. nableezy - 06:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was meant as "No, Israel's position on what is in Israel is not the final say in the matter and East Jerusalem is occupied territory. However, neither change the fact that..." the rest is the same. The article is still about the city Jerusalem within its municipal borders. Nothing you added change that. --Mor2 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.. then what happens to the rest of the article? If this is not an article on Jerusalem which is currently the capital city of Israel, does the Israeli city flag, emblem and mayor have to be removed from the infobox? Someone has now taken this matter to arbcom so i guess we will wait and see the outcome of that. At present there is no consensus to change the long standing wording of this article introduction. Your proposal would be slightly better if it actually included the fact Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital, rather than just the entirely open to interpretation "claims" which could mean pretty much anything, ignoring the situation on the ground. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC) "whereas Israel claims the city including East Jerusalem as its capital, the majority of the world's nations do not recognize it as such; and whereas Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their nation's capital," - this is one sided, and gives undue weight to the Palestinian POV. It treats the claims as though they are equal, ignoring the defacto/dejure situation as mentioned above. And worse it goes out of its way to dispute the israeli "claim", but not the Palestinian one. I do have to agree with Pluto2012 though, this is pretty much what he proposed. Which many opposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion! I really like your suggestion, and I don't mean at all that Israel should have equal weight to the State of Palestine in this sentence. Please just keep in mind that the aim of the sentence is to describe the controversy framed from a worldwide view of Jerusalem's political status, something that I think will likely happen, since Wikipedia is not censored. The point of ignoring the defacto/dejure situation is that in the very next breath, we're going to break that down. If we use "proclaims" then the weightiest proclamation of note is that "Israel proclaims the city including East Jerusalem is forever under its sovereignty as its capital..." per Bibi. That gives tons more weight to the Israeli side of things. Would that be fair to you and the many who opposed Pluto2012's draft? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to issue an unqualified statement about infoboxes in QPQ if I see that there is a clear atmosphere of cooperation going on. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I object for the same reasons I objected to Pluto's proposal (which this is pretty much a copy of). It's nice to see 2 out of 4 people who support it are socks. If only we had people who really really care about socks around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As you clearly have no intention to follow WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV I really don't understand why you are here.PerDaniel (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How did you know I was talking about you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea that your lunatic raving was about me, but as one of my favourite poets wrote: "Du må ikke tåle så inderlig vel den urett som ikke rammer dig selv". PerDaniel (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but i believe the current wording in the article is far more neutral and covers the issue the fairest and clearest way. It is a compromise position that was introduced a couple of years ago, before that the article did not even mention the international recognition in the first sentence, and there are still some editors who object to that being there.. especially as it is repeated in the introduction in another paragraph too. Your proposal even with modest changes is unlikely to reach consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No More Mister Nice Guy. your statement of sockpuppetry is unsourced and unverifiable. Normally in this context, I would consider it to be a violation of WP:NPA. I only ask that you please use WP:V and WP:RS to back your assertion. Is that okay? As for your statement as to the likelihood of consensus, BritishWatcher, I must believe that you are correct, as you have already spoken for the other editors once before. I am a realist. I only ask that you and your friends try to work out some kind of a counteroffer before any ArbComm case decision. I really do prefer it if you continue to speak for them, rather than letting civility break down in here. Thank you very much for engaging me. Is there anything else I can help you with? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of RS that back up my assertions have been brought up in the previous discussions. Please check the archives. Is there anything else I can help you with? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. The archives are quite large. Since it's your statement, would you mind terribly backing it up yourself? I hate digging when I don't know what I'm looking for. Thanks :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to do your homework for you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry or any ideas that might lead to the discovery of evidence by people good at doing things like that, provide it to the "people who really really care about socks", you know who they are. Otherwise you are wasting your time mentioning it unless you know that simply mentioning it is enough for them to abandon the account. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow... really?

You know it is bad when I think you are being foolish. Mediation failed to have the parties involved involved. Some of you should take another swing at it. Narrow the invite list down to those who both want and deserve to participate. Someone mentioned above that this is all a behavioral issue now. I agree and am guilty myself. However, I would like to think there are a few editors discussing here who could have an actual discussions among themselves. Plenty of tags on the article, a hindered reader experience, and surely ARBPIA3 are the alternatives.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance - what is ARBPIA3? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I filed the original mediation request and was quite inclusive in selecting the editors who would be "involved". I don't know how many parties mediations usually have and how involved someone needs to be to be "involved" in the sense of mediation. If someone knows that we could re-file the request with a shorter list, I encourage that person to do so. On the other hand, would excluding someone from the request who is later considered "involved" be seen as abuse of the procedure? --Dailycare (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA2 are the two ArbCom cases that have occurred regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the former being in January 2008 and the latter being in March 2009 (and not being as broad as the first ARBPIA). So, WP:ARBPIA3 is the potential third ArbCom case. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the set of people who would be considered significantly involved and the set of people who don't deserve to participate overlap. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And who "deserve" to participate? Those who agree with you? PerDaniel (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

People who aren't going to respond to simple statements by being an ass, like you just did. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that people who are able to comply with WP:CIVIL would "deserve" to participate. PerDaniel (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to dailycare's response: I did not agree with the wording of the RfM but you should be applauded for the attempt. Everyone was involved to a certain extent. I chose to decline since I did not want to be part of what I assumed would be a mess. Some editors here could pull it off, though. Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Last revert

Has to be justified. What exactly was wrong with that edit. You cannot say "you dont have consensus" and "I refuse to participate to stop their from being any consensus". NMMNG, justify your revert on policy based grounds. nableezy - 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And PerDaniel, that last revert doesnt help either. nableezy - 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't it?PerDaniel (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasnt trying to solve this through edit-warring. nableezy - 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of refusing to participate? Diffs please. Also, do I need to dig up a diff of you explaining that something that's been in the article for years has consensus and you need to show consensus to change it before doing so? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am saying that you have not justified the revert. You have only claimed "no consensus" without giving a reason for your lack of agreement. I dont honestly see what fault people could find in the edit. And because Tariq, and others, have steadfastly refused to answer my questions I do not know how I can find what fault they see in the edit. I have, as best I could, addressed each argument. You want the article to say as a fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", check. You do not want the Palestinian "claim" given equal weight to the Israeli "claim". The article says that it is Israel's capital, and that it has been designated Palestine's, so check there too. Others have a problem with the repetition of the political issues, gone. On the opposing side, there is a clear explanation that a. the status as capital of Israel is disputed internationally, and b. that portions of "the capital of Israel" as defined by Israel are not in Israel. What exactly is wrong with the edit? That it doesnt have consensus? Thats it? nableezy - 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And now Hertz. You have to justify the revert. This game of saying I dont agree so there is no consensus and because there is no consensus no change can be made is getting more and more tiresome. Please cite policy justifying the last revert. Im done playing the game, you need to rationally back up your position, not fall back on these wikipediaisms about consensus, especially given your rather elastic interpretation of when consensus is needed. nableezy - 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change. If you've read the policy, you guys know what is suggested next. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A refusal to back up the revert is in my view disruptive behavior covered by the existing discretionary sanctions. Both Hertz and NMMNG have made a revert without giving any explanation why they did so. Ill wait a day or so for them to do so. nableezy - 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

When there is a contentious issue that has been discussed for more than nine years, you can't just make a proposal and then immediately institute it. My refusal to discuss this without a third party is neither agreement nor disagreement with your proposal. It has some good points, it has some bad points, and I'd honestly say more good than bad. But either way, you can't just put it in like that. It will get reverted, as it did. In a situation like this, there need not be any reason provided for reversion other than the fact that it was never the subject of discussion. Requesting such or requesting that there be some sort of observed process, which doesn't look too far away if you'd just let the RfArb run its course, is not stonewalling. -- tariqabjotu 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Immediately institute it? I instituted it after you refused to discuss it. What am I supposed to do, wait for you to decide when it need be discussed? there need not be any reason provided for reversion other than the fact that it was never the subject of discussion? It was the subject of discussion, you just refused to discuss it. You say now there is some good and some bad with the edit. Great, a comment on the content. What was bad about it? And, for the policy minded among you, read WP:EW, specifically the line When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. nableezy - 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. There are other editors on this page, and none of them, not even those who agree the current wording should be changed, have commented on it. And before you come back with another arrogant retort, no, eleven hours is not enough time to allow objections to a hidden proposal to be lodged. Stupid breaching experiments like this present yet another reason why a third-party observer is necessary, and presumably why you rejected one. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that you stop distorting, and I am being kind by not using the word lying, what happened at mediation. Three users rejected mediation by being listed as parties and not accepting, none of them me. I declined to be a part of it, I did not reject its use. And as far as the rather funny line hidden proposal, cute. You dont pay attention to what people write, but its their fault for not making the text blink. And for a user who claims that others do not understand what AGF means, you seem to have a curious understanding of the topic. Meaning, you dont. Can you please, please, please, please say what you think was wrong with the edit? Thats the only thing that counts, not whether you, of all people, think that I am arrogant, or that I ran a breaching experiment. You said there was good and bad in the edit. What was bad about it? nableezy - 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand what a third-party observer is. Is that the issue? Otherwise, please stop asking me to engage with you on this point directly. With time, one will be provided, and you will not have an opportunity to reject it. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that an excessively arrogant user who thinks that he knows more than anybody else and sees himself as the owner of the article thinks that he can, through just saying NO NO NO, stop any changes being made to a Wikipedia article. This remains the talk page for the article Jerusalem, and if you are incapable of discussing the article Jerusalem then you should find yourself another pissing ground. Can you or can you not identify issues with the change made? Because without people justifying the revert it will be restored, and Im down to let AE deal with anybody who thinks that they are above the standard procedure for resolving disputes (ie you). nableezy - 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I will no longer reply directly to those who twist the meanings and intentions of my words, whose civility is questionable, and whose patience with the discussion process is sadly lacking. My revert was, as stated, on account of the edit's aggressive violation of the consensus-building process. No consensus for any such changes has emerged from the discussions at hand. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That emphatically is not a justification for the revert. Please explain what fault the edit has. For years now you have reverted changes due to a lack of some mythical consensus. I for one am through playing this game, either explain your opposition to the change or get out the way. Absent actual reasons for the revert I may well restore the change. nableezy - 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So far no policy/evidence based reasons have been given for reverts by Hertz and NMMNG. Hertz, could you please explain what evidence you have that this attempt by Nableezy to move the article forward is "agressive" and in what way it violates consensus building. Per BRD if you have a problem with a bold edit you should state what your policy/evidence based issues are. Simply stating that there is no consensus, but not stating what your policy/evidence based issues are with the edit is disruptive. Unless you state what valid issues you have with the proposed edit, how can we move forward towards consensus? Dlv999 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I resent your calling my behavior disruptive. With very much unresolved discussions in progress and a long-term stable version in place in the article, proper procedure would be to introduce the proposed edit here and allow ample (I stress, ample) time for discussion. Instead, it was aggressively sprung full-blown in the lead. The burden is not on those trying to restore some normalcy to the procedure. Even if the proposed edit were given on this talk page, it is unrealistic and inconsiderate to expect editors (all of whom are volunteers) to drop everything else and engage in instant analysis and discussion. I suggest that it is time for cool heads to prevail. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Its been several years that you have been reverting changes to the lead based on "no consensus". Exactly how much longer do the cooler heads need? And its unreasonable to expect that people immediately discuss material that they have time to immediately revert? Really? nableezy - 21:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean that everybody agrees to a certain wording. A user, or a set of users, even a majority of users, cannot filibuster change by claiming their acquiescence is required for "consensus". Policy-based reasons opposing the edit are required, and there has yet to be a single policy-based reason for either NMMNG's or Hertz's revert. nableezy - 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds familiar. And most likely, no matter what is said, you will never be satisfied that a policy-based reason has been provided. This is such a joke. -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that isnt true. And for a user who has repeatedly faulted others for failing to understand what AGF means, you seem to be incapable of showing that you do. What are the policy-based reasons for reverting the edit? Without one being provided I will reinstate it. nableezy - 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And then you will be reverted and/or reported to WP:AE. See title of section five sections up. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about doing the same thing to you. You cannot refuse to discuss the issue and then say that the article may not be changed because it has not been discussed. If you want to revert you need to justify it. And if somebody else reverts without providing a policy based reason they will be brought to AE. Im calling your bluff, mostly because you have no case, and also because AE should really see a user saying others should consider themselves lucky that he would entertain such a notion as including well sourced material in an article, and then calling others arrogant and stubborn. nableezy - 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The quite obvious policy based reason to reject this change to the lead is that it doesn't summarize the body of the article, and removes proper summarization that's already there. There are others, but let's start with this one, shall we? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can start there. What in the lead as I wrote it is not summarizing what is in the article, and what summarization that's already there was removed that is needed and not covered? nableezy - 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier if you showed me which part it is supposed to be summarizing? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not the one that says it isnt summarizing the article, now am I. There arent exactly that many changes between the current lead and how I wrote it, and if you think it isnt a proper summary say why. I dont know how clear I need to be in saying that I am not playing this game anymore. Justify your revert please, and an attempt at wittiness is not a justification. nableezy - 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for this kind of brinksmanship. An editor proposing an edit doesn't need to guess what your objection is. If you have one, describe it in a calm, respectful manner. If you don't have one, then don't revert the edit to begin with. This isn't rocket science. Likewise, you shouldn't be shy about sharing your objection just because you're afraid others might disagree with it. Be a tiger, discuss the content and don't speculate on others' motives. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit in question

To make this clear, and in the hopes that people can actually address the edit, Im posting the current lead and my rewrite here:

There has been a claim above that the new lead does not summarize the body of the article, and removes proper summarization that's already there, though an explanation of that has yet to be made. Can people please explain why they object to the rewritten lead? nableezy - 21:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Palestinian territory" is an abstract and undefined term (used by different subjects for different meaning) which do not exist in reality and do not have intentional validation, despite having an article in Wikipedia with plenty WP:OR and WP:SYNT.--Tritomex (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Palestinian territories exist and the term is not abstract or undefined. That is an objection entirely without merit. nableezy - 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no single legal document that define the Palestinian territories.(which is one of the reasons why there is no sovereign state of Palestine) --Mor2 (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You mistake a border treaty with a definition. The Palestinian territories, as documented in countless sources, are the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. And, actually, that is not the topic under discussion here. nableezy - 06:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But it is about borders, you need a defined a geographical region and If you refer to the Palestinian territories, they are defined by the 1967 "borders". A better question would be why you put Israel and the 'Palestinian territories' and not Israel and the 'West Bank'.--Mor2 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no. A border would be formed through a formal treaty between Israel and Palestine. The boundary that separates Israel from the Palestinian territories is the Green Line. Why did I not put West Bank? The same reason I did not put Jerusalem District. nableezy - 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My main issue about it is being treated below in a "worldwide view" context. The world, which does not recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel nor Palestine says it should be shared under international rule and eventually capital for both Israel and State of Palestine. This worldwide view has a greater prominence that the view that Israel should rightfully control Jerusalem itself - which in turn is more widely held than the view that the State of Palestine should control it unilaterally. The draft does not solve that problem. Indicate the relative prominence of views in defining geopolitical status in lede, please. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that simplifies a number of views on what the international community thinks should, legally or otherwise, happen to Jerusalem. And I dont think it is necessary to get into what is right in the lead, just what is. I wouldnt be opposed to adding another line about the political status of the city, but, as Ravpapa has reminded us repeatedly, Jerusalem is more than the center of the Palestine-Israel conflict. It shouldnt overwhelm the lead, and that is what I tried to do. But if you have a specific suggestion on what to add, then, please, go at it. nableezy - 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for Nableezy If "Palestinian territory" do exist as defined entity, do Palestinians (proclamation of the State of Palestine) seek their capital only within the boundaries of "Palestinian territory"?--Tritomex (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The actual Declaration of Independence in 1988 made no mention of any borders. The most recent diplomatic endeavor, that being the UN GA resolution, said Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. Abbas has repeatedly said that he wants East Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. So by that measure, yes. But it depends on which Palestinians, some dont recognize any part of Israel as anything other than occupied Palestine. But that isnt the issue here. The term Palestinian territories has a well known, unambiguous meaning. It is the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. That isnt up for debate here. And I dont plan on getting drawn into that discussion. If your objection to the proposed lead is that the Palestinian territories dont exist, then your objection has no merit. nableezy - 02:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nb: the 1988 Alger Declaration refers to Jerusalem as capital of the State of Palestine. The last sentence is "(...) Jerusalem, the capital of our independent Palestinian State. source Pluto2012 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im aware, however it did not define Jerusalem and I am unaware of al-Quds referring to western Jerusalem, but it may. nableezy - 19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG below makes the following comment, which I, for ease of responding in a sane section, have duplicated here:

You've not answered any of the issues raised regarding your massive, not previously discussed, change of a lead that's not only under discussion but is at ArbCom and you'll take anyone who reverts it to AE? It's going to be me, so don't get your hopes too high about Tariq. You can start writing your request right now, and we'll see how that works out for you. In the meanwhile, since you don't seem to understand the question I asked about your change, here it is more explicitly: what's the source for "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories"? What part of the article is this summarizing? Why did you remove the sections you did (do I need to quote each section or is this general hand waving sufficient)? Eagerly awaiting your answers, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The source I provided for Jerusalem partially being in the Palestinian territories is:Imseis, Ardi. "On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Harv. Int'l LJ 44 (2003): 65. The quote from that article is: ... the State of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory. What summary have I removed? I condensed the legal status into the first paragraph, and removed some unimportant trivia. You want to re-add the last paragraph removed? Go right ahead, I dont care. So what else? And yes, if you dont respond to this I will be restoring the edit. nableezy - 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Another source for East Jerusalem being in the Palestinian territories is: Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal M. Gross, and Keren Michaeli, Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 23 Berkeley Journal of International Law. 551 (2005), p. 551:

In August 2005, Israel pulled out its settlements and military forces from the Gaza Strip. The question whether this amounts to the end of the occupation in this area remains open and its determination depends on factual and legal considerations relating to the notion of "effective control," which are beyond the scope of this article. Even if one assumes that Gaza is no longer occupied, our discussion applies to the rest of the Palestinian territory, which Israel continues to occupy, i.e. the West Bank including East Jerusalem, which constitutes a far more substantial area both in terms of territory and the extent of Jewish settlements.

NMMNG, do you challenger the reliability of either the Berkeley Journal of International Law or the Harvard Journal of International Law as reliable sources? nableezy - 19:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In the article, you put "Jerusalem...is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories". How does either of your sources support this without SYNTH? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided directly support that Jerusalem is partially in the Palestinian territories. I admit that they do not support that Jerusalem is partially in Israel. Do you challenge that Jerusalem is partially in Israel? nableezy - 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports what you put in the article? So far it seems the answer is "no". By the way, your source says something about East Jerusalem (seems like a proper noun with all the capitalization there), not about Jerusalem, which may or may not include the part your source is talking about. Unfortunately your source doesn't specify. No SYNTH or OR please. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is such an inordinately silly argument that I fear I do not have it in me to respond as though it were not. So I've brought that issue to WP:OR/N, and you can attempt to make the argument that despite this article including East Jerusalem in Jerusalem that sources that say East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories cannot be used for SYNTH reasons. nableezy - 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is, by far, the worst objection you could possibly come up with in response to the proposed wording, and I have no idea why you've spent time raising it and defending it. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Might as well start at the beginning and move on from there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This isnt a game, please say what other reasons you have for reverting. If it was the OR issue then you have no case. nableezy - 03:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Im still waiting for the next objection. Without one I will be restoring the edit, and blanket reverts without even a nod to policy will not stand. nableezy - 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. You took this to the OR noticeboard, so obviously there was more than a nod to policy (but do continue to obsessively quote me, it's fun). That was yesterday. So far only one person responded there (that would be your "self-blocked" overly dramatic friend), but this is what, the 3rd time you threatened to restore this material in less than 24 hours? Did I miss something obvious, or do I need to dig up a BRD quote for you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats somewhat disingenuous, now isnt it? Two editors have responded to your specious "reasoning", one of them here, and that one cannot by any meaning of the word friend be called one of mine. His view of your objection is that it is the worst objection you could possibly come up with in response to the proposed wording. By all means, dig for the BRD quote, but heres one that I like: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. nableezy - 19:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: instead of "capital city" we say "capitol". Whereas one may argue the social-construct over whether or not a capital must include international recognition by the placement of embassies, it cannot be our fault if our readership cannot see the plain English distinction that we mean something more specific and tangible. This lede would still satisfy my most basic arguments of giving voice to a worldwide view and avoiding placing a POV in footnotes. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't work. Capitol refers to a building, not a city. So, the "capitol" would be the Knesset building. -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This proposal goes toward the "seat of government" idea which is on the table. It's what the BBC uses at least on occasion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think there is any problem with saying that Israel includes EJ within its capital city. nableezy - 22:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Sources that state Jerusalem is the current capital of Palestine

The comments above are still going round and round in circles with those who are proposing change to the introduction refusing to take onboard the key points being made by those opposed. I asked Pluto above a few days ago a simple question, and they basically accepted they could not answer.

For those who demand this article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, please provide the clear sources here that say Jerusalem (not just East Jerusalem) is the current capital (not proposed future capital) of a Palestinian State (not future state).

I have been involved in this debate for some time now, i am still waiting for those demanding change to provide this very basic and fundamental information. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't subscribe to the view that the article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, because to do so ignores all of the sources that presents both of those claims as claims. We aren't allowed to ignore sources. I don't see any point in asking people to provide sources that represent specific subsets out there. Both Israeli and Palestinian basic law make explicit statements of fact that Jerusalem is the capital and there will of course be other sources that present these claims as facts. But so what ? This isn't a zero–sum game to see who can most successfully employ confirmation bias using google. At some point, editors need to deal with the data in the sources, not just some of it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with additional text being added to the introduction in the last couple of paragraphs that handle the situation in detail. That should include a statement of the Palestinian proclamation. Something that would fit in nicely with the line "Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital"". But i believe it would be gross undue weight to act as though that proclomation should be handled in a way that seeks to put it on the same basis in the first sentence of this article as refers to the situation with Israel. Jerusalem is the defacto and dejure capital of Israel, and it holds effective control over the entire area. That cannot be said about the Palestinian side and to try to put the two as equal as some have.. would clearly be biased and pushing the Palestinian POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sean.hoyland. That is a deformation of what is discussed. Considering Jerusalem as a whole entity doesn't reflect the facts and what you advance is not at all what is said here.

• Anyway, there are sources for this too : UNGA resolution 43/177 of 15 december 1988 recognizes the Declaration of independence of Palestine which states that : "The Palestine National Council hereby declares (...) the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem." There is no reference to East Jerusalem. The choice of Jerusalem as capital as well as the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital of Palestine has more international recognition than the choice of Jerusalem as well as the choice of West-Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
• Regarding the fact that Palestine is a State : here a source on the UNO website that says that Palestie is a State. Maybe that according to some, UNO has no legitimacy to give the status of State to a country BUT it is a WP:RS source to say to wikipedian editors what is a state or not and this WP:RS sources says it is a State.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask for sources saying it is non-member state of the United Nations, or even a sovereign state in my question. This is about what sources specifically state Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine today. I do not accept that "Acknowledges the proclamation" is accepting and agreeing with everything contained within the proclamation. And did the state of Palestine exist back then on that declaration or is it only since it became a "non-member state" of the UN? It is certainly still not a sovereign state. I would just like to see reliable sources stating Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Many sources have been provided showing tha is the case for Israel,albeit with many sources also recognising that the international community do not officially recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You have got what you asked : sources that consider that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and even if you didn't ask this that Palestine is a State.

Now that is not the point.

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you posted your arguments here as well. I already disproved them, so all just add that in-light of UN long standing position about Jerusalem, on which most(if not all) the argument disputing Israel claims here are built, you must have a real grasp of the situation, to bring UN as sources to prove its recognition of Jerusalem as Palestinian capital.--Mor2 (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who BritishWatcher is referring to, but I don't think that the article should say that Jerusalem is the current capital of Palestine. What I am most concerned with in the article is the unequivocal statement in the first sentence that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This is an israeli POV, not an undisputed universally accepted fact, and therefore a breach of WP:NPOV. I think that the best way to follow WP:NPOV is to have the first sentence be something completely neutral and don't mention anything about claims to the city or who currently occupies the city until at least the second sentence. What the neutral facts in the first sentence should be is open to discussion, but I would suggest that it could be it's location, that it is one of the oldest cities in the world or its importance in the abrahamic religions. PerDaniel (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well i am glad that a number of responses here seem to be against stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Sadly that is what some have proposed in recent months unless i was dreaming it. You say "the first sentence that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This is an israeli POV, not an undisputed universally accepted fact, and therefore a breach of WP:NPOV.", the trouble is you only quoted half the sentence. The whole sentence reads - "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] and one of the oldest cities in the world." That first sentence is not biased or in violation of NPOV. It quite clearly states the international view which is not to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This was an argument that people won 2 years ago when demanding changes to the introduction which at the time did have a first sentence saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but with no clarifying points for balance. The article has that now. the introductions first sentence is neutral ,and the introduction itself has a large amount of text on the legalities and international view of Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I translated the norwegian word "setning" with "sentence" (which is the usual translation). After a little searching I found that the meaning og "setning" that I wanted to use is not covered by "sentence" in english, but by "clause". What I meant was the first clause of the first sentence, which I qouted. I understand that you think that the second clause of the sentence "though not internationally recognized as such" is enough to make it comply with WP:NPOV. I disagree for (at least) two reasons: Firstly because the minority POV is mentioned first, and secondly because using the word "is" (in the first clause) we are declaring that it belongs to Israel. To qoute WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". I would be agree to using "Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel" or "Israel has unilaterally declared that Jerusalem is its capital", but not as the opening clause. I have not delved into the history of the article, but if what you write is true it was even more unbalanced before. That does not justify to abstain from improving its balance now. PerDaniel (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am against stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine" for the reasons provided above. The reasons provided also rule out stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine" so I oppose those too. It has nothing to do with recognition, nothing to do with what makes something a capital, nothing to do with who has the right to decide whether something is a capital etc etc. It is simply about not being allowed to ignore sources and inconsistencies between our presentation of information and their presentation of information. It's about objectively sampling and reflecting the information in sources according to the constraints imposed by policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the article represent a global view?

Per the tag on the article, I though it would be good if people actually discussed the issue (rather than the reverts and edit warring). Personally, I can see the point that the article doesn't represent a global view, particularly the lead section. Right now, the lead asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel although this is not recognized by most of the world. It then goes on to state that Palestine is not currently a state although most of the world does recognize it as such. I could see an argument that we should present all views in the lead (per NPOV), but the lead isn't doing that either. The lead should either reflect the global POV, or present all 3 POVs equally – global, Israeli, and Palestinian (as per Pluto2012's suggested wording). Relegating the other POVs to notes or qualifying add-ons doesn't adequately address the problem, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A solution which will represent the relative prominence of views will conform to WP:NPOV. Thank you for summarizing and participating! ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to clarify what you think Pluto's wording is, as it's not immediately clear unless you read through it. More clearly. The following is not Pluto's suggestion (it was actually mine):

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, Jerusalem is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km² (48.3 sq mi). Israelis and Palestinians both 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.^[ii]

And this was Pluto's:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea with a total population of around 800,000 people. Due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the city was divided in 1948 in West and East-Jerusalem. In 1967 Israeli took the control of the East side and annexed it in 1980. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital but the international community requires that the question is settle by peace talks between both parties.

I'm fine with the first version (obviously) [as far as it addresses the capital point; I don't care about the population issue], but (speaking only about the capital issue) Pluto's removes a key point -- that Israel has its government in Jerusalem and Palestine does not. This modification specifically was met by objection from several people (myself included), and yet -- assuming you really were talking about Pluto's proposal in your comment above -- you said those objections were just us unhappy our POV isn't in the article. In addition to (once again) expressing great offense at the remark, I don't know how you could argue that when there is nothing disputable about the fact that Israel's government is situated in the city and Palestine's is not. And, perhaps you disagree, but I think that is a major distinction when talking about capitals. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's how policy says we should look at that view. Evidently the point escapes most of the countries of the world. The first two sources are primaries from the U.N. on their position historically and presently that Jerusalem belongs in international rule. I can see that you are saying that there exists a view that placing one's government in a place makes that place a capital when people discuss Jerusalem. I think I have demonstrated that this is a minority view, although it should be supported through prominent adherents per Jimmy Wales so as to be distinguished from a fringe view. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's majority view about defining capitals: they are usually where the seat of government is. The exception to a rule does not disprove the rule nor the exception. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? The point that Israel's government is located in Jerusalem is not a contestable point. The point that Palestine's government is not located in Jerusalem is not contestable either. What the U.N. or any country believes the future of the status of the city should be has nothing to do with the fact that Israel's government is situated in Jerusalem. Note that I did even not say it has nothing to do with the fact that it's its capital; I do believe that to be the case also, but that wasn't what I said above, and not the point of my remark.

The first option above does not explicitly say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because its government is located there. Some people here seem to have the issue with drawing that conclusion ourselves by saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in the first line. Okay, again, I don't know why that's a questionable conclusion, but we can run with that. But then what is wrong with mentioning that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital and that its government is located there and allow readers to draw their own conclusion about whether it can truly be considered its capital? And how is the fact that this city is the seat of government of a country not relevant enough to be in the first paragraph, especially when we're talking about capitals, a concept which in all but one case coincides with the seat government? Also, you realize your "exception to a rule" comment (which is not how the saying goes...) discredits your comment, not mine, right? -- tariqabjotu 01:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What you stated was: "I think that is a major distinction when talking about capitals." Again, the majority view is that it in the case of the concept of Jerusalem-as-capital, it doesn't matter whether Israel has its seat of government in Jerusalem or that Palestine doesn't have its seat of government there. Please establish to whom this has a definite correlative relevance to anyone in this particular situation through WP:RS. Do not engage in WP:OR by making the assumption that one strictly relates to the other. This could be construed as an accidental fallacy. As far as I can tell from any evidence, we should not be discussing Jerusalem-as-capital and Jerusalem-as-seat-of-government in the same breath. Consecutive mention, not concurrent mention, works as a distinction of the weight of predominant views - which is the only way that "distinction" applies per NPOV as far as I can see. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. You can stop throwing around Wikipedia acronyms and the word "fallacy". What is the concept of capital all about to you, if I need to source that where a government is located has any relevance? Not that where a government is located necessitates a city being called a capital; I'm merely talking about that the location of a government has relevance. We do not need to cite that the sky is blue. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

'Concept' is specific-to-general, the opposite of the way you're using it, but precisely the way you intend the conversation to go. I do not need to make any further conversation about the generalities of capitals. I have provided the specifics in regards to the topic. And you have made no effort to use reliable sourcing for your argument. To be practical about rather than rhetorical and perhaps get back on point, I prefer tariq's draft as closer to the sources I was seeing but neglecting a definitive statement on the international stance on Jerusalem, making it less weighty than it deserves as a predominant view. If I'm reading the sources right, the international community wants to facilitate a shared Jerusalem.... ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's kind of useful and I will touch on it. Since the mark of good expository writing is to go from general-to-specific in lede, mention of Jerusalem-as-seat-of-government should be mentioned in the preceding breath to Jerusalem-as-capital so as to correctly use the usual generality to focus the writing further with the exception that the world community makes. See? You made me think. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as the international community wants to facilitate a shared Jerusalem, thats an oversimplification. There are a number of positions within the international community, one of which involves an international regime in the city. nableezy - 03:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is excruciatingly unclear what you are saying. Specifically, what does...

I prefer tariq's draft as closer to the sources I was seeing but neglecting a definitive statement on the international stance on Jerusalem, making it less weighty than it deserves as a predominant view.

...mean? -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I think Nableezy got my point and is giving a good critique of it. In general, the consensus of representatives of a few billion people in not only disputing the claims of Israel and Palestine - but also laying claim to the administration of Jerusalem - should have more representation in lede weight by further representing how they conceive Jerusalem geopolitically. Since Nableezy seems to be able to critique constructively misapprehensions about world consensus, perhaps he could source us something that does demonstrate a common ground, or at least a good general Ban Ki Moon quote. Billions vs. millions. The view, where cohesive, should have more weight. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Ban Ki Moon doesn't represent billions of people. Where do you get this stuff from? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You still didn't clarify the part where you said "I prefer tariq's draft". It sounded like you preferred my version, despite running me in circles about the (ir)relevance of a country's government to its capital city. So, I'll proceed with what I was going to say; even if it's not relevant to you (still not sure), it's relevant to those (e.g. Pluto and Nableezy) who do believe that the seat of government point should not be mentioned in the vicinity of the capital statements:

What the non-recognition means has not been nailed down here. Those who are against the current wording say it nullifies the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, while those who are in support of the current wording believe it doesn't. That is a central issue in this dispute. If you are in the first group, you believe the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a false statement or at least a minority statement. Requests to prove the nullification contention have not been met with any proof, and yet there appears to be some willingness in recent threads by those supporting the current wording to let go of such a straightforward statement. But, in that case, it is equally wrong to swing the pendulum to the other side and suggest that there is no standing whatsoever to the suggestion that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is actually true. I requested sources saying Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel or that some other city is its capital or that it has no capital at all, and I was told these points had no relevance and need not be proven to contest the current wording. Again, despite those assertions, we have been willing -- now, somewhat inexplicably -- to let the current wording go. But, once again, there thus remains no justification to eliminate facts [e.g. that Israel's government is located in Jerusalem] that might (or might not, as is the case for some here) lead one to infer Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel.

And such inference, by the way, is not unprecedented. Japan, for example, has no law explicitly stating its capital city (see Keene 2002, p. 189), and yet I'll be damned if you could find an educated person on this planet who wouldn't call Tokyo the capital of Japan -- because its government is located there. You can proceed to claim, based on not too much, that what's good for the gander here isn't good for the goose, but please don't request that we force that upon all readers by intentionally omitting the crucial fact that Israel's government is in Jerusalem -- and Palestine's is not. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, youve attributed to me a position that I have not taken, that being believe that the seat of government point should not be mentioned in the vicinity of the capital statements. I didnt include it in my draft above because the wording gives, in my view, the balance you are looking for. My draft has Jerusalem as Israel's capital and as Palestine's designated capital, so I did not think it necessary to include that it isnt the seat of Palestine's government or that it is for Israel. If youre going to talk about me, it would be better to talk to me. You may be shocked at how reasonable I can be when actually engaged. nableezy - 04:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to recall a thread in which you repeatedly accused me of owning the article for suggesting that a wording that omitted any distinction between the Palestinian and Israeli capital claims was asking too much. Forgive me for thinking you don't just say things to waste my time. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. I objected to the idea that Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital is stronger than Palestine's because its seat of government is Jerusalem. I said then that you are not the arbiter on title to Jerusalem. I did not say that Israel's seat of government is not Jerusalem, and I did not take any position on whether or not it should be called that in the lead. I accused you of owning the article because you wrote You should consider yourself lucky that I, or anyone else, would even entertain the idea of putting the Israeli and Palestinian claims in the same sentence, and you should drop any hope of the article doing so without clear qualification. The reason for my accusation should be fairly obvious to any disinterested reader. This habit of not reading what I write is causing you to repeatedly misstate the record. I did not include it in my lead because I dont say it is designated, or de facto, or claimed as capital of Israel. I addressed your WEIGHT concern through the wording. So now that I have hopefully disabused you of the notion that I say things to waste your, rather than my, time, could you please actually respond to my request that you say what you think is bad about my proposal above? nableezy - 05:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm not interested in these word games.

No, I didn't reject mediation; I just removed my name from the mediation. No, the people who were listed were to blame; I wasn't listed... because I removed my name from the mediation. I think binding mediation is a great idea, even though I didn't think voluntary mediation was. No, you are required to answer my questions because you edited this article... over two and a half years ago. This was discussed, because I simply brought it up. No, I didn't accuse you of owning the article for saying some are asking too much... I accused you of owning the article for asking people to stop asking for too much. And, this is why we can't get anything done Tariq, because you can't read.

Fine, you win. You're absolutely correct. I can't read. I'm the problem here. You've done nothing wrong, ever. You're doing everything in good faith, while I have just been blocking the whole process. I shouldn't comment on any of your actions or comments, because I'll just misunderstand them. No one should, because you're the keeper of the true meaning and it's ridiculous to make any comments based on what you say the first time. I need to wait for you to repackage your remarks in a way that sounds better to you, but doesn't actually negate what you said the first time.

Are you happy now? Now piss off. -- tariqabjotu 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im going to sotp being polite and ask that instead of misrepresenting the record that you now stop lying about it. What I said the first time is what I said the last, and that you continue to lie about each of those things is just another example of why I dislike dealing with you. Am I happy? No, Ill be happy when you or anybody else gives an actual reason for the reverts of my rewrite. Since its now going on two days since I first proposed it, and, one hand wave at a policy without explanation notwithstanding, nobody has been able to articulate why it should be reverted, Ill be restoring it. And if you, or anybody else, reverts it without providing a policy-based reason for doing so they will be reported to AE. God I hope its you, as I would just love to link to diffs of an admin telling others that they are arrogant, stubborn, and that they should piss off, all while repeatedly, and explicitly, refusing to discuss the content on the talk page. As far as your final request, no. nableezy - 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You've not answered any of the issues raised regarding your massive, not previously discussed, change of a lead that's not only under discussion but is at ArbCom and you'll take anyone who reverts it to AE? It's going to be me, so don't get your hopes too high about Tariq. You can start writing your request right now, and we'll see how that works out for you. In the meanwhile, since you don't seem to understand the question I asked about your change, here it is more explicitly: what's the source for "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories"? What part of the article is this summarizing? Why did you remove the sections you did (do I need to quote each section or is this general hand waving sufficient)? Eagerly awaiting your answers, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is unequivocally false. The only objection raised, prior to this comment, is that it was not a proper summary. I asked you to explain that, and you still have not. As far as what is the source Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories, this article includes East Jerusalem, so you could read Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to establish that EJ is in the Palestinian territories, or Imseis, Ardi. "On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Harv. Int'l LJ 44 (2003): 65:

... the State of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Do you want a source for part of Jerusalem being in Israel? I'll address each of these in more detail above, but unless you want to challenge the Harvard International Law Journal as a reliable source we can wipe that objection away. nableezy - 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't SYNTH me an answer. Show me a source that explicitly supports the statement you put in the very first line of the article. And yes, I asked you to point out which parts of the article your new version summarizes, which you have so far failed to do. You also failed to explain why you removed the parts of the lead that you did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not synthesizing anything. I asked above if East Jerusalem is a part of "Jerusalem". Not one person said no. East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories, and that can be sourced to any number of places. And I did explain why I removed the banal text about a zoo and other trivialities, and I said that if you want to re-add that feel free. But I did so in the section about the edit. nableezy - 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Keene doesn't support your inference, so I don't know why you cited him:

'By 1877 Tokyo was functionally the capital of Japan, not only because it was the seat of the emperor and all organs of the government but also because the foreign legations were situated there.'(unlike the case in Jerusalem) and of coure Tokyo refers to a site on undisputedly Japanese territory. A good part of Jerusalem is not in Israel. Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't decide what about Jerusalem makes it not Israel's capital. The 1980 UN resolution? Okay, some countries, like Japan, don't even have laws that declare what their capital at all. Okay, but there are embassies in Tokyo, but not Jerusalem. Okay, so Jerusalem was still the capital of Israel the day after the UN resolution, before countries could move their embassies? Or Amsterdam is not actually the capital of the Netherlands because most embassies are in The Hague? Er, uh, no... the Netherlands has two capitals based on an About.com source. Yeah, ok, right. Oh, uh, it's because East Jerusalem isn't legally Israel's. Okay... so if the Israelis left East Jerusalem, would it be the capital? Yeah, more sidestepping. For some reason, some have allowed the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be removed, despite there being no certainty about what negates that statement. But, there is no basis whatsoever for omitting the fact that Israel's seat of government is in Jerusalem when talking about its capital status. Fear of some readers drawing a conclusion different from yours is not good enough. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If that tirade is addressed to me, I don't know what your point is. You cited an analogy, and close control of the source showed it failed the test. The word for capital city in Japanese 首都 is a modern calque on the foreign concept of a 'capital city' which was in any case alien to the Japanese. The word itself defined the new reality as Edo was renamed the Eastern-to, as opposed to Kyo-to. What you, from the outset, have systematically elided from your cognitive horizon, like everyone else who has an irrational attitude to source-based editing, is the fact that capital cities all over the world are not normatively sited wholly or in part in foreign countries, states or territories, something which constitutes the whole anomaly, for which none of you have an answer and which generates the POV-driven irrationality of most editors opposing intelligent alterations to the proposition in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Do as I say and not as I do, you know darn well that's an insulting and inaccurate summary of other people's positions. nableezy - 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For someone who seems so aggravated by interacting with me, you sure do a hell of a lot of unrequested, and unproductive, interacting with me. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed. Maybe if you tell me to piss off again that would work. It would be productive if you, instead of obstinately and arrogantly refusing to say what you think is bad about my proposal, actually responded to the questions and points raised, instead of trying to win the title 2012's Hardest Man on The Internet. nableezy - 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Piss off. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, another example of not practicing what you preach. I thought the people who deserved to participate are the ones who aren't going to respond to simple statements by being an ass, like you just did. And again, no. I dont generally accede to requests by wanna be tough guys, sorry. nableezy - 20:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows Nableezy has 2012's Hardest Man on The Internet in the bag. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Now arent you just the cutest thing! nableezy - 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Things like this: Corpus separatum (Jerusalem). Revealing the actual intent of the United Nations would achieve more weight in terms of a worldwide view rather than stating alone that a lot of nations don't recognize Jerusalem as a capital. "Y U no recognize Jerusalem as capital?" This is why. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are 5 facts regarding the political status :

• the last legal status for the whole Jerusalem with international recognition is the 'corpus separatum' status but this is in contradiction with the fact that Israel was accepted at the UN member when it controlled West Jerusalem and with the high majority of maps of Israel that can be found.
• the majority view today is that the final status should be decided by peace talks between Israelis and Palestians
• Israel controls and administers both West and East-Jerusalem
• Israel established its capital at Jerusalem (East and West) but nobody recognizes this ; it was even condemned by the internatinal community in UN Resolutions
• Palestine claims East Jerusalem as its capital but do not control the territory ; this claim is supported by numerous nations and the UN (all those who recognized the 1988 Independance Declaration).

I don't think that I forgot any. The only question is to give due:weight to each of this fact. I still think that the fact Jerusalem is one of the oldest city of the world and sacralized in the 3 monotheist religions is much more important than the capital question (wp:due weight).

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Point one, plenty of U.N. members are in violation of one thing or another. The contention that UN membership is relevant legally to legal questions about Jerusalem might be supported. How widely? Point two, no disagreement from me; that is a strong statement from an international view. Point three, I think I was making in a more general notability way rather than being so specific. Point four, interesting - presented as such, it shifts the weight as I had once perceived it; when I brought Pal & EJ up before, I was told they want all of Jerusalem, but a U.N. event-source showed me last night includes a speech by Abbas supporting your statement. Can we establish how widely the claim is supported by nations?

I also agree that Abrahamic POV is more weighty than national views, but less weighty than an overall worldwide view. My draft attempted to cover this in a quick religion-history sentence to establish a general context for the capital controversy. Thoughts? And any criticism of the facts below? I'd be amenable to replacing a statement about corpus separatum with your statement about peace talks if we can support that better with the weight with which you have stated it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not a good summary at all. First of all, Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950. Where does that figure in these "facts regarding political status"? Somehow whoever recognizes Palestine automatically recognizes their claim to East Jerusalem (where does the 1988 deceleration limit this to East Jerusalem, by the way?) but the same doesn't apply to Israel? Interesting. What is the basis for saying "corpus separatum" is a legal status and not just an idea that failed to gain any traction? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I keep this "not a good summary at all" as a 3rd point to keep for the record in case ArbCom : you may consider it is not perfect but certainly not it is not good at all. The only explanation that I can see is a useless agressivity or a WP:POINT with the wish of blocking the discussion.

• Regarding the "corpus separatum", I realized yesterday that the UN resolution that accepted the membership of Israel (see here on the Israeli MFA website explicitely referred to the Resolution 194 of 11 december 1948 that "resolves that, (...), the Jerusalem area, including (...) should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control.
• Regarding the fact that Israel established its capital at West Jerusalem in 1950, that can be added but what does it change exactly ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all states that recognize Palestine recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of that state. Some so, others don't. I'm not aware of any countries that recognize West Jerusalem (or for that matter, any part of Jerusalem) as the capital of Israel although Mitt Romney famously did. --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity they 'recognize' or they 'recognize the rights..' because there is no argument that there are many declarations of recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people(for example the popular UN resolution 69/7), but as far as I seen the actual details are always silverlined with pending final negotiation. Furthermore can you find one state that recognize both and stated that it recognize Jerusalem as palestinian and didn't recognize it as Israeli?(as you seem to imply) --Mor2 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They didn't just recognized the right of a State but they recognized the State of Palestine.

In Oct 1988, the PLO made a declaration of independance that was recognized by UNGA in November.

Since then more than a hundred states recognized invidually the existence of the State of Palestine, numerous in confirming the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital, some even in specifying the borders of the State.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Recognitions come in slightly different terms, some recognize just a state, some a state and borders, some a state, borders and East Jerusalem as the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We wasn't speaking about the recognition of state, but about recognition of Jerusalem, try to stay on topic. I asked a simple question. Can you show me a country that recognize both states and recognize the Palestinian rights in Jerusalem over the Israeli?(as you seem to imply by some SYN)

OT: as for the state, the UNGA didn't recognized the state, it "Acknowledged" the declaration, just as it didn't recognized the state in the last resolution 67/9. Please see how to obtain recognition by the United Nations. The rest is no more relevant to case of Jerusalem than UNGA Acknowledgement is.--Mor2 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would I need to come up with a source like that? I only said that not all countries that recognize Palestine recognize East Jerusalem as its capital, although some do (I provided sources for this above), and that I'm not aware of any country that recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fact bullets for Tariqabjotu

In reply to tariq, sourcing aeems to bear out

• Israel's government is located in Jerusalem
• Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital
• "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a minority view
• The international community still sees Jerusalem as an international city.
• The UN has always intended to make Jerusalem a corpus separatum - a separate entity under the administration of its five founding members. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Saying that most nations don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel because the UN wants a corpus separatum now is ridiculous OR.

Making some kind of compromise here just so someone who agrees now will come back later and try to change it is also pretty ridiculous since we already have experience with this sort of behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy. What is ridiculous is that you call it WP:OR. The UN is most nations. PerDaniel (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point about WP:NOR! Amended. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you like to fish google for refs. How does the one you just included jive with UNGA/RES/67/19? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

'Resolving a core issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict namely Jerusalem' does not seem to dispute anything at all. Probably why they phrased it vaguely. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns: That is how diplomatic documents usually are written. PerDaniel (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What is OR is that the "facts on the grounds" would have more due:weight than the international claims. What ClaudeReigns say about the corpus separatum is not that "stupid". Some countries, such as the UK, still stick to this position which was the last "legal" one. As soon as there is a protocol on which everbody agrees, it is worth going deeper into details about this. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. An encyclopedia should write about how things should be, not how they are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a personnal attack based on irony. I keep this for the record of the future ArbCom.

This point have already been answered. An encyclopaedia must write about how things are. But the point is that both claims for the status of the capital have their strengths and weaknesses and at the end are equivalent. The occupation and administration of the city and the facts on the grounds are not considered to have values in the way things are because the resort to force in the situation is illegal according to International Law. If you think it is, you have to find WP:RS sources that state the facts of the grounds are to be taken into account but you will not because they are not. And if I am wrong I will be happy to read these. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: The fact is that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as israels capital: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB. The lead should reflect this, per WP:NPOV. Another fact is that Israel has chosen to ignore this. By stating that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" the current version ignores both of these facts. PerDaniel (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you just said that facts should not have the same weight as claims, and then you act all offended when I say you prefer claims to facts? For real? At least the irony was acknowledged. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: Are you replying to me or Pluto2012? The placement of your reply makes it look like you are replying to me. PerDaniel (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the 2nd attack that I keep for the record. This is also a WP:POINT in the sense that you block the discussion.

I have already answered this point. The facts in the sense of wikipedia are not the "facts on the ground" in the sense of the Israeli's policy but the "facts in the sources". To give due:weight to the different points of views, we have to see how they are considered in sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am more inclined with:

• Jerusalem is official capital and seat of government of Israel.
• Jerusalem is subject of a geopolitical controversy.[ii]
• Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital.--Mor2 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't really add a majority international view, rather censors the controversy by relegating it to footnotes, basically a WP:POVFORK. I like that you mention the State of Palestine though. A footnote is for awkward and barely related things, obscure names and such. Things we're talking about are core to understanding the geopolitical notability of the topic, and can be phrased smoothly, though some may not like to hear it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see the footnote as a compromise, in which we can present basic facts and yet present the complicated situation, with its various views. Instead of warring about how can we streamline it into a simple statement, that present all views, keep to NPOV and doesn't change the focus of the article from the city to Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--Mor2 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The spirit of NPOV is to show everyone's point of view in proportion to its predominance. The debate over Jerusalem speaks to how the city is defined. A footnote may be defined as "a relatively subordinate or minor part". Encouraged as I am at your willingness to find a good compromise, I do not believe that this is it - I'd rather we broke the rules in finding a common ground. This suggestion, in attempting to relegate a worldwide view to footnote status, does not improve Wikipedia. I would be open to compromises about phrasing, fact and opinion order, consensual violations of policy, and much much more - even breaking the fourth wall. What else do you have which neither limits points of view nor understates the prevalence of this controversy? ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What we have in the article right now neither limits points of view nor understates the prevalence of this controversy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only is this assertion disputable, it's disputed. Those are the facts on the ground. While the Israeli flag indeed does fly in Jerusalem, this article lede nonetheless continues to be POV-tagged. "Is disputed" yields zero attribution to whom? To the international community. Why would the nations of the world refuse to place their embassies in Jerusalem? The weight of and reasons for this position deserve clear mention. The antecedent assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," which carries enough weight that it is rightfully placed so foremostly in lede, has an alternative view which just has to be fleshed out in lede. Imagine a party where 200 people attend but only 2 are able to get in more than two words edgewise and you'll see where I'm coming from. The clearest solution: quickly strip off the painful band-aid and get down to the other details of the article. I do have other ideas which have precedents in other encyclopedias, but none of my ideas involve sacrificing a worldwide voice. So if that's your main objection, I am of no help. And that disappoints me, because I would be glad to help facilitate positive goals for improving the article to the satisfaction of everyone. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"not internationally recognized as such" is five words, my mistake. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is an analogy that will probably be lost on those who support the current wording, because it's not really applicable, as far as we're concerned.

Using the same analogy, let's say the hosts have two types of wine at the party, Wine A and Wine B. They've chosen to designate Wine A as the Official Wine of the Party, despite also serving Wine B. Nevertheless, everyone but the hosts like Wine B better and say that should be the Official Wine of the Party. Well, it's not, because it's not the guests' party to hold. It doesn't matter if it's illegal to serve Wine A, as they are clearly serving Wine A and they've designated that the Official Wine of the Party. So, while it might be relevant to mention in post-party gossip that Wine A is illegal and that nearly all guests prefer Wine B, Wine A was the Office Wine of the Party. End of story.

But I'm not admitting that this analogy will work for those who oppose the current wording either. As I said over a month ago, there is some perception that an unrecognized capital means it's not actually the capital. In other words, a city needs to be recognized as the capital city by other countries to be considered as such. This point has failed to be verified by a source, despite many requests for one. Instead, we just get a litany of sources that sidestep the issue, without any acknowledgement that these sources generally mention this issue in a tangential manner and would prefer doing so in a way that offends the least number of readers -- even if it's not precise.

Now I'm sure there are other wordings of the first sentence or paragraph, like some of the ones suggested above, that would please more people than the current wording. But there's a balance between tailoring to editors' complaints and being informative to readers, with a greater emphasis on the latter. An argument could be made from multiple angles (both from someone who believes lack of recognition negates the capital status and from someone who believes it doesn't) that we could better inform readers about the situation and appease more editors' complaints at the same time, but this is not a cut-and-dry worldwide view thing. Honestly, I wish people would at least acknowledge the position of their adversaries, rather than simply assume one's own position is clearly correct and, therefore, your opponents are egregiously violating some central tenet. -- tariqabjotu 05:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I have acknowledged that there are facts and opinions which support the Israeli POV, but until we dispense with minimizing the others, the elephant in the footnotes is still there, whether we are brave enough to have that discussion in namespace or not. What you're saying is an argument could be made (in talk). What I'm saying is that we're having that argument (in talk) because it isn't clearly being made (in namespace). There are other solutions which feature the diversity in thought instead of sweep it under the rug. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To Tariqabjotu : "Honestly, I wish people would at least acknowledge the position of their adversaries, rather than simply assume one's own position is clearly correct and, therefore, your opponents are egregiously violating some central tenet"

What is the position that you would like to see acknowledged ? If it is that Jerusalem is currently controled and administered by Israel and that Israel established its capital there, I think nobody can deny this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In Tariq's example, we'd have to assess what sources say about the wines. The idea that we'd have to assess the reality of the officialness of either wine isn't how I at least understand WP:NPOV. If there are major, reliable sources that describe the issue as a dispute or controversy, then that's what we should do as well. If reliable sources overwhelmingly say the hosts' choice is the real official wine, then that's our line, too. We don't need to, and shouldn't try to, decide which wine is really the official one, that's above our pay grade. WP:NPOV says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" (boldface font in original) --Dailycare (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In that light, we are directed to avoid stating, "Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel," qualifier or no. Seriously. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what's missing from the analogy is any suggestion of controversy. What would be our position is a case where the host says that the official wine is vintage Dom Perignon, but all the guests believe they are drinking Babycham? Formerip (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

I have my own little formulation on the lede. The first paragraph of the lede, especially the first sentence, should focus on what makes the city well-known so its disputed status needs to get mentioned as well as its history. Here is my idea of how this should look.

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world and is the disputed capital of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, though neither claim is widely recognized internationally. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem is administered by Israel as its seat of government and is the country's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km² (48.3 sq mi). The status of Jerusalem is one of the core issues in discussions of a peaceful resolution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.^[ii]

Saying it is the disputed capital of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which currently represents the declared state of Palestine, covers both nicely in my opinion as the "disputed" wording does not try to convey legitimacy on either claim and is used in reliable sources to describe the capital.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Devil's Advocate,

Why don't you use Palestine instead of Palestinian Authority ? It is not disputed that there is a State of Palestine that is named Palestine.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone recognizes the Palestinian Authority and it serves as the official government of the proclaimed state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. nableezy - 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, they certainly act as the government. Maybe it is not official, but that institution is the one that passed the law claiming Jerusalem as its capital.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The PNA is not the State of Palestine, it does not represent the State of Palestine, and the institution that declared Jerusalem the capital of Palestine in 1988 was the PLO. The PNA is a creation of the Oslo Accords, a provisional organization with some governance authority over portions of the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In the article we cite the Palestinian Basic Law, which has been passed and amended by the Palestinian Authority. Would you please express your opinion on my suggestion as a whole rather than focusing on what is essential a trivial distinction?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Palestinian Declaration of Independence is what established Jerusalem as the capital of the state, not the Palestinian Basic Law passed by a body that does not represent the state. This isnt a trivial distinction. As far as the rest of the proposal, it may be an improvement over what is currently in the article, but it isnt something that I actually support. The line on it being the largest city doesnt give any reason why EJ would be excluded, and it relegates that to after it already says it is Israel's largest city. And there is way too much about the current relatively short-lived conflict for the first paragraph of an article on a city with thousands of years of history. I already made a proposal on what I think is a good lead, and while this one has merit I wouldnt support it over the rewrite in #The edit in question. nableezy - 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think my suggestion actually has less material about the current conflict then the one you mentioned, but no matter. How about the first sentence of my suggestion specifically?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It aint bad, though I like mine more. nableezy - 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be an improvement over the current wording. Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you just going to randomly interject with your input with disregard for anything said before or after? I've twice directly asked you a question, and you've never responded.

And, no, this is not at all an improvement on what the current article says. The "disputed capital"? Look, we can drop the phrase is capital for the sake of appeasement, but inserting a weasel word is not the way to resolve it. Describe the controversy (briefly); don't just taint the claim with the word "disputed". Also what does "capital of ... the Palestinian National Authority" mean? Since when did governments have capitals? The areas they govern do. -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite the hilarity of Tariq being upset that somebody hasnt answered his question, I find myself in agreement with most of his points. Not the disputed bit being a weasel word meant to taint the claim, but after looking at it a bit more I think the word is redundant given that the next clause of the sentence already says who disputes the claim. But it cant say capital of the Palestinian Authority. Im not really a fan of the proposal either. nableezy - 19:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a distinct difference between you repeatedly asking me a question at every (often irrelevant) opportunity despite me telling you that I'm not going to answer it until the RfC begins, and Kaldari not acknowledging that I've even asked a question. I've at least acknowledged that I read what you wrote; it is entirely possible Kaldari hasn't read what I wrote, given he hasn't responded at all to anybody in both instances (to anyone, in any part of the threads). If he wants to respond with "I don't want to answer your question", I'd accept that (unlike you, who would just badger him to try to make him look bad) -- although I'm not sure why he'd do that, given the question is merely "can you confirm which section of Pluto's comment you're responding to?"

This, of course, is neither here nor there, because the sole purpose of that swipe was to just pick a fight and sustain your baseless characterization of me. -- tariqabjotu 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Id say thats more a difference without a distinction than a distinct difference, and I object to the characterization of my characterization of you as baseless. nableezy - 20:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Tariq's version

I think Tariq's version is the best one and I think everyone should support it:

Jerusalem ( /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, Jerusalem is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi). Israelis and Palestinians both 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.[ii]

Alertboatbanking (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This version has much to commend it, but I think it is a serious problem to be throwing in "...if East Jerusalem is included..." in the lead, prior to any explanation of why East Jerusalem might not be included. ETA: Yes, I do appreciate that this is how it is in the current lead, but that doesn't make it not a serious problem. Formerip (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Its only that way now because occupied was edit-warred out. nableezy - 22:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Also the bit on the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power doesnt quite get it right. Palestine has already declared it as its capital, that is what should be said. nableezy - 22:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And the first sentence is missing a conjunction. nableezy - 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Chill down with the fervor and think before posting, as its annoying to see you double triple posting.--Mor2 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Know your role. I dont care what you think is annoying, and I havent shared with you what exactly I think about your "contributions" to the discussion. nableezy - 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the rush? The RfArb seems to be focusing on a binding mediation or a binding RfC. Why do we need to jump the gun, conducting confusing parallel discussions? -- tariqabjotu 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't going to make deterministic rulings on content, that's outside of their remit. Content will (certainly should) always be referred back to the talk page. Never mind, I misread that part about the binding RFC. Still, pre-emptive discussion surely couldn't hurt. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There are major issues with this suggestions, this article is not about Jerusalem religions importance, it is not about its geographical location but about the Jerusalem the Israeli municipal city. Furthermore it seems that everyone agree that Jerusalem is currently controlled and administered by Israel, who established its capital there. So any suggestion not starting with:

Jerusalem ( /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] (is the capital of Israel / Israeli city something capital/ variations of that) the reset...

and instead try to bury the topic of this article, in the middle of an paragraph, will not gain consensus.--Mor2 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Much of Jerusalem is not Israeli in any meaning other than Israeli-occupied. nableezy - 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You already said that before and I agreed i.e. yes the world doesn't agree with Israel annexation in 1980 and regard the territory as occupied. I also said that that doesn't change anything in regard to the article, occupied or not, it still Israeli i.e. Israel is doing the zoning and planing, policing, sanitation, transportation, education etc. So what is the point you are trying to make now?--Mor2 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're using criteria that you have decided constitute a legitimate decision procedure for establishing whether something is Israeli. Content decisions can't be made that way here. I have a decision procedure that enables me to decide who is an idiot and yet annoyingly I am not allowed to deploy it in articles about living people who clearly meet the criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to decided anything, only take a look at the article. Other than standard history section, this article is about the city of Jerusalemand the services it provides, within Israeli municipal borders. Continuing to ignore this basic reality doesn't constitute a 'legitimate decision procedure' and repeating once again the fact that East Jerusalem is considered occupied, wont change that or magically create another City council, Mayor and legislative bodies with power in those areas etc. So if you can take a step back, look at it again and hopefully acknowledged this basic realty(that everyone else already did), we can't proceed with trying to figure a better way to present the geopolitical controversy. --Mor2 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you agree to the fact that Jerusalem is partly occupied, will you then agree to the article saying something along the lines of "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and Palestine, it is currently occupied by Israel and functions as Israels capital"? PerDaniel (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You ask me to acknowledge a reality ? My opinion about what constitutes reality isn't relevant to anything here. If there ever comes a time where I start thinking my opinion about reality matters, I would urge editors to file a report and make sure that I am blocked to ensure that I can't contaminate an encyclopedia that is supposed to be based on reliable sources with my version of reality. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@PerDaniel, Not 'in Palestine', even the Palestinian representative don't say that, but yes for Palestinian claim to it, and yes to the UN/world position in regard to Jerusalem. But I am not saying anything new, as I already said this before. If you have better wording which is informative to readers, reflect this article and more neutral please suggest it.

@Sean.hoyland, you mastered the art of Seinfeld. --Mor2 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

it still Israeli i.e. Israel is doing the zoning and planing, policing, sanitation, transportation, education etc.

It would help if people familiarize themselves with the literature on Jerusalem before posting inane comments or generalizations like the above. Mosheh ʻAmirav's, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, (2009) or any number of comparable books for the reality which is that Israel's policies do not run, but 'run down' or leave in neglect most of those 'services', and don't zone or plan anything for ther Arab population. A Supreme Court case last year was required to impose an obligation on the municipality to provide Palestinians there with equal opportunities for education. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you suggesting that someone else is managing the city, your comment would be helpful only in one of the subsections presenting the POV that ISRAEL is doing a poor job of it.--Mor2 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Cant support this proposal at all, we cannot just remove the fact this is a city in Israel / capital of Israel. If so the WHOLE article needs entirely changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Much of Jerusalem is not a city in Israel. I really do not get what is so difficult to understand about that. nableezy - 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat incredulous of the notion that perhaps the only city to have ever been the subject of a UN decision designating it as "a "separated body" with a special legal and political status, administered by the United Nations" under the circumstance of a yet to be resolved conflict should be introduced as if its status with respect to that conflict had been resolved.

Moreover, I'm interested in hearing specifically what sections of the article BritishWatcher is concerned about having to be rewritten. The scope of the article encompasses much more than the contentious point as to the current disposition of the city/cities.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Would a more concise 3-paragraph lead along the following lines be feasible?

Upon examining the remainder of the lead after receiving questions and comments regarding the above-proposed opening paragraph, it came to appear that the lead in its present form is not in a clearly defined relationship of correspondence to the main body of the article. It seems to me that three paragraphs might better accomplish the introduction of the material in the main body than five. I think that the lead can indeed be presented in a much more logical and concise manner with better coherence and readability than it has at present.

I've simply taken text that was already in the lead, slightly modified some passages (such as the Judaean Mountains name), rearranged sentences and deleted duplicate content with respect to the content presented in the opening paragraph, and added a sentence for balance (not a single Palestinian affiliated cultural institution is mentioned in the present lead).

I look forward to comments from those of you more familiar with more of the specifics as to whether this would be a feasible approach.

Paragraph 1

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is a site of religious veneration connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established the seat of its government in the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community, however, does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, while the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine. The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Paragraph 2

During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times. The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE. In 1538, walls were built around Jerusalem under Suleiman the Magnificent. Today those walls define the Old City, which has been traditionally divided into four quarters—known since the early 19th century as the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters.[8] Despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi),[19] the Old City is home to many sites of tremendous religious importance, among them the Temple Mount and it’s the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque. The Old City became a World Heritage site in 1981, and is on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond its boundaries.

Paragraph 3

Jerusalem is located in a mountain range that includes Mount Hebron (Judaean mountains/Jibal al-Khalil) stretching between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. The total population of the city, including East Jerusalem, is 801,000 residents, over an area of 125.1 km2(48.3 sq mi). According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem. All branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister and President, and the Supreme Court. Jerusalem is home to the Hebrew University and to the Israel Museum with its Shrine of the Book. Jerusalem was designated the Arab Capital of Culture in 2009, and is home to the Palestinian National Theatre, The Edward Said National Conservatory of Music, and the Islamic Museum.

--Ubikwit (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

One nice point here in para 3 is that there is no mention of the nonsense which has proved refractory to removal despite its patently unhistorical character:

Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Jewish tradition since, according to the Hebrew Bible, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE, and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city.[10]

That's totally unverifiable, since the concept of 'holy city' (setting aide the issue of 'holiest city in Jewish tradition') is only recorded several centuries later, in the post-exilic period, in Deutero-Isaiah, to be exact), and the Tanakh says no such thing.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. I wasn't aware of that detail, but it would seem to be an important detail.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Repetition in lead

Why are all these various sentences needed?

"...is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such"

"The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies."

"The international community has rejected the latter annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation" Ankh.Morpork 11:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two sentences which describe Israel's POV regarding its claim over Jerusalem as its capital:

• "....is the capital of Israel,[neutrality is disputed]"
• "Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital""

Each explanation of the Israeli minority viewpoint obviously needs to be balanced with the overwhelming majority of global opinion per WP:NPOV.

The third sentence you quote is a related, though distinct concept that needs to be discussed in the lead. Note the difference between the capital city issue, and the issue of sovereignty over the territory and the illegality of Israel's annexation. Dlv999 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with AnkhMorpork. I do not know for any Wikipedia article where one negation is repeated in every 10 sentence.--Tritomex (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I consider the detailing of the current political stances re Jerusalem in the lead as excessive, and you state that it is the result of balancing Israeli claims that you list, would you consider the removal of Israel's Basic Law and concomitant "balancing" from the lead as satisfactory? Ankh.Morpork 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Can you explain to me what the addition of "though not internationally recognized as such" adds to the lead not already contained in the next couple of paragraphs? Can you make clear whether you think there is any repetition at all, and if yes, what justifies it. Ankh.Morpork 19:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat incredulous of your posing a question here regarding a key phrase to the dispute in a manner such as to ignore the fact that it is a qualifying phrase to the primary focus of the dispute, which is the inadmissible identity statement that precedes it, separated by a comma, and opens the lead. Since a majority of editors would seem to want that statement removed in light of WP: NPOV, maybe I'm not following you.

Why don't you propose an alternative text so that your intentions can be assessed in context? That might serve a purpose during the deliberations to be conducted during the RfC--Ubikwit (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

A qualifying phrase is redundant when a qualifying paragraph is soon to follow. My point was why both were necessary, of course, some form of qualification is required. Ankh.Morpork 20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If the identity statement at the heart of the dispute wasn't present in the lead, there would be no need for any superfluous qualification. That forms part of the reasoning underpining the manner which I have adopted in attempting to present the elements pertaining to the defacto and dejure disposition with respect tot he past, present and future that involves no disputed assertions on the part of of any party, thereby prejudicing no party, and hopefully facilitating the creation of an article that is more approachable for the reader.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

And now for a response that actual addresses my comment. "A qualifying phrase is redundant when a qualifying paragraph is soon to follow. My point was why both were necessary, of course, some form of qualification is required." Ankh.Morpork 15:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jerusalem

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Recognizing (and reflecting) the suspended status in no uncertain terms

New here. Having read through some of these comments, it seems that the opening sentence of the lead is tantamount to tilting the perception of the reader in a manner such as to impart the impression that Israel is only temporarily not recognized under international law by the international community, but that their lawyers are working on that and will have the matter taken care of in not time. One editor has favored the term "dejure" in describing the city as the capital of Israel, and another has tried to emphasize that the article is more about administration of the municipality than history or political status. Those would seem to be clearly biased POV positions. I don't have the time to go through this presently, nor do I have an alternative to propose, but it would appear to be self-apparent from a grammatical standpoint that using the verb "is" in the univocal opening sentence serves to substantiate Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in a manner such as to circumvent admission of the surrounding controversy. That would seem to be maybe a little duplicitous, as it amounts to a surreptitious representation of the hoped for outcome of the real world state of affairs as promoted by editors favoring that outcome, in disregard of the countervailing circumstances.

The statement by PerDaniel seems accurate with respect to the fact that the current opening prioritizes the Israeli agenda over and against the declared position of the Palestinians vis-a-vis East Jerusalem, as well as that of the international community, and therefore constitutes a non-neutral POV.

Firstly because the minority POV is mentioned first, and secondly because using the word "is" (in the first clause) we are declaring that it belongs to Israel. To qoute WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts".

Clearly the issue of the city's (cities?)has not been settled, so why shouldn't the opening sentence more accurately reflect that circumstance?--Ubikwit (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

And, again, this entire comment is predicated on the idea that recognition makes a city a capital. The idea that Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel and that the rest of the world doesn't recognize Jerusalem as legally the capital of Israel are not necessarily mutually exclusive statements. If you are in the camp that detests the current wording, they are as you believe recognition or legality makes the capital. But if you're in the camp that's fine with the current wording, they aren't as you do not believe recognition or legality makes the capital. This is a central issue. Neither belief has really been explicitly substantiated by sources, so it is wrong to flatly state that those for the current wording are violating NPOV, as it is wrong to flatly state those against it are violating NPOV. It's a matter of interpretation.

From my perspective, the onus is on those against the current wording to provide substance to their interpretation to get the wording changed. But even if we were to start at zero and assume both sides have an equal responsibility to prove their interpretation is correct, that has proven to be an impossible task for those in support of the current wording, as our proofs by omission have been stymied by claims of WP:SYNTH, when not being attacked by suggestions that those making them are just Israeli apologists. I feel that if the interpretation made by those against the wording was actually correct, it'd be much easier to demonstrate. Find a source that says, because of the lack of recognition, that Israel has no capital, we'd find the counterpoint to the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Find a source that says, because of the location of embassies or because Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal, etc, that Tel Aviv is actually the capital of Israel, we'd find the counterpoint to the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". But repeated requests for such have not been fulfilled.

Now, this isn't to say I'm against any change to the current wording. I'm perfectly happy with an in-between, although not one as pithy and uninformative as in most sources, that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions based on the points (that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, that Israel's government is focused there, and that most countries don't recognized Israel's claim) that in sum have led to the conclusions on both sides. Readers can decide for themselves what they believe is or is not relevant. I've come to this conclusion less because I believe those supporting change have ever given a convincing reason for their allegations that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital" is against any of our policies, but because (aside from decreasing the likelihood of someone complaining about the article) it's more informative than what we currently have. I, for example, would not definitively say, from the perspective of someone with no background knowledge, that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" juxtaposed with "although it's not internationally recognized as such" implies that Israel's government is situated in Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, I'm not sure your description of the various positions captures everything. I oppose the current statement of fact because it's inconsistent with the numerous sources that don't present the information as a statement of fact. Why some sources don't present it as a statement of fact doesn't matter. All that matters on this specific "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" statement is that there is an inconsistency between us and them. That's enough to show that there is something wrong from a policy perspective. Whether recognition or anything else makes a city a capital isn't relevant to the statement of fact issue at all. Whether lack of recognition is why some sources present it as a claim doesn't matter. Recognition is a separate issue. Even if every single source agreed that recognition is required and a city cannot be a capital without recognition, we would still have to deal with the "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" statement the same way we have to deal with it now, by changing it so that it reflects the way the diversity of sources present the information. We would still not be allowed to say "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" on the basis that it is not recognized. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a convincing reason and reasonable approach, but that's not the approach most have been taking. -- tariqabjotu 19:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the more I think about it, they stranger your approach sounds. It's still fine -- as I said I'm already OK with rewording the first paragraph -- but it's a bit unorthodox to say that even though some sources say X, because many/most other sources don't say X, we can't say X -- even if there are no sources that say X is not true. Unorthodox, but I'll let it slide as it's not worth my time to argue against a point in order to keep something I'm fine dropping. -- tariqabjotu 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well Tariq omitted what for me is the most important consideration, the semantic ambiguity of 'Jerusalem', which in Israeli usage is a unified city, and in international usage refers to a divided city (Seddon's definition, which I've cited elsewhere). It follows that the NPOV character of any generalization must be calibrated against this fact, which has nothing to do with recognition, but with the contested denotation of the term Jerusalem. When Ben-Gurion declared Jerusalem its capital in 1949 ('Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel and its eternal capital'), was he asserting that Jerusalem across the Jordanian cease-fire lines, in Jordanian-held territory, was part of Israel? No. He was declaring that 'West Jerusalem' was the capital of Israel. The occupation from 1967 onwards changed one thing. Israel extended its denotation to include East Jerusalem, so that 'Jerusalem' in the Israeli POV refers thereafter to the whole city. The word 'Jerusalem' however, in international usage, is inflected by conflicting land claims to title, meaning that the city remains a divided city, and as a consequence, East Jerusalem cannot be called part of Israel, because it is, as a matter of fact and law, not in the state of Israel. Even the ostensible annexation law is questioned as not in fact annexation (Ian Lustick). So assertions that (undivided) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is to assert that Israel has its capital partially in a foreign country, which is without precedent.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Copied from my statement at the current arbitration request:

After the 1967 War, the UN passed a series of resolutions stating that any current or past unilateral Israeli attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, East and West, were invalid, including Israel's Basic Law of 1980 which declared Jerusalem its capital.

As one example, see Resolution 478 of 1980: "[the UN Security Council] determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith." As another example, see Resolution 267 of 1969: "that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status." (see article Positions on Jerusalem)

Accordingly, the UK government, for example, takes the position that: "... no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. The UK believes that the city's status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned." One recent demonstration of the disputed status of Jerusalem was at the London Olympics, where the BBC listed Jerusalem as the seat of government, rather than capital, of Israel (and East Jerusalem as the intended seat of government of Palestine). Another concerned a complaint made to the UK Press Complaints Commission about The Guardian stating that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The Commission ruled that there had been no breach of its code (The Guardian subsequently updated its style guide so that it no longer calls Tel Aviv Israel´s capital, instaed just stating that Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel).

    ←   ZScarpia   18:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. And? What are you responding to and what conclusion are you drawing from this? I don't think anyone in these discussions has not seen the text of UN Resolution 478 and I, at least, have seen the other sources already. None of these statements are tantamount to saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is false. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you can see from the indentation, it's a response to your comment. And? It shows that, as far as "the international community" is concerned, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, nor, East or West, Israeli territory. On Wikipedia, facts are things that reliable sources agree on. If something is disputed, it must be presented as an opinion rather than a fact. Your comments indicate that you can't get your head round that (an odd state of affairs for an admin). To you, it is a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and that is the way it should be presented in the article. To you, the contrary views make no difference to it being a fact. However, your view of what a fact is and Wikipedia´s definition of what a fact is don´t mesh. Here, the contrary views do matter. Your "fact" is only an opinion. Your comments also indicate that you can´t get your head round what the presentation of the status of Jerusalem in terms of opinions means or what the aim of those opposing you is. Stating that it is the Israeli view that Jerusalem is Israel´s capital doesn´t mean that Jerusalem is not Israel´s capital.     ←   ZScarpia   19:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside your minority stance that not even West Jerusalem is considered Israeli territory today, if you're going to take the stance that "Most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital" is equivalent to "Most countries believe Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", you're going to need a source that says that. Your sources support the first statement -- which has been in the first sentence for years and in the article since its inception -- but they do not support the second. You'll have to find a source that says recognition makes a city a capital. Or you're going to have to find a source that says, based on the lack of recognition, some other city is the actual capital of Israel or that Israel actually has no capital at all. Unless you can do that -- and I don't believe you can -- I suggest you stick to Sean's approach, perhaps the only presented here that could necessitate a change to the lead while not requiring proof [which doesn't seem to exist] that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is false. -- tariqabjotu 20:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It astonishes me that, after so many years, you still can't understand what the arguments being made in opposition to yours are. That includes mine and Sean's, which, I think, is the closest to mine of any editor here. The sources I provided show that the status of Jerusalem, including its status as a capital, is disputed. The UN resolutions say that any Israeli acts which change the status of Jerusalem, including the Basic Law, which declared Jerusalem Israel´s capital, are not valid. As far as UN member states are concerned, actually, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, which is why the guidelines for The Guardian and the BBC state that Jerusalem should not be referred to in that way. Wikipedia policies being what they are, therefore, you can't state as a fact rather than an opinion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, as is done in the first part of the sentence (though you can state that it is the declared capital of Israel or the capital under Israeli law as no sources would dispute that). The sources I provided don´t support the first part of the sentence in any way. I am curious to know how you derived that opinion. Given that you seem to be having extreme difficulty understanding editors' viewpoints which oppose yours, perhaps you're having difficulty understanding the sources too? When something is disputed, the neutrality rule says that all significant sides should be presented and presented in the form of opinions. What is proscribed is editors arguing that the opinion of the side they support is the true one and presenting it as a fact. That is what your argument about what makes a city a capital, for which there aren't any fixed criteria in any case, amounts to. The name for that is point-of-view pushing. Minority? Oh right! You quickly deleted the last source quotation you provided to try and argue that, my guess being that you might have had an inkling that it tended to oppose, rather than support, your argument.     ←   ZScarpia   10:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources I provided don´t support the first part of the sentence in any way. I am curious to know how you derived that opinion.

You're shooting yourself in the foot. You're accusing me of "having extreme difficulty understanding editors' viewpoints", and then you make that statement. I did not say what you said I did in the comment you're responding to. You're misunderstanding a central tenet of my comment, which suggests you didn't understand any part of my comment. Let me repeat what I did say:

...if you're going to take the stance that "Most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital" is equivalent to "Most countries believe Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", you're going to need a source that says that. Your sources support the first statement...

In other words, I see a difference between not recognizing the status of a city as capital and believing it's not, as a point of fact, the capital. You don't see a difference, as you've suggested repeatedly. From my perspective "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel" are not mutually exclusive, as recognition doesn't decide the status of the city; from your perspective, they are. This difference of opinion then points back to my comment at 18:03, December 20; absent any evidence that your interpretation is correct and absent any sources that explicitly state that regardless of the indicators that generally denote capital status (national proclamation, placement of government), because of the lack of recognition, Jerusalem is not the capital or that some other city is actually the capital, you have no basis to denounce the opposing view as just an Israeli POV. Your sources do not provide such evidence, and yet you are speaking about them as if they do.

So, we are left with some sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, many sources that waffle about the issue, and no sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital. In that case, you are left to argue that either (a) we should put "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" because it is supported by some sources and negated by none (my position) or (b) we should waffle about the issue simply because most sources do (how I understand Sean's position). The staunch assertion, though, that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a minority, Israel POV is without basis, considering you have yet to present reliable sources that negate the point -- as I requested you to do more than a month ago.

Minority? Oh right! You quickly deleted the last source quotation you provided to try and argue that...

I have no idea what you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 17:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"... many sources that waffle about the issue, and no sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital."

I'm guessing that the sources doing the "waffling" are the ones which present the situation in terms of points of view, Israeli and otherwise. That is, they're describing the disputed status of Jerusalem (which, under the neutrality policy, the article should also be doing).

Question of Palestine and the United Nations (Revised Edition, 2008) - the United Nations, Chapter 12: "When Israel took steps to make a united Jerusalem its capital, the Security Council on 30 June 1980 adopted resolution 476 (1980) urgently calling on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem. After Israel's non-compliance with the resolution, the Council, on 20 August, adopted resolution 478 (1980),in which it reiterated the position that all actions altering the status of the city were null and void, and called upon States that had established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw them. ... The General Assembly has annually revisited the question of Jerusalem. In resolution 61/26 adopted at its sixty-first session on 1 December 2006, the Assembly determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which have altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called "Basic Law" and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void." The UN resolutions indicate that, as far as the international community is concerned, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. That has been repeated time after time, yet you're still trying to assert that "no sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital" or that none have been supplied.

"In other words, I see a difference between not recognizing the status of a city as capital and believing it's not, as a point of fact, the capital. However, as the resolutions show, as far as the international community is concerned, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. It's not just a matter of not having recognised the Israeli position, they have actively said that the Israeli position is "null and void". That is another point that has been repeated time after time.

"... recognition doesn't decide the status of the city." That's a political judgement which has no basis in policy. It is, since it's being used to bolster a point-of-view, point-of-view pushing.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To sum your post, you simply referenced UN security council Resolution 478 and one of the general assembly yearly auto votes. Few quick notes(no time) a) as was noted many times before, there is no argument that Jerusalem Law was not recognized by the UN, or that Jerusalem is subject of geopolitical controversy. b) Can you backup your claim that "recognition doesn't decide the [capital] status of the city." is a "political judgement which has no basis in policy"? because all the indicators tariqabjotu noted fit perfectly with the definition of Capital City. --Mor2 (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, to sum up part of my post more accurately, I quoted from a chapter about the status of Jerusalem from a book published by the UN which is about Palestine and the UN. As I wrote, the quotes show that as far as the international community is concerned, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. The international community's position is that any Israeli acts which attempt to change the status of Jerusalem, which includes declaring Jerusalem Israeli territory and the capital of Israel, have no standing. All the editors taking the Israeli position on the status of Jerusalem seem to be trying to pretend that non-recognition means something other than it does mean.

The neutrality rule requires that things that are disputed, such as that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, are not presented as statements of fact. That "recognition doesn't decide the [capital] status of the city" is an opinion being put forward as to argue that the Israeli position is a "fact", despite the international community's position that Jerusalem is neither Israeli or the capital of Israel. That is, it's contravening the neutrality rule.

"... all the indicators tariqabjotu noted fit perfectly with the definition of Capital City." Well, there is no single, fixed definition of what a capital city is, isn't there? Have a look at the Capital City disambiguation page you linked to which notes that there are exceptions to the general rules. Also note that it says capital cities are "the area of a country, province, region, or state regarded as enjoying primary status." Firstly, Jerusalem is seen widely as not being part of the Israeli country or state. Secondly, the word "regarded" indicates that, as with Israel, what constitutes a country's capital may be a matter or subjective opinion. Your opinion, and tariqabjotu's, are only opinions, opinions which you are trying, in contravention of the neutrality rule, to foist on the article as a fact. Either follow the rules or go and start an encyclopedia of your own, where you can indulge your views, and ignore those of others, as much as you like.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to hint that you can simply state your argument by referencing the res.(because we all know what it says and especially since you already quoted it in the post before that as well..)

As for the rest, the only people who try pretend something about the meaning of 'UN non-recognition' are those who say that the 'UN recognize Jerusalem a Palestinian capital' at the same breath. The fact is that all of those resolutions worded carefully on the legal and silver lined with a reference to 'peace process'(including 478). The UN position is that Jerusalem issues should be resolved by the parties involved and that's all. Jerusalem is Israeli(defacto), as such you see resolutions like 478 that make sure it doesn't become dejure, stating that they will not see unilateral moves to alter its status. Not because they have trouble with the definition of capital city(like you do) or care which one of you put claim to it. --Mor2 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw Ubikwit, you know that there is whole article that deals exclusively with political/legal positions, instead of the city it self? --Mor2 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Content forking does not relieve us of the responsibility of outlining an overview on the main topic page. Welcome Ubikwit! ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, ClaudeReigns, and to Mor2 for the tip on the existence of that article.

I meant to write a couple of brief abstract comments and once I started looking at the pages I ended up spending an hour or more writing the following comment. It will be apparent, I would imagine, that I haven't read a lot of sources on the topic, but believe I am familiar enough with the basics to contribute something that may move the discussion forward.

I can see that this is going to take some sustained study and effort, but I'm sure there must be a way to either find a compromise solution or at least expose the fault lines for what they are, which may contribute to explicating the real world scenario in a manner that facilitates a better presentation of the subject matter. I just found the Positions on Jerusalem article, and having read the first paragraph or so, am of the opinion that the lead of this article should reflect the content of that article instead of pretending that the disposition of the city has been defacto and dejure settled.

Since I am not familiar with the specifics, I will try to restrict this comment in response to Tariq to more abstract issues.

I think that the notion that

Readers can decide for themselves what they believe is or is not relevant.

is important to the discussion, because of both the various possible dispositions the city/cities could take on in the future, and because of the linguistic mode of presenting that to the reader.

Why I am opposed to the positivistic attribution of the current sentence is because it implies that the status of Jerusalem is fundamentally established in a semi-permanent way, only awaiting "recognition". That presents an existential status to the reader that does not reflect the complexity of the situation in a manner such as to "decide what they believe is relevant or not".

To me, it is not even clear, given the historical relevance of the city, that the attribute of its contested status as capital city of Israel belongs in the opening sentence. If you put that in the opening sentence, you cut off some avenues of explicated the complexities of the history as it relates to the potential configurations that might take form in the future.

In fact, at a glance it seems to me the opening sentence should start with the phrase, "Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world," because that immediately opens up the historical horizon of the city for the consideration of the reader, whereas the current version of the sentence closes that horizon off.

It seem that the force with which government of Israel is trying to present the city as its undivided capital city represents an attempt to efface history, and the opening sentence in its current form would seem to support that, insofar as, once again, it closes off the routes of considering the alternatives to that unilateral, highly unlikely hoped for outcome of the Israeli government with respect to the eventual disposition of the city.

The solution I think lies in some phrasing that presents the temporal horizon of the current control of the city by the government of Israel against the broader historical horizon, with oblique reference to the most likely courses of progress toward an eventual compromise disposition of the city at some point in the future. And that is complicated by the Jerusalem-East Jerusalem division, annexation, etc. ::But to allow the opening sentence to state in a substantiating manner that the entire city is the capital of Israel would seem somewhat misleading (and perhaps not neutral) as to the reality of the situation. That is why the use of the phrase "dejure", in particular, is something I feel compelled to take issue with--though I am not an attorney--because would seem to be dejure only with respect to the laws promulgated by the government of Israel, which would appear not to be recognized as having force under international law. Does international law have "force"? That may soon be found out if the Palestinians go to the ICJ, but I don't know whether even an attorney could answer that in a definitive manner.

Just looking further at the lead paragraph, from a literary/rhetoric point of view, the introduction of East Jerusalem would seem rather disjointed. Why is there not a prior mention that the city is divided in the first place? Again, this would seem to support the agenda of the Israeli government to present it as unified, which in turn is another means to substantiate their claims on the entire city. And that is further supported by the statement that, "It is Israels largest city... if East Jerusalem is included." This sentences, too, effaces the historical status of the city. What does a phrase like, "if East Jerusalem is included" do there. Well, it might indicate to an astute reader that there is more to the picture than meets the eye, but it might cause another reader simply to gloss over the issue of the existence of East Jerusalem as a non-issue.

Is there no better way to introduce the existence of "East Jerusalem". That is perhaps the crux of the problem. The existence of East Jerusalem is in fact something that the Israeli government would seem to be intent on changing by integrating East Jerusalem with Jerusalem, wiping the brief existence of East Jerusalem out of the collective memory before the Palestinians with the support of the international community make the division permanent in a two-state solution. Anyway, that is a major controversy that is being glossed over, it would seem.

I'm inclined to think that there is a possibility that the continued existence of "East Jerusalem" as such and the status of Jerusalem as the "undivided capital city of Israel" may not be compatible in view of the position of the government of Israel vis-a-vis the disposition of the city/cities of Jerusalem (/East Jerusalem), but perhaps that is obfuscated in the lead.

The inclusion of the word "also" in the end sentence of the opening paragraph, "Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam" would seem to subordinate the substantial historical import and actual religious status of the city to the political claims being pushed by the current government of Israel.

OK, well, I intended to just write a couple of theoretical statements and have ended up doing a preliminary analysis, so I'm going to make some preliminary comments on some specifics.

From a quick check of the Judaean Mountains article, it seems that they span Palestinian territory as well. Do the Palestinians call them the Judaean Mountains, too? If not, then one would assume the naming convention would only apply if Israel had sovereignty over the entire mountain range. Maybe Hebron Hills is more neutral? Maybe geography and demographics could be moved to the second paragraph.

In lieu of the forgoing, it seems to me that maybe the entire first paragraph be dedicated to concisely explicating the current scenario against the complex history, with an eye to the future. That in itself seems a rather difficult task, but the present version seem to me a disjointed effort that deprecates the historical background and fails to foreground the most likely possibilities for an eventual compromise disposition in favor of presenting a hypostacized version of the present.

I should read more about these issues (including the related Talk pages), but I don't think I will have much time for that in the near future, so I will probably be more of a follower than active participant on this article, excepting the unlikely event that these thoughts generate some impetus. --Ubikwit (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

This article is not about the capital city of Israel, nor about History of Jerusalem but about the Jersualem city. Since you think that its historical relevance is not explored enough, I decided to drill down of what we have in the lead of this article:

• First Paragraph: Introduction, providing a basic overview of the city article(see also infobox)
• Second Paragraph: Stipulate the city Historic roots.
• Third Paragraph: Stipulate the city long religious significance to Jews,Christian and Muslims.
• Fourth Paragraph: Stipulate the city current status as a core issue in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
• Fifth Paragraph: Points Palestinian stake in East Jerusalem.
• Six Paragraph: Something notable I presume.--Mor2 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that it isn't worth discussing, but maybe discussion of the extent to which Jerusalem can be divorced from its history and the overall structure of the article could be moved to its own section. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think what Ubikwit was saying was that the semantics which we use in the lead section have a certain power which should be minded and respected. A single word can the shift balance. I had also mentioned earlier how the brief mention of East Jerusalem in the smallest way promotes a divided city. I think what he's saying is, it's a divided city - don't hedge.

Mor2 has given a rundown of when we do have. Here's what we should have in the most general terms:

• Define the topic
• Establish context
• Explain why the topic is notable
• Summarize the most important points-including any prominent controversies

My understanding was that we promote the capital controversy because it also speaks to notability. Trivial basic facts are also something which add flavor to lead sections and are suggested. I suggest that since he has an elegant pen for such things, we should invite Ravpapa to edit for flavor once we decide how we will present the harder aspects of lead. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

@Formerip, The point wasn't to discuss the article structure, but note the lead structure. Contrary to what it may seem to anyone following the discussion, the lead is composed from more than just the first sentence. --Mor2 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit draft

I see that several of the issues have been discussed above (even though I’ve yet to read through all comments). Let me just clarify that as ClaudeReigns stated, there are a number of semantics issues that relate to neutrality, as well as some syntactical points that are important to the presentation of the content.

At least until the present dispute between the government of Israel and the Palestnians/international community over the disposition of the city is resolved, the opening paragraph should present the current situation in the broader context of the history of the city. I see that several drafts that do open with the statements situating Jerusalem with respect to historical aspects that are reflect the priorities I have suggested.

Does Israel have administrative facilities in East Jerusalem?

Is there some phrasing other than “is considered holy” that reflects the religious import without embracing monotheism by the use of terms such as holy? Same for Abrahamic, something more generic seems more neutral in respect of the status of Jesus and Muhammad to the second and third religions on the list.

Here is a quick draft of a lead intended to be more concise as well as inclusive, and less controversial. I have tried to present the relevant aspects in a manner that would facilitate their explication and access in the main text with better readability with respect to each of the various views on the respective issues.

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is an object of religious veneration in relation to its connection to the founding of each of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established the seat of its government in the western part of the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, and the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of the future state of Palestine. A sentence introducing demographics and geography could be tacked onto the above paragraph or integrated into another paragraph that introduces those in a more comprehensive manner integrated with other modern characteristics of the city.

--Ubikwit (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Seems like an improvement. Some thoughts and concerns:

• The first sentence is a bit wordy. Could it be more concise?
• I believe Palestine claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, just as Israel does, not just East Jerusalem.
• Palestine is already a "state" (according to most of the world); it just isn't a sovereign and independent state.

Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A diplomatic nuance: one may believe based on previous reliable sources that Palestine claims all of Jerusalem as its capital. A recent contrast may be found. According to Ynetnews, as of 29 Nov 2012, Abbas' stated position is that "the Palestinians will not accept anything less than an independent state with east Jerusalem as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967"

• Benhorin, Yitzhak. General Assembly recognizes Palestine as observer state Ynetnews 30 Nov 2012

Would this, if believed, represent a shift in position? Is it reliable? Does it have any weight? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I hope I'm up to this task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How's this (changes bolded)?

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is a site of religious veneration connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established its seat of its government in the western part of the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, and the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine.

I replaced the definite article with the indefinite before the mention of the "the state of Palestine" on the basis of the intimate connection of the resolution of the question of the status of Jerusalem to the as yet somewhat tenuous "two-state" solution, but I'm not sure that's accurate.

Here's an alternative draft of the first sentence.

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is an object of religious veneration as a site connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Strongly oppose this proposal which seeks to completely change the introduction and would have implications for the entire article, fundamentally changing the way these matters have been handled for MANY years. If people seek to push ahead with such radical changes, then they better be prepared for the article to need entirely rewriting. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand. It seems like this is going to change everything. I can't guarantee that the article won't need some further revision. I just ask that you remain patient a little while longer as the semantic equation is being worked out in anticipation of a second draft to add some lightness and warmth to the tone. If you are still uncomfortable at that point, then let's talk about those further changes. I don't want to make assumptions about how you foresee them. Is that okay, BritishWatcher? ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole process is going to be deeply flawed anyway so it is hard not to look at this situation with a lack of confidence. It seems now that 3 administrators will decide the outcome by decree. An absolutely terrible method that entirely undermines everything that wikipedia is meant to be about.

Just as long as people recognise the fundamental nature of the changes that are going to be needed if the changes being talked about are implemented. This is no longer about the basic wording of the first paragraph or introduction as a whole. This is about if this entire article after many many years should be changed to no longer treat Jerusalem as a city in Israel. I dont think people quite realise the magnitude of the potential change that is being required if that is altered, it will will have far reaching consequences not just for this article but numerous articles on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the proposed lead obscures the fact that, "Jerusalem is a city in Israel", but that statement about Jerusalem is something of a loaded statement, and only represents only a slice of the scope of the significance of Jerusalem and its status as a city/cities. I do not see how the proposed change to the lead--of which there have been similar versions proposed heretofore by others--preculdes the adequate treament of Jerusalem as a city in Israel, along with the treatment of Jerusalem as all of the other aspects of the city that should be presented. --Ubikwit (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Let's suppose, without looking too far ahead, that you could write the very next passage in the lead section. I am interested to hear what you would say. You may wish to speak of Jerusalem as an Israeli city. I think the object would be to speak to a number of facts which indicate Israel's de facto position and things as they stand. You may also remember that trivia is allowed and welcome in the lead section. How would it go? ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the approach we should take to the first paragraph should be along these lines..

"Jerusalem is capital of Israel, though not internationally recognised as such. It’s future status remains one of the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Palestinians claiming East Jerusalem as the capital of a future sovereign and independent State of Palestine. It is one of the oldest cities in the world and is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

I have no view or preference in terms of how the religious sentence should be handled or if it is needed in that first sentence, but im just working from the current paragraph and the proposal above trying to alter it as a compromise. Removing the specific mention of the population / area size, which could be handled better in the later paragraphs of the introduction where the whole dispute is gone into in more detail in terms of if East Jerusalem is or isnt included. But the opening two sentences state the position fairly in my view without forcing this article to be radically changed throughout after many years of one style. Id also not object to it just saying Palestinians claiming Jerusalem rather than East Jerusalem if that is more accurate. But i believe to try and avoid stating Jerusalem is currently in Israel would be far too problematic for the whole article and not reflect the reality of the situation. Just because some countries do not recognise something, does not mean it does not exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem largely is not in Israel. That is the reality of the situation. nableezy - 15:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Just because some countries do not recognise something, does not mean it does not exist": No one is trying to deny that Jerusalem exists, the problem is where it exists. According to most sources it exists on the internationally accepted boundary between Israel and a palestinian state which may or may not control part of it in the future. By using the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", we (wikipedia) are saying that it rightfully belongs to Israel. This is not in line with WP:NPOV. Just because one change will cause a lot of change in other articles is no reason to break core principles. PerDaniel (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

By using the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", we (wikipedia) are saying that it rightfully belongs to Israel.

Ugh. That conclusion is nowhere in that sentence. If you infer that, it's your fault. -- tariqabjotu 15:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why one of the motivations for at least some of the people supportive of the current wording is because Jerusalem is in Israel or Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Must be our fault for seeing that. nableezy - 15:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that is a complete misrepresentation and misapplication of BritishWatcher's point. I'll leave it to him to explain why, if he so chooses. -- tariqabjotu 18:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

this is not about who is right or wrong in terms of the final status, which is why i proposed including that wording making it very clear its future status remains part of the conflict. It is about reality on the ground, and the massive changes that would be required to this article and many others if all of a sudden we decided that wikipedia will not explain the situation in the way it does. I fail to see how my proposed wording of the first two sentence is in any way a violation of NPOV, it states boths sides point of view and the fact that its future remains up for negotiation. Its not so much the is Jerusalem the capital of Israel or not, its more the city in Israel bit. It does not take long looking through the article to find dozens of things that would need changing, if we change things to a situation where we do not say if this is a city in Israel or not. We cannot say Jerusalem might be a city in Israel or it might be a city in Palestine. We can be clear that the future remains to be decided. But the first sentence of this article must not overlook the fact that it is the defacto, dejure capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not talking about a final status. The current status is that East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory that Israel has held under military occupation since 1967. East Jerusalem is not in Israel, and if you want to have an article about an Israeli city you need to remove everything on East Jerusalem, including the Old City. Your final sentence is confusing to me, as it is de jure the capitol of Israel only under Israeli law. It is, at least EJ, de jure occupied Palestinian territory under international law. And Tariq, you still think I was misrepresenting his position (or Mor2's for that matter)? nableezy - 19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, why don't you just ask him if he believes all of Jerusalem rightfully belongs to Israel (or, rather, that the article should say that)? So far, I don't see anything suggesting he's saying that. From my understanding, he's saying we can't pretend as if half of the city is not currently Israeli, i.e. pretend that Jerusalem functions as a divided city. While the ideas of West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem do exist and have legal importance, they are not two separate cities with two separate governments. They are not divided by walls. Jerusalem is a single city, and we shouldn't ascribe excessive weight to the idea that it was, and perhaps might be again, divided. If we were to imply otherwise (and I'm not sure the proposals are really suggesting that), then we'd have to drastically change the article. -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

None of my previous comments have anything to do with it rightly belonging to anybody, so Im unsure who you are supposed to be replying to. What he has said, and what Mor2 has said, is that it currently is Israeli or in Israel. Which is what I would expect a reader to think when they see this article. No, there are not any walls dividing Jerusalem, but that does not mean that the Green Line does not exist or that a large portion of Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories. I havent said that this article should remove material related to EJ, what I said is if people insist on having this article take the position that Jerusalem is strictly Israeli or in Israel then material on locations that are not in Israel or Israeli in any sense other than Israeli-occupied should be removed. Which was what I was trying to get at earlier with my question What is Jerusalem?. If Jerusalem is (1) whatever Israel defines as being Jerusalem, city limits, ring neighborhoods, united capital ..., then nobody can argue with a straight face that an article that takes the Israeli position represent[s] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If Jerusalem is (2) a city that straddles the Green Line between Israel and the Palestinian territories then the lead should reflect that. And if Jerusalem is (3) only what is in Israel, then everything on its history prior to the 20s and everything east of the Green Line should not be in this article. People seem to want to take 3's position for the first sentence but have the rest of 2's content included, minus the pesky bits about Palestinians and international law. nableezy - 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

None of my previous comments have anything to do with it rightly belonging to anybody

Okay, but you see, it's not all about you. I responded to PerDaniel's comment about "Jerusalem is the capital" meaning Jerusalem is rightfully Israel's. If you didn't disagree with my comment, you probably should not have responded or at least not said, and I quote:

Which is why one of the motivations for at least some of the people supportive of the current wording is because Jerusalem is in Israel or Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Must be our fault for seeing that.

I assumed you don't just ejaculate one of your trademark quips every time you see me comment, and actually say something relevant to the discussion. Spare me the step where you explain how your words meant something totally different from what you said; I'm not interested. -- tariqabjotu 02:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, if you cant spend the time to read and understand what people write then you should really stop complaining about others distorting your view or attributing to you the views of others who arrive at the same conclusion as you. Otherwise, somebody might get a certain, Im sure mistaken, impression about the quality of your character. I meant what I wrote, and you seemingly choose to ignore that to argue against an easier position to discredit. Something that you have, repeatedly, found insulting when people do it you. Theres that impression forming again. nableezy - 02:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But it seems that the sources provided above by ZScarpia are basically being ignored, for starters, and even by attempting to push a statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel you are pushing a POV that the conflict has been resolved in favor of the position of the Israeli government, and that cannot possibly be considered a balanced presentation of the situation with a neutral point of view.

What are your objections to my characterization in terms of

"Israel has established the seat of its government in the city"?

That introduces the state of affairs in a balanced manner with a neutral point of view and accommodates the further presentation of the various standpoints of all parties concerned in the main body of the article, serving as a reference that frames the more detailed discussion in the main body.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The problem with that phrase is that it isnt true. Israel has built government buildings in East Jerusalem, for example the Ministry of Public Security. nableezy - 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I've removed "western part of the" from that phrase in the working version of the paragraph below. I left the wording as is, that is to say, as "city" instead of "Jerusalem", of course. I had actually asked at some point in my ruminations above whether it was in fact the case that the Israeli government had (or had not) established any administrative facilities in the east side, as I am probably the least well-informed person with respect to the specifics, though I would not say I am uninformed, and this is within my scope of competence, just in a geographical area somewhat outside of my focus.

At any rate, the fact that they have established administrative facilities in East Jerusalem is a further point of controversy, no doubt, and would seem to further problematizes the balance/neutrality of the current opening paragraph. Not only is the Israeli government violating the UN declarations related to Jerusalem, they are flaunting their violations.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

current draft with sentence added to end of paragraph

So that everyone can examine the actual paragraph as a whole as it stands at this stage.

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is a site of religious veneration connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established the seat of its government in the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community, however, does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, while the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine. The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Does anyone else read it a different way if you forget to process the comma in "Israeli government, while the Palestinians"? It may be genius. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's genius. There may be a way for everyone to get what they want on this one. Who hates it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, a belated thanks for the flattering comment, but I took it in the flow of developing discussions that you heartfully approve of the text, and neglected to acknowledge the compliment. Compliments higher than "genius" are hard to find! Much obliged.

In light of the questions from Mor2, I have been compelled to further examine the lead in its entirety, and was somewhat put aback by what I found. At any rate, I'm looking forward to our input regarding the proposed 3-paragraph structure for the lead I've described below in rough form.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I don't see this as anything but a rehash of previous proposals. In this case you ignore what is and provide a bad summary/repetition of another paragraph in the lead. Hiding the fact that this an Israeli city(nothing todo with politics, but administration), removing other basic info and giving prominence to the political issue, that has nothing todo with article.(like future Palestinian state?!) Even though this is the article about the city and not the political positions on Jerusalem. This maybe your current draft, but it looks like another draft that in has proven to have no consensus.--Mor2 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To try and keep it constructive, i'll elaborate/repeat several of the concerns/issues that I see here:

1. The phrase "holy city to the three major" was replaced, with "site of religious veneration connected to the founding". While I don't mind the change, I'd like to know why cahnge the current more popular and common terminology.(btw is it actually connected to founding or has religious significance?).
2. The fact that this article is about the Israeli administered city, which has been established as their official capital was dropped between the lines.
3. When the subject of capital brought up, Israel established capital becomes "established seat of its government". When the term "capital" is brought up its in relation to Israel "future undivided capital city"(future?!), followed by "this claim is not recognized, while Palestinians claim it as their capital"(paraphrased). - Also note that that between the established and the claim there are 30 years.
4. Why expand the current "capital of future Palestinian state" to "the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine". If you add that they claim is since 1988 you'll be half way to 'state of Palestine' lead.
5. Also the city wasn't "partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948" but divided by the Israeli-Arab war of 1948.
6. Overall it seems that you are trying todo a lead section to the lead, providing unnecessary repetition. Note how the current lead provide informative summary and logical progression. The only thing that goes out of that way is the "capital of Israel," part, IMO it can't be avoided as it is one of the main/standard characteristics of a city, but it is immediately balanced by as imple statement that is not recognized as such and later expanded. --Mor2 (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll respond to several points in line.

1. Not everyone in the world is a follower of one of the three religions that trace their founding at least partly to the city, so it seems to me that the article should not adopt the vocabulary of monotheism to describe an important city related to its history. I would propose that its religious significance and connection to founding are related, but I’ll defer to the section on “Religious significance” for the specifics of its connection to David, Jesus and Mohammad.
2. ClaudeReigns has addressed that concern in terms of suggesting that the second paragraph address things like demographics, geography and administration, and has mentioned some specific statistics.
3. I think the sentence introduces the fact that the Israeli government currently controls the city, and foregrounds the pending issues in terms of indirect reference to recent claims made by the respective leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority against the background of the partitioning, while simultaneously introducing East Jerusalem as a proper noun following the description of the historical fact of the partitioning.
4. This was introduced based on a concern voiced by Kaldari above. I had contemplated removing future, but could find no other way to reflect both the current flux in the status of the state of Palestine and the relation of the eventual official recognition of a sovereign and independent state of Palestine with respect to the issue of the status of Jerusalem.
5. I think that the phrasing with “partitioned” is more inclusive, encompassing the full scope of the events, including the UN involvement. The specifics relate to the existence of the Green Line, etc., as pointed out by nableezy, but the status of the current political situation is clearly being presented against the historical background in a manner such as to facilitate reader comprehension of the complexities involved. The final sentence presenting a definitive statement by the UN brings resonance to that aspect.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I agree that not everyone is a follower of one of the three religions. In fact some of us don't follow any religion and yet I fail to see how the use of the term "Holy city" offend or a problem to anyone.(btw look inside link, its not only monotheistic religions).

Furthermore Jerusalem religious significance is related in the third paragraph of the lead, while the first paragraph gives a quick run around of the city characteristics per the article topic. i.e. its Holy city, Capital city, oldest city, largest city etc. Trying to introduce it in the most neutral way, avoiding any pandora boxes that can't be explained in a couple of words and thus have their own sections.

As for ClaudeReigns addressing the issue in 2. I have already addressed his addressal before, infact many other objected to similar drafts and taking one side wont get you a consensus. Furthermore the lead suppose to be as informative as possible with the least amount of words, so take care how you address each concern. I suggest looking at the article/lead as whole, or better start small. I don't know why everyone think that they can build a whole new lead that would satisfy everyone, when in the past several years less than a sentence was introduced!.--Mor2 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Mor2 - sorry, what was your reply? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "holy" is a term that has origins in a specific cultural context that does not readily translate into languages of countries that have other religious traditions. I am something of a linguist, and the Wikipedia Holy city article is somewhat problematic with respect to that point. This is related to the general topic of naming conventions, or alternatively simply using generic descriptive language that is neutral. I used the phrasing incorporating the term "veneration" because that represents a cross-culturally readily translatable emotional and social phenomena related to "religion", which is also a phenomena that in its generic capacity is intelligible across cultures; thus, "religious veneration" is a phrase that neutrally describes the disposition (intentional state) held by followers of any of the three monotheistic religions mentioned with respect to the city.

Here is a link to a search result for "holy city" on a popular online dictionary in Japan. Space ALC Japanese-English/English-Japanese dictionary. Note that all but one of the results (and that usage is a descriptive statement) pertain to one of the three monotheistic religions mentioned in this article. Generally speaking the fields of descriptive linguistics and prescriptivism are concerned with such questions.

I have taken a brief glance at the entire lead and corresponding portions of the article, and must admit that it seems somewhat disjointed and lacking cohesion. From a rhetorical perspective, I have to beg to differ with regard to the avoidance of "pandora boxes", as it seems to be to lack thematic focus of any sort, and mentions various important points without indicating how they are related, when in fact they are intimately related. First, considering the fact that there are only four relatively brief paragraphs under the "Religious significance" section, it seems to me that the somewhat lengthy paragraph in the lead (the longest paragraph in the lead) is disproportionate to the amount of text in the main body. I think that the opening paragraph under consideration would enable that paragraph to be substantially condensed or even removed from the lead, as the relationship of the historical importance to the religious significance of the city has been stated in a concise manner; moreover, there is an entire separate article on the Religious significance of Jerusalem.

I also think that lead paragraph under consideration would allow for the fourth paragraph of the lead to be integrated and condensed, as the points relating to the "undivided capital" and the UN statement in the final statement have already been set forth in a concise introduction. With respect to the fifth paragraph, it would seem that the demographics, geographic and administrative introductions could be incorporated into a single paragraph, which I would propose be third, as opposed to second, which was the order put forth by ClaudeReigns. I think that if that paragraph is placed between the proposed lead paragraph and the current second paragraph the lead becomes disjointed and doesn't flow.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

  Though only a minor concern, I still don't see in what way the term "Holy city" is somewhat problematic to you, or violates NPOV, only that is a very common one. Moreover, this English Wikipidea and not Japanese one and if you have issues with the Holy city Wikipedia article, you may want to express your opinion there. Also you still didn't addressed my and others issues with your proposal, and if you didn't get the hint before "X addressed it" or "this was to address X" doesn't solve the issue. Especially when you only addressing the concerns of a very limited group.

  As for your thoughts about the entire lead, that your opinion. I find the current led very informative, with great thematic focus(you can see my brake down above) and that it covers everything in most natural way possible. Also while I can't care less about religion, I don't think that we should drop the 'religious significance' paragraph that is important to a huge part of the population on earth(Christians+Muslims+Jews) only because you find the political angle more interesting.

  Overall I agree with some of the points you made, but I don't think that they applicable here. This an article about the city not about the political views on it, its history or any number topic that other articles covers and this should be reflected in the first paragraph of the lead. Once you see that, you'll realize that various other "issues" are actually solutions that have been introduced to address issues of neutrality and NPOV .--Mor2 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

@Mor2, some agreement is progress, so I welcome and appreciate your constructive comments.

It dawned on me after a couple of hours of sleep that alternative phrasings are possible for incorporating the term "holy city", two of which follow:

• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city associated with the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city in the monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city in the monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I agree that the religious significance of the city is intimately connected with its historical importance, which is what I have tried to focus on. It seems to me that the political situation as present relates to the historical importance. We can work on further drafts of sentences and paragraphs. I proposed the reduced version of the 3-paragraph lead in part because the balance between the corresponding amount of text and level of detail with respect to the religious significance seemed to be incongruent. It seems to me that by drawing the explicit connection between religious significance and historical importance in the openining paragraph, and then mentioning the major religious institutions in the second paragraph after a statement or two about ancient history and interposed before the indication of its designation as a world heritage site due in no small part to the religious sites suffices to set the stage for more detailed exegesis in the main body without diminishing the stature of the city with respect to its religious significance. --Ubikwit (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Not a fan of it either. For example, I have no idea what "while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city" means. Again, can we wait for the RfC or mediation? -- tariqabjotu 23:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You want should I add more Yiddishkeit?

About 64% of the city's current population is Jewish and the city has a strong connection to Jewish history. King David first estabished it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city. Today, the mayor of Jerusalem is Nir Barkat, who matriculated from Jerusalem's own Hebrew University. Under Israeli rule, the city has become increasingly modern.

Or add more to it. What more convincing evidence can we offer of it being an Israeli city? Obviously we cannot state it de jure without challenges. But we can lay out the facts and let the reader make up their own mind. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not responding to me, are you? -- tariqabjotu 01:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a line from the draft script to Taxi Driver. Formerip (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL FormerIP. @Tariqabjotu Bibi said he wants an undivided Jerusalem for the capital now and forever. Abbas said he wants no less than East Jerusalem for his capital. Straight out of the horses' mouths. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Um... so were you actually responding to me? I can't imagine how my comment (23:45, December 21) could have led to that response; hence my question. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu - At this point I am lost as to which question or clarification I should begin addressing first, if indeed you were speaking to me. Perhaps bullet points and @ might be appropriate. It's weird how we get lost with each other sometimes. I apologize for the confusion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I presented only one question/clarification: are you talking to me? I'm not sure what was confusing about that. Ideally, people should indent in just below the comment they are replying to; no "@" would then be necessary. I tend to adhere to that strictly, so there should never be confusion about who I'm replying to. But some people don't do that. You indented in just below my comment, so I should have assumed that you were talking to me. But your response seemed so irrelevant to and unwarranted by my comment that I thought I'd ask for a clarification before simply railing you for your ridiculous suggestion. Perhaps you were replying to Mor2, but if that was your intention, you should have placed your comment below his (as Ubikwit did) and not mine.

So, again, it's a simple question: to whom was your comment at 00:40, December 22, intended? -- tariqabjotu 05:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, may I ask you to focus on the content, which is already difficult to follow ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Pluto, I know you enjoy playing the peacemaker (ha!), but there are times where your holier-than-thou attitude hinders not helps. This is one of them. I don't need your condescending tone because I asked the most basic of points of order: who was ClaudeReigns speaking to? If it was me, I'll respond to his suggestion. Otherwise, I'll leave it to whomever Claude was actually speaking to. Geez. Get off my ass. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to you? PerDaniel (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu - It seems that the content you have noted by Mor2 is no longer present. If my memory serves correctly, it was he who first responded, and as I usually prefer to respond to one comment at a time. You were always welcome to comment in return. Perhaps I have done a disservice to discussion in the placement of my comment, so I wish to again apologize for any confusion.

If we were to focus on content, as Pluto2012 has suggested:

Shall we allow for paragraph 2 to present trivial and/or notable, yet always non-disputable facts about Jerusalem from a Jewish/Israeli perspective be appropriate, given that a majority of Jerusalem's citizen are both Jewish in faith and Israeli by citizenship? In my opinion, this would allow the lead section the freedom to explore other points of view similarly, without making de jure arguments about a wider border dispute of which Jerusalem seems to be only one particular disputed area. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Claude, you are making a valiant effort to forge consensus on this matter, but I'm afraid that it seems there are some intractable positions involved.

With respect to the order of the paragraphs of the lead, although it might appease the moderates of the "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" proponents, it won't sate the appetite of the megalomaniacs that are determined to deny international law, etc.

I also think that, perhaps even more importantly, such an ordering of the paragraphs would not correspond to the order in which the article is laid out in the main body. If one were to assume the proposed draft as the opening paragraph, several elements noted in the lead in paragraphs other than the opening paragraph are already accounted for in a much more concise manner, meaning that it is not necessary to repeat them. So I've ordered the paragraphs in the 3-paragraph model proposed below in a manner such as to correspond to the order in which the content is presented in the main body the order presented; wherein the first paragraph basically represents a synoptic statement of the current state of affairs, and the second and third paragraphs basically represent the corresponding relevant points of ancient history and present disposition, respectively, of the city. --Ubikwit (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

No, Claude, Mor2's comment is still there. It has just been distanced from my comment because everyone who was responding to him rightfully responded below his comment and not mine. He did respond first, but Mor2 and I are not the same person. If you had a comment to him, you should direct it to him, not assume I can or should respond on his behalf. Just because Mor2 and I agree on one thing, doesn't mean we agree on everything. But since you've now asked me, I'll take the comment as directed at me:

In response to the content you suggested... uh, no, not in agreement at all, and -- again -- I don't know what in my comment made you think that that is what I wanted. I was simply noting that you have an unclear clause in your Ubikwit's (-- tariqabjotu 21:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)) proposal. In fact, I assumed the paragraph you suggested was just a joke to make me (or someone else?) look bad. The desire to keep the current capital statement is not necessarily a desire to add more "Yiddishkeit" (whatever that means) or promote the Jewish connection to the city, and I request you stick to the arguments I've actually made rather than tailor to preconceived notions about me. -- tariqabjotu 17:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The intent is to make sure that points of view are balanced. I seldom joke, but when I do, the intent is to create a warmer atmosphere in which consensus can thrive. Personal comments made towards one editor or another seem not to serve that goal. I recognize that you additionally have a content concern, namely, "You have an unclear clause in your proposal." I was unaware of a content concern in my proposal, which actually a very rough draft meant explicitly to be modified. The proposal it was meant to augment, Ubikwit's by summary of other editors, is one which I support, though it may indeed have an unclear clause. Would anyone like to offer an amendment to it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which part of You want should I add more Yiddishkeit? did you think would create a warmer atmosphere? The stereotypical "Jewish accent" or the misuse of the term Yiddishkeit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence of opening paragraph

I would please like the last sentence to read: The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 12:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The notability factor and the manner in which it ties in the present status with respect to the historical context and the significance thereof attested to by the notability of the UN make that a fine closing sentence to the opening paragraph.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I would also be willing to defer the idea to the end of the entire leading section for flow if the need calls for it. BritishWatcher has a strong point in being cautious that our process is not flawed. I envision a process that submits gladly to the notion that each voice will have its say in deference to the predominance of its view. An opening statement that tries wherever possible to focus on people, since that is truly what makes up a city. A process in which the romantic past, realistic present and hopeful future all are represented in equal voice, since it may be impossible to discern which has the most actual weight for any particular reader. When do we get to say something about the mayor? Who will be the first to talk about the founding? Are we accurately introducing the topic to the multitude of Palestinians who have hopes of living there but have no firsthand knowledge of what the city actually is today? I am excited to see how this will turn out. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm listening to what BritishWatcher has to say, but insofar as he ignored your invitation to draft a second paragraph presenting the viewpoint of "Jerusalem is a city in Israel", and instead posted a slightly revised version of the flawed current lead paragraph under the subsection you created titled "Ubiwit draft", I don't see that representing much in the way of a spirit of collaboration. One could even see it as retrenchment.

I think that the working version of the draft reflects the same perception that several other editors gave voice to before I began participating here and of which I wasn't even aware when I wrote the initial comments about historical context. That would seem to indicate that those perceptions are fairly prevalent. Aside from the religion-history register of significance, the partition/divide register of significance was the other aspect that seemed glaringly problematic with respect to the half-crocked, semi-veiled, disjointed and rhetorically inflected presentation in the lead.

With respect to reader reception, there will be different reactions to different points, but isn't it the point of the encyclopedia to present the subject matter in a manner such as to reflect the current state of knowledge as per reliable sources and enable diverse and various readers to interpret that themselves? --Ubikwit (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Ubikwit

Good points. But maybe at some point BritishWatcher will want to reengage, and he's welcome. He may be looking to start the next paragraph instead. This may be the silent version of "wait, guys". I'm not a mind reader.

Looking back over the article as a whole, I think it already reflects the main ideas I had thought about. We do talk about the past, not usually sensationally, but in good taste. We do talk about the present, and the article as a whole does not pull punches nor speak too rashly. And we do talk about the future from the day-to-day planning to grand schemes. It seems to me that those perspectives are balanced in the article. If we do the same in the leading section, we'll be doing the article justice. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope that BritishWatcher is doing just that. I hope that he is hearing your and nableezy's comments with respect to the dejure position to which he seems to be clinging.

Aside from the one outstanding point raised by Kaldari and addressed by the source you provided with respect to the status of the Palestinian claim on East/Jerusalem, I'm inclined to think that the draft might already be nearly ripe to have Ravpapa take a look at it.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The strong opposition of Britishwatcher to any proposal should not stop you. Have in mind that he just disagree with any proposal. I suggest you both to focus on the content and try to comply at best with NPoV.

More, as underlined here above, the ArbCom decided to ask the community a binding RfC on the topic so nothing should move until the conclusion of this RfC. Anyway, you work and propal should be suggested there.

I suggest you to gather numerous sources that proves that what you suggest is in compliance with these.

Thx for your good work. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully support BritishWatcher and there is not going to be forced POV editions against consensus made prior. There are numerous reliable sources from National Geographic to CIA factbook, both political, geographical, academic etc which do states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Therefore it is not truth that there is "unanomues consensus" that it is not. Any proposition which is just aimed to deny this in not acceptable---Tritomex (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no less sources to state that East-Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and there are no less source to state that the choice of Jerusalem as capital is not recognized by any country in the world. And we all know that is the choice of a country to decide where to establish its capital and we all know that East-Jerusalem is not in Israel.

It is useless to behave the way you both do as if your life was depending on this and to try to move forward.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I wish to point out, that the initial question of this subject was the both part of this sentence. Those two parts namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "although not internationally recognized as such" were equally but separately viewed as they are already balanced. Numerous sources are relating to this subject, without mentioning international dispute in the lead. F.x CIA fact book [35] National Geography and [36] and [37] Index mundi [38] even in sports and entertainment [39] etc. So if this sources without any dispute point out that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim through "international community" which could be also challenged. There are also sources which are dealing with the question of the lack of international recognition, although no source I have found which categorically claim that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Concerning East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine, I did not found any source uninvolved to the Arab-Israeli conflict on the Arab side, which support such claim.--Tritomex (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly none of the sources you just listed would meet the criteria of "reliable" in this context. None of the sources are published by scholarly/research publishers, one is a popular magazine, and another a political tainted publication due to its being issued by an agency of the US government and reflecting the policy standpoint thereof: the CIA, no less. You might as well cite a publication by the Mossad as reliable.

There is the fact of the recent vote at the UN, for example, that squarely puts the US in the minority POV with respect to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

There is the USS Liberty incident, which was covered up by the CIA, with several The Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford, Penguin Books, 1982, has a detailed description of the Israeli attack on the SIGINT ship USS Liberty, and the events leading up to it, on pages 279–293.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Tritomex, there are sources that present things as a fact and there are sources that present things as a claim/opinion/Israeli view, not a fact. For example, the BBC says "Israel and many of its supporters regard a united Jerusalem - Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 - as its undivided capital. Most major powers do not, including the US which, like many other countries, has its embassy in Tel Aviv."[40] Look at how the source presents the information. There are many sources like this that do not present the Israeli view as a fact. They present the positions of various parties as just that, the positions of the parties, and they attribute the views to the parties. These sources exist and can't be ignored. Also you say "our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim". What claim ? If it is a claim present it as a claim. Right now there is an unattributed statement of fact in the voice of the encyclopedia that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That is not a claim. It can't be negated by anything other than a sentence that follows it that says "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" and that would be ludicrous, to have a statement of fact followed by its negation. An opinion can't negate a fact.

Ubikwit, the CIA factbook qualifies as an RS. There are many RS that present it as a fact and the CIA is one of them in the sense that they say Capital: name: Jerusalem. What Tritomex didn't say is that the CIA don't mention Jerusalem at all in their lead (...not really an option for us) but they do also present the information as a claim - "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as it's capital in 1950, but..." etc on the map and in the Capital section.[41] The CIA do the same thing in the annotation for Greater Jerusalem SPOT 5 based map File:Greater_Jerusalem_May_2006_CIA_remote-sensing_map_3500px.jpg. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, please could you confirm that you acknowledge the existence of RS that do not present the Israeli position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as a fact ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so that editors such as tariqabjotu know, what Sean says, though more elegantly put, matches my own views.     ←   ZScarpia   19:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

draft including "holy city" in first sentence

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city in the monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established the seat of its government in the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community, however, does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, while the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine. The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Alternative versions with "holy city"

• • Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city associated with the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city in the monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Version w/o "holy city"

• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is a site of religious veneration connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Which question to put to the proposed "binding RFC"?

The "binding RFC" motion seems to just be lacking one vote to gain a majority, do we have ideas concerning which question the RFC should ask, assuming it goes ahead? My thinking would be to keep it as simple and plain as possible, optimally just asking whether a specific edit should be done, or whether one of two possible edits should be done. If the proposed edit is simple, there ought to be less to discuss which would improve the odds of reaching a conclusion with a reasonable amount of text. --Dailycare (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it just needs to get to the nub of the thing: Should the lead to the article on Jerusalem state, in Wikipedia's voice, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?. I think other supplementary questions that could be asked don't actually need a binding RfC and can be sorted out afterwards in the normal way. Formerip (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A slightly different suggestion: Does stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in the Jerusalem article comply with the policy of WP:NPOV? This has the advantage of narrowing down the discussion to a strict application of policy, (hopefully) avoiding arguments of the more personal kind. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I have to agree that referencing policy in the question would be better. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we take the highest care to what we'll be discussed.

The question is complex. I think that people could agree stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is acceptable but then they would also agree stating the East-Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. The same way, people who would not consider adequate to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel would not consider stating this for Palestine.

I think we should suggest several paragraph that just concern the political status and let the RfC comment or amend these.

We would have :

Option 1/ Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.

Option 2/ Both Israel and Palestine chose Jerusalem as capital but the final status of the city should be the object of peace negocations.

Option 3/ Israelis and Palestinians both 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

Option n/ Israel has established the seat of its government in the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community, however, does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, while the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine. The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that is the way to go, because it inevitably drags in lots of tangential issues which will make both voting and reading the votes harder. Isn't "should be the object of peace negotiations" an opinion? Is the main reason for the Israeli claim to J as its capital that "maintains its primary governmental institutions there", or is it a fact of Israeli law? Would many Israelis agree that Israel is "claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city"? All of these issues will keep us from deciding the central question. Personally, I couldn't support any of the options listed.

I could add versions of my own which I think are less problematic, but by the time we have let everyone do that, we'll have twenty versions and no chance of a consensus for any of them. Formerip (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you don't put a version you think would be best up for everyone elses consideration in advance? I am in no way indicating that I disagree with the preceding comments regarding simplicity and reference to policy. Making direct reference to policy may have represent a strategy that makes the process more efficient and workable by clearly delineating the scope.

What I am suggesting is that putting out concerns in advance, especially in the form of tangible sentences that people can read, contemplate and discuss in advance might further facilitate efficiency in the RfC negotiations.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I don't really have a version that I think is best, all I really think is necessary is to decide one way or the other in taking the "in WP's voice" option off the table. That could be achieved, for example, by "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to Israeli law, though not internationally recognized as such". But I wouldn't want to insist on any particular version or stand in the way of further honing after the RfC. Formerip (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I much prefer providing several options and having people choose among them. Asking a question leaves what the actual wording of the lead should be open to interpretation. In addition, I'd rather not waste time resisting attempts to formulate the question in a manner that prejudices respondents toward your perspective. When an RfC is started, it should not be apparent from the way the question is formulated what stance the initiator holds. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Frederico1234's proposal sounds elegantly simple. That way, the discussion is focused on the major point, and not minor issues that editors see with specific proposals. Then, if the RFC finds there is no NPOV violation, the current wording stands, and if the RFC finds there is NPOV violation, the current wording is removed. We'd then separately agree on a new wording. The risk of course would be that agreement might be difficult to reach.. Maybe we could have two questions, 1) Frederico1234's question and then 2) "If the answer to question 1 is 'no'", a choice between 2-3 options. The two questions would be closed separately, and question 2) would only be closed if 1) is closed with a 'no'. --Dailycare (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Issues such as whether the current wording is neutral should be sorted out first. The wording should be sorted out afterwards, which is when editors should be choosing between versions, if at all (in fact I don't think that we should be trying to come up with a binding wording). The narrower the focus the better, otherwise the result will just be another gargantuan, untangleable morass of discussions. That means trying to deal with a single issue at a time, stopping the discussion from going of at tangents.     ←   ZScarpia   19:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I also think it might be advisable to prepare versions in advance that illustrate the differences and possible alternatives corresponding to the various positions to with respect to NPOV, though I don't quite understand the details of the process of "closing" the RfC. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I think that there are four types of solution: to omit mention of the capital status of Jerusalem; to say that Jerusalem or bits of Jerusalem are the capital of one or both of Israel and Palestine; to state the capital status in terms of points of view; to use statements about the status which no-one disputes (such as that Jerusalem is the "declared capital"). Some editors here, including me, obviously think that the second type of solution breaches the neutrality rule. Once that was confirmed or rejected, I think that choosing one of the other solutions wouldn´t be too difficult. Looks as though we may need some assistance to formulate a suitable question though!     ←   ZScarpia   18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, those are four good starting points for discussion. I agree with those that feel the second type of the four solutions you mentioned is the most problematic and therefore the least desirable, so we should establish the arguments that support dismissing that type from consideration. I actually don't think it should be that difficult to accomplish that, but it calls for advanced preparation in light of the various circumstances.

Before I point out some concerns I have with the approach/strategy of those supporting the current lead, let me point to a couple things in the first paragraph I've proposed above that pertain to the problems you have drawn out a bit by elucidating the above-described four types of solutions.

First, the two appearances of the word capital in the paragraph I proposed are both prefaced with the modifier "future", and in that manner I think that the question of the status as capital is effective deferred, which parallels the actual state of affairs in the real world--though the supporters of the present lead would deny that. There might be some problems in the details regrading Israels claims, that is to say, that they claim the entirety of Jerusalem is already their undivided capital, but it doesn't seem to me that would be sustainable, as you have pointed out that sovereignty is at issue, probably the most direct refutation of their argument under international law, but that argument is reflected already in the UN resolutions, right?.

In relation to the first point, note that the generic term city is operative here, because the various circumstances at issue regarding the status of the city, i.e., its partitioning, whether it is capital, etc., are introduced subsequently vis-a-vis the city as such and the various claims being made on it. The article is about the city, first and foremost. Whether it has one attribute or another is a secondary order matter that has to be decided for each attribute. An identity statement that presupposes a specific attribute is not a manner of describing the city but a means of presrciptively appropriating the city as capital in order to subsequently describe the capital in terms of secondary attributes, such as "occupied", "not recognized". I need to go through some of the "dictionary definition" based arguments, but such arguments seems utterly facile when you shift registers from "dictionary" to "encyclopedia".

Second, I believe that I have covered the presently admissible state of the claim of the government of Israel with the phrase "Israel has established the seat of its government in the city". That acknowledges the physical presence of the administrative organs of the central government of Israel in Jerusalem, but nothing more than that with respect to status "as capital".

The approach/strategy of the supporters of the current lead would seem to rely heavily on two threads that they may try to weave together. The first is the attempt to argue for a "dejure" capital status for Israel. The second is the language games that relate to the framing of the of the "positions", "status", "claims", etc. The opening sentence for the new section that has been created after this one is useful to illustrate the point.

The lead currently documents the current position of there being no foreign embassies in Jerusalem.

That sentence attempts to present as a mere "position" the present physical reality of the fact that all governments having diplomatic relationships with Israel have removed their embassies from Jerusalem to demonstrate that Israel has acted against international law with their various transgressions against the rights of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Jerusalem. That is an attempt to frame the topic in a manner that shifts the register of significance from a verifiable reality to a merely subjective "position". The other side of the coin in that strategy might be to then attempt to assert the physical reality that the Israeli military effectively controls the entirety of Jerusalem in support of arguing for the status of its "undivided capital city" that is simply not recognized. The present lead represents to me a mess that has been built on false compromises related to such language games.

I think that a solution that minimizes the possibility for friction arising in relation to such language games might be the shortest distance between two points. Now, ClaudeReigns has demonstrated a highly polished level of diplomatic acumen as well as penetrating insight, so maybe he will grace this conversation with a comment.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

To be policy compliant, any statement of fact made in an article has to satisfy to conditions, is it verifiable and is it undisputed. The "reality on the ground" and "dictionary definition" arguments are red herrings; they have no basis in policy and their purpose is to circumvent the neutrality rule. We´re not here to vote on what the reality on the ground is, but to figure out how to neutrally present what sources say. Even if the dictionary definition argument had any relevance, as we've seen, it's pretty easy to dismiss by showing that dictionary definitons aren´t definitive as far as what words mean. As far as the statement of fact, "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", goes, the question to keep asking is, do sources dispute that? Since the answer to that is yes, any argument seeking to uphold the current wording is, automatically, an attempt at pushing a point of view.

When supporters of the current wording dismiss things as positions, claims etc. they may well be correct. Where they fail is in not recognising that the things they support are just positions and claims too.

As far as the word games go, we have the text of the original UN resolutions to refer to in order to demonstrate what terms such as non-recognition mean when applied to the international community´s view on the status of Jerusalem.

I'm all for advanced preparation.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

" Does stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in the Jerusalem article comply with the policy of WP:NPOV?" - is blatantly biased question, if it is going to be along those lines, it should include what is actually says. The article does not just say it is the capital of Israel, it says it is the capital of Israel but not recognised by the international community. BIG Difference! BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We could have:

In the sentence Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such, do you believe the clause "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be compliant with Wikipedia's policy on adopting a neutral point-of-view?

Formerip (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You cannot make an identity statement that is inadmissible and then try to retroactively justify it with a qualifying statement. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Although that's what the article currently does, which might may "can you..?" a legitimate aspect to the question in an RfC. Formerip (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is why we need a third party to set up and provide direction to whatever process is used. I'm not convinced we'll get some in favor of changing the current wording to agree to anything that isn't a leading question. In case I wasn't clear, that, FormerIP, is a leading question. -- tariqabjotu 17:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Is it because it attempts to "lead" the reader to consider the question in terms of policy?

If we need a third party, then a request for meditation would be the way to go. Formerip (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, I'm not sure that you've made the case. In my opinion, there is no question that either of the statements that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or that "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" is unequivocally not in correspondence with reality; therefore, I find it hard to even comprehend what it is that you are trying to get at. What is "leading" about presenting sources against which to conduct a reasoned discussion as to whether the sources verify the validate the identity statement?--Ubikwit (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

@Ubikwit, I don't think that you'll find many disagreements here, UN/world regards Jerusalem status as undetermined. However that doesn't change the fact that Jerusalem is under Israeli control, or that they established their capital and seat of government.(i.e. the difference between de jure and de facto).--Mor2 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but then why are we trying to formulate questions? It would seem that a more neutral opening along the lines of the description I believe nableezy wrote to the effect that "Jerusalem is a city straddling Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories" would be in place, as that recognizes Israeli control as well as the international law position of the Palestinians. Questions could be framed in terms of the defacto and dejure positions being argued by BritishWatcher. I'm not an expert on international law, but if it can be established that international law is the prevailing frame of reference discourse related to this issue, then the sources cited by ZScarpia would seem to easily refute the neutrality of the current wording as well as support phrasings such as the "straddles" version.

Are you suggesting a question worded win terms of the dejure and defacto status of Jerusalem?--Ubikwit (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

What is the problem with asking whether the current wording "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" is compliant with Wiki policy? Ankh.Morpork 17:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not much, although I think you do need to specify which proposition is being asked about, or you risk a lack of clarity if you get a "no" vote. Formerip (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was as clear as I could be in my comment. I've already spent excessive amounts of my time commenting on this talk page, explaining again what I've already said. I'm not doing it anymore. Reread my statement a couple times. Reread the comment that I was replying to. Still don't understand what I'm saying? Fine. I don't care that you don't. -- tariqabjotu 18:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is an identity statement Counterpart_theory#Counterpart_theory_and_the_necessity_of_identity that: implies that Jerusalem is a city in Israel, which is an unsustainable statement with respect to the status of Jerusalem under international law; and two, attempts to divert the questioning of the verity of the identity statement by appending a qualifying statement to the a priori inadmissible identity statement. --Ubikwit (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ubikwit, please read Wikipedia:Indentation. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if your view is that the current version is unacceptable, then vote against it at the RFC. However, there are proponents of the current version who contend that the initial sentence is acceptable and the qualification and proposition should be regarded together, and that being the case, the current version should be presented in its entirety at the RFC for other editors to decide upon. Surely other editors possess the mental faculties to determine for themselves whether it is an "inadmissible identity statement" or an "attempt to divert"? The issue at hand is whether the first sentence is acceptable, I fail to see how you can construe presenting the sentence in question as problematic. Ankh.Morpork 18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, please read Wikipedia:Indentation. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, OK, I will do that tomorrow, after I get some sleep.

Ankh, the problem with your PROPOSITION is that the statement "Israel is the capital of Israel" is not a proposition, it is an identity statement. This is not an exercise in trying to prove a hypothesis. That identity statement is not in conformance with international law, and is therefore inadmissible on Wikipedia, at least that is my take on the situation.

There have been a couple of proponents of that statement that have been trying to argue a "dejure" position in order to validate that identity statement, but that would appear to be a patently false position.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The formulation of the RFC is independent of your personal misgivings regarding the current lead sentence and reiterating them does not negate that there is still support for the current form. As such, the RFC question should be designed to ascertain the validity of that opinion, however "patently false" you consider it, and a prerequisite for that is presenting the full version in question. Ankh.Morpork 19:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point, I'm just not sure what it would mean to "present the full version in question" when what you actually have are two separate statements, one of which is being used as an expedient to try and gain passage for the other, which is not in conformance with the discourse of international law that one would imagine to be the prevailing discourse with respect to matters such as this on Wikipedia. For your erudition in light of my less than optimal presentation of the topic of identity statements: First-order logic. The point I have been trying to make is that, the question of the disposition of the city of Jerusalem is pending--to say the least--in the arena of international law as represented by the pronouncements of the UN and many nation states. It is therefore a contradiction to make a statement that identifies Jerusalem with respect to the criteria of the prevailing discourse of international law when the identified status is not in conformance with the criteria. Therefore, it is a foregone conclusion that a phrasing of an RfC question of identity predicated on a statement that attempts to qualify that identity in terms of acknowledging that the applicable criteria are not met is inadmissible. It is nothing more than a duplicitous rhetorical maneuver. It is not a "proposition" which is presented in order to evaluate its truth conditions, because the horizon of the "truth conditions" is not the unknown but an established discourse; in this case, international law.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Once again, how you think the RFC should be adjudicated does not affect the manner in which the question should be posed. Your dogmatic exposition of how you would answer the question is of no relevance to this section which attempts to decide upon the question itself. What is a relevant "duplicitous rhetorical maneuver" is dismissing the opposing view as "patently false" or omitting to fairly present it in the RFC because its inadmissibilty is a "foregone conclusion". The purpose of the RFC is to present the current version and decide on its validity and you should allow for due process to take its course. Ankh.Morpork 20:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The comments were addressing the mode of the question, as there were two proposals: one proposing to simply ask whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" violates WP:NPOV; and the other inserting the qualifying statement "though not recognized internationally..." or something to that effect.

I don't think that posing the question in the second of those two is logically consistent as a question. I wasn't trying to answer the question, just point out a problem with asking it in that way to begin with. If you ask the wrong question how can you expect the right answer?

That was what I meant to point out.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

"and the other inserting the qualifying statement "though not recognized internationally..." or something to that effect." Are you actually aware that this is the current form adopted in the article and is supported by a number of editors, and is not simply a gratuitous qualification dreamt up a few moments ago? What could possibly be "wrong" with presenting the current version - which arose out of previous lengthy deliberations - when requesting people to pass an opinion upon it? Ankh.Morpork 20:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that quite a lot has changed even within the events of the past year to throw that statement into stark relief--especially with respect to international law considering the elvated status of Palestine at the UN--as to the problems moving forward with the two-state solution. That should not be trivialized. I am inclined to believe that a two-step or even a three-step approach might accommodate the various modes of approaching the question.--Ubikwit (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I would note that nothing has changed that effects Jerusalem. Sure PLO delegate at the UN has been upgraded, but neither Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence status has been changed and more importantly UN/world position on Jerusalem hasn't been changed. As for the rest, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when we will have a two state solution or some other solution/change that will effect Jerusalem status, municipal borders or materialize Palestinian claim, add something notable to the article etc then changes will be in order.--Mor2 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't see problems with modifying Federico1234's question as Ankh.Morpork suggests. The modified question could be question 1) Does stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" in the Jerusalem article comply with the policy of WP:NPOV?. If we adopt the two-step approach, the proposals in question 2) to replace "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" might be e.g. a) "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital" b) "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government", c) "Under Israeli law Jerusalem is Israel's capital". --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I see several problems with it. That isnt the only dispute here, and the 500 kB of text on this page should make that clear. nableezy - 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

d) Jerusalem is Israel established Capital e)Jerusalem is Israel official capital. need more?--Mor2 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

^^^^ is why an RFC is a stupid idea for this. This dispute cannot be boiled down to a simple statement that could elicit a support or oppose. Mediation that is binding on everybody, whether or not they accept it, is the only thing that will resolve the issue. nableezy - 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not an RfC would be a good idea or if it would further answer any of the questions I have. I don't know how the arguments that it is or isn't NPOV would be presented if at all. As a general principle, I do like it when other editors get involved. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit moot, because the RfC motion has the votes needed to pass. Do we think we can get as far as a question in this discussion, or should we cut to the chase and ask for mediation? Formerip (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

After participating in this discussion for a short couple of days, it does seem that the insistence of the statement on the status of Jerusalem as a city in Israel (only) or the capital city of Israel is the main sticking point to forging a more neutral lead for the article. In that respect, addressing that point would appear to be a priority, though certainly not the only issue of concern.--Ubikwit (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

If there is going to be a large RFC which is binding for several years, it must have specific options for people to choose from so they know what the alternatives are, otherwise nothing is resolved at all. It need not necessarily have the specific proposed wording but a basis for how the article should be handled. Like 1) Current method which has existed in the article for years. 2) Say it is the proclaimed or claimed "capital of Israel" 3) try to avoid saying it is the capital of either. 4) say it is the capital of both. etc. That sort of approach would give us an insight into how people want the situation resolved. Unlike a question asking is the current wording or saying Jerusalem is the capital NPOV? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's an RFC or mediation, whichever question is posed to respondents, people's responses need to be consistent with the data. Whatever happens, I suggest we provide the data in the form of a compilation of 20, 50, 100, or however many is regarded as an appropriate number of sampled RS that deal with the status of Jerusalem. Much of this sampling work has already been done. Many samples can be found in the archives and high quality sources that describe the status of Jerusalem are plentiful. Without the data there is nothing to anchor people to the RS-based evidence. Providing the data should help ensure that people base their statements on the evidence and policy and nothing else. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I share your mind.

Whatever our point of view on the matter, the most important is to compile the sources on the topic and provide them at the beginning of the RfC. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean, if a 100% of sources were to describe Jerusalem as the captital in a particular way, and a 100% of sources defined the word "capital" in an incompatible manner, how would you suggest we proceed? Ankh.Morpork 21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, of course the issue is complex, but I think we should aim the binding rfc to the core of the issue to have a focused, meaningful and hopefully brief discussion. It's not realistic to assume this rfc will settle all issues in this article, but it can settle the key point that has caused years of discussions. In order to get a result we should be solution-oriented and focus on getting an acceptable result that can be lived with permanently. A perfect result for everyone isn't a realistic goal. Merry Christmas, --Dailycare (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, is it not the case that an encyclopedia is a higher order text than a dictionary with respect to describing any given topic?

This article is not about "capitals" per se, but about a city. Attributes such as "capital" are secondary to the taxonomical category of "city" with respect to Jerusalem.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I don't think I understand your question. If I read you literally it would be something like a scenario where 100% of the sources say "Jerusalem has been proclaimed as the capital of both Israel and Palestine and the letter I is the capital of Israel". I'm sure that isn't what you meant. When it comes to what might happen I'm more concerned about what is likely e.g. respondents not answering the question asked because it involves looking at data and thinking and instead answering an easier question that wasn't asked such as "Do I think Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?" Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to say that trying to rely on a dictionary definition to comprehensively describe the scenario at hand would appear to be an extreme oversimplification. Jerusalem does not have all of the attributes that grant it status of "capital city" of any country; therefore, the attribute of "capital" would appear to be a misrepresentation of the facts, which are borne out by RS more definitive than a dictionary--to paraphrase ZScarpia--such as "non-recognition by UN", for starters. Or the fact that Israel does not have sovereignty over the city, which I would think should be another attribute that precludes the appellation of "capital". It is my understanding that there are UN sources that support definitions in terms of those attributes (not recognized, no sovereignty); accordingly, I find the recourse to the dictionary definition stuff to be somewhat facile, but not to be made light of while others are still intent on resorting to such sources.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Foreign embassies

The lead currently documents the current position of there being no foreign embassies in Jerusalem. However, there have been many embassies there in the past since 1948 and previous foreign attitudes towards Jerusalem should equally be mentioned. Ankh.Morpork 19:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a position it is a material fact of reality.

Since countries moved their embassies as a result of illegal acts of the government of Israel, it a fact that relates primarily to the suspended political status vis-a-vis the international community, and probably is too fine grained of a point to be in the lead in the first place. So why clutter up the lead even further if you are already complaining elsewhere about the level of political detail, as per the statement, "I consider the detailing of the current political stances re Jerusalem in the lead as excessive" under the section 'Repetition in the lead'?

How would you propose including it in the lead, for example? In conjunction with the aim of illustrating what?

The circumstances of the embassies and the presence/removal should be discussed in the main body, in conjunction with the acts of Israel and the response of the international community and how that relates to the problem of (West) Jerusalem's recognition as the capital of Israel, the partitioning, etc.

It seems to me that the lead has been misappropriated for politicking, and the mess it is in at present is the result of a series of false compromises related to that salient fact, which is the reason for the RfC regarding neutrality.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

"It's not a position it is a material fact of reality." :) I recall several instances in which noted "material facts of reality" and you choose to ignore them. go figure.--Mor2 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall. Where? I don't want the facts and the POV to be confused, that's all.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

What style of RFC is there going to be, if there is going to be one

Is it any clearer what will be proposed in the RFC yet, is it going to focus on a single question such as is the current introduction compatible with NPOV, or is it going to list some of the methods of handling the situation. Such as Status quo, proclaimed capital of Israel, Capital of Israel + Palestine, or avoid saying it is the capital of either? What ever method is used, i do believe it is reasonable for the RFC to clearly mention the fact this article has described Jerusalem as Israel's capital for many years. Recognising that what is being proposed is a radical shift in the handling of the situation on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I can think of one good reason why an appeal to tradition shouldn't be recognized. And a funny one. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be reasonable because it encourages status quo bias. The RFC should be designed to discourage the subconscious short cuts people naturally use to avoid thinking about difficult questions and encourage careful rational decision-making based on policy and the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It will still be for people to decide which option they think is the best way forward, but it is very important that the RFC recognises that the status quo or basic method of handling this article has existed MANY years. It is not like there has been a recent change and people are objecting to it and now there is an attempt to change it. I will look back on the history in the new year as i only joined this debate a couple of years ago, but it is my understanding the article has stated Jerusalem is the capital of Israel for significantly longer, it was a compromise (Which i was one of the main users urging/supporting) that led to the not internationally recognised bit in the first sentence. That compromise was done to ensure balance, yet now it is being questioned and attacked again. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not now being questioned and attacked again. It has always been considered by many editors to be a contravention of basic WP policy. It's "no consensus" detritus. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sticking to what I proposed in the thread above, namely to keep the RFC question as simple and to-the-point as possible, focusing on whether the "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" wording infringes WP:NPOV and if so, a small number of alternatives. If we get a solution along these lines, that's something we can live with permanently (or until the one/two state solution is implemented and the situation cleared out). What's in the article right now has no bearing that I can see on what should be there. In fact how could it, since we're investigating if the current text is wrong. A good idea would be to somehow limit the amount of text each editor can contribute to the RFC. --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that this question, should not omit the second part of the sentence i.e. "..,though not internationally recognized as such" and I hope that small number of alternatives includes more than the 3 options provided above.--Mor2 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that proviso was discussed as well. If editors are OK with this approach, then it seems like we have the question without recourse to mediation. Which additional options for the second part would you suggest, Mor2? --Dailycare (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I realized just now Mor2 has in fact proposed two additional alternatives above, so the question might be, taking things together (the "not recognized" phrase would need gentle re-phrasing in some options of question 2):

1) Is the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" compliant with WP:NPOV?

2) If the answer to 1) is "no", which of the following alternatives would you prefer to the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"?

a) "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital"

b) "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government"

c) "Under Israeli law Jerusalem is Israel's capital"

d) "Jerusalem is Israel's established Capital"

e) "Jerusalem is Israel's official capital" --Dailycare (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dailycare that the RFC question should be simple, to-the-point and focus on whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" infringes WP:NPOV. I think it needs a minimum of 3 parts.

1. The evidence in form of a large sample of sources. This is critical to the success of the RFC in terms of policy compliance in my view and I don't think anything should happen without this part.

2. The content related questions. There should be at least 2 options, which could simply be to accept or reject the statement of fact. I'm not sure of the best approach but I'm not in favor of including the "though not internationally recognized as such" part in the RFC mainly because it requires people to deal with what is in practice a logical conjunction. If the statement was more explicit and said something like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but this fact is not internationally recognized as such" so that it was clearer to respondents that the first part is a fact and the second part is about the opinion of the international community I would be more inclined to include it. If the consensus is to include it in the RFC so be it. I think it will needlessly complicate the key issue, which is the question about the statement of fact, by including something that has no impact on whether the statement of fact complies with policy and over which there is no dispute.

3. Respondents should be asked to state how many of the sampled sources support their position. I think this is important because it should help to ensure that people look at the evidence and give them an opportunity to review their statements in light of that evidence. The point is to try to encourage a thoughtful, considered, evidence based response and discourage people from answering the wrong question by providing personal opinions about whether Jerusalem actually is the capital of Israel based on their personal criteria for deciding the answer to that question.

The RFC is likely to be a magnet for partisan sockpuppets and SPAs. If it were up to me I would want to exclude editors with less than a substantial number of edits made over a substantial amount of time (e.g. edit count >1000 & account age > 1 year). Ideally I wouldn't allow respondents to see each other's answers either but that isn't how Wikipedia does it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Considering our responsibility to represent views based on their prevalence in reliable sources and to show the relative predominance of opposing views:
• Can "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" be stated as fact?
• If not, how shall the assertion be presented?
• With what weight (majority, equal, minority, fringe) shall opposing views be represented?

Granted that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is the statement with the most controversy, but the sentence forms a logical conjunction for good reason. Consequently, if we cannot state it as fact, we probably have some 'splainin' to do. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: Not allowing editors with less than 1000 edits to participate would give the full-time editors an unfair advantage. PerDaniel (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that since this is primarily a question of NPOV, this turns on what sources say. I don't know of it's necessary to have a list of sources in the RFC question, or if it's sufficient that editors simply justify their arguments by providing sources as needed or requested. --Dailycare (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare, I can't think of away to present your two step, closed question, as non leading question. But IMO this variant would be better:

1. Is the lead: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such[ii]...", neutrally define the capital status of the city.
2. If the answer to is "no", which of the following variant better phrase it:

1. "Jerusalem is Israel's established Capital, though not internationally recognized as such"
2. "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, though not internationally recognized as such"
3. "Jerusalem is Israel's official capital, though not internationally recognized as such"
4. "Jerusalem is claimed as Israel's capital, though not internationally recognized as such"
5. None of the above.

@Sean.hoyland, The problem with your second suggestion is that it ignores the recent RFC, which already address the issue. The question should present the whole sentence, otherwise the answer of the RFC should state: "no, already address it, move along".

@ClaudeReigns, your suggestion is a leading question. To illustrate the point, here is another leading question:

• Considering that a capital defined as a city that enjoy a primary status in a state as its seat of government and is normally fixed by its law or constitution. Which is often, the largest city of its constituent area.
• Noting that 'State of Israel' has established Jerusalem as its Capital, over half a decade ago. That Jerusalem serve as Israel seat of government and administrative center, its position fixed by Israeli law and that it is the largest city in Israel. Noting that "international recognition" is not part of any definition of Capital.
• Can anyone in his right mind and not effected by "political-cum-linguistic", suggest that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? --Mor2 (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Mor2, I'm not sure which RFC you are referring to but I don't think it matters because this instability in the article and the associated discussions have been going on for over 10 years, from its very earliest days. I'm quite happy to ignore any previous discussions, RFCs etc. Perhaps I didn't provide a complete description of why I want to exclude the second part of the sentence. There are some people who believe that including the second part of the sentence has some bearing on the NPOV compliance of the first part of the sentence, that it somehow transforms a fact into something that isn't quite as strong as a fact, more like a claim, an opinion, a view etc. They are wrong. They are wrong in a formal sense. This is clear when you consider the sentence "1=1, though it is not internationally recognized as such". The second part of the sentence is not capable of altering the fact that 1=1 is true. When an unattributed statement of fact is presented using Wikipedia's voice it must be true, just like 1=1. Wikipedia saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" must mean that the statement is true and adding "though not internationally recognized as such" doesn't make it less than true. It's disturbing, although not surprising, that some people make this kind of error when they consider the NPOV compliance of compound statements. Anything that can be done to minimise these kind of errors gets my vote. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Sean, you are on the right track with analyzing identity statements, but the formula used is not 1=1, as that is considered trivial, but a=b, which is informative about the objective world. The point is that for a=b to be true certain truth conditions have to be met in order that the statement correspond to the reality in the real world; that is to say, in Wikispeak, the facts presented in reliable sources. There are a good number of pdf files and the like available on the topic online if you want to read up a bit. Here's one Frege on Identity Statements, by Robert May, 2001Ubikwit (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

@Ubikwit, so saying "I am a guitarist, though I am not internationally recognized as such" serves nicely to present me as undiscovered talent. What a clever idea! I will start using that in my elevator speech. Your use of the term "identity statement" has opened up a very enlightening way for me to conceptualize our predicament here. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Claude, that analogy is a brilliant shifting of registers to illustrate the point. I hope you noticed the pdf file on Frege's development of the concept I posted in a reply to Sean. Many of the people that have worked on the concept have (also) been mathematicians. It seems that there used to be more avenues of communication between mathematics and the humanities that enabled some feedback into philosophy of gleanings gained through more abstract thought worked out by mathematicians--or something like that, whereas today their work seems to be channeled primarily into derivatives and the funny money market.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

@Mor2, you seem to be intent on cutting to the chase and avoiding the mediation related to formulating the question to be posed in the RfC. Why don't you either save your arguments for the RfC, or participate in the discussion aimed at describing positions related to the formulation of the RfC question, which is the matter at hand that is to presented for mediation.Ubikwit (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It seems to me that you think that this mediation is stage I of the RFC, rather than an attempt to formulate a natural question that presenting the issue and situation in question.--Mor2 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "a natural question", but it is my understanding that the object of the mediation proposal is to compose an RfC question that is compliant with NPOV so that we can streamline the RfC process in the hope of actually arriving at consensus.Ubikwit (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

@Mor2, I'm not sure that the "leading question" argument is relevant here. Can you name a policy according to which a RFC question can't be "leading"? Personally I don't see it as problematic to ask whether a sentence complies with a policy. This question, after all, is the center of the disagreement that we want to resolve. Concerning the "capital status" question, that question suggests Jerusalem has some kind of "capital status", what we don't want to do in the question. As to the 1-5 suggestions, the "official" and "established" versions at least I don't recall seeing very often in sources. Of course, no individual editor can personally write them all and disregard those put forward by others. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. In a very broad sense, every question can be considered leading, since it calls attention on a particular topic. However, I was refering to the use of certain words, emphasis and suggestion that imply presupposition or suggest a desired response. As for the question it self, I think that what we want to resolve is not 'capital status of Jerusalem', which is already addressed in another paragraph in the lead(and dedicated article), but whether the sentence in the lead(which has its restrictions) introducing the city of Jerusalem as "capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" is neutral.--Mor2 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's also good to keep in mind that leading questions and loaded questions are two different things. A loaded question would be e.g. "Is 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' a neutral way to describe the fact that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel?". Also Mor2's proposal can be seen as a loaded question. On a practical note, can we just go ahead and start the RFC or do we need to involve ArbCom somehow? Happy New Year, --Dailycare (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There was this comment on the Mediation request page by one of the administrators

I failed to specifically address the use of mediation to formulate the RFC question. I believe that question to be part of what the three closers (to be appointed by the Arbitration Committee (?)) are to work upon. (Even if it is not, then it would be premature to raise it here. There has not been sufficient talk page discussion or prior dispute resolution on that question.) If the parties to the dispute cannot come to an agreement on that issue, my suggestion to the parties would be to make a new motion to ArbCom to either define the question itself or to appoint the three closers to do so. — TM 16:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If we can't agree on a question, perhaps we will have to follow that route.--Ubikwit (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

Mediation

Can anyone think of a good reason not to request mediation in order to support the process of coming up with an RfC question? Formerip (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediation would be the "gold standard" way to decide on the question, a drawback would be the time it takes to complete. If we can agree on e.g. the proposal discussed above we could have the question sooner.--Dailycare (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I was really thinking that mediation would be quicker - the discussion above doesn't seem to me to be rapidly headed towards agreement (i.e. I think the if in If we can... is a pretty big one). Formerip (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the two points raised above also pertain to NPOV, meaning that there is no consensus as to what type of question would represent an NPOV, then the RfC may become encumbered by arguments related to that anyway. Ubikwit--Ubikwit (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm just delighted that the community will be making a decision and I'm satisfied to keep my nose out of it. I would imagine they will put an enduring mark on the article and I don't have any preconceived notions about how it will go. As it stands from the wording of the RfC, I take it to mean that those of us who have already formed an opinion are to kindly butt out. That means me. Were I a religious man, I might pray a prayer over the article that my deity might sway the argument to one side or another. But since I am a humanist, I rather rejoice that the matter is already in the hands of more humans. In the meantime, feel free to indulge my fondness for malaprops and ethnically idiosyncratic syntax ratcheer. Ashkenazi-Appalachianisms are my favorite, but feel free to holler however you cant. ש ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediation might be the requisite round one of this ensuing conundrum. Trying to do it all at one sitting might not be pretty and might not produce a result of the level of cultivation we could achieve through a two-step process incorporating a mediation stage regarding the question. I think that there are issues that would be raised simply in the course of coming up with the right question that could be set aside in the process of coming up with the question, clearing the way a bit toward achieving consensus regarding the lead.

At least two such issues have been raised repeatedly already, and I don't particularly think there is even clarity, let alone consensus, regarding those.--Ubikwit (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Claude, I don't get the impression from the ArbCom motion that involved editors couldn't participate in the RFC, indeed involved editors are probably best versed in the issue. Concerning the proposed question, I'm OK with the mediation approach, could you FormerIP file the request for mediation, listing as involved parties just the editors who've participated in the question discussion? Otherwise, the request will be rejected, over a month from now, due to some editors not accepting. A frustrating problem here is that many editors are airing proposals without expressing support for or reasoned disagreement with other proposals. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, okay, here is how I see the question:

• Considering our directive to give weight to views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources and to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views:
• Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of Jerusalem, as capital and otherwise, in the view of the international community?
• Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of Yerushalayim, as capital and otherwise, in the view of the State of Israel?
• Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of Yerushalayim in the view of the Jewish people?
• Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of Jerusalem in the view of Christians?
• Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of al-Quds in the view of Muslims?
• Does the lead section fairly weigh the notability of al-Quds, as capital and otherwise, in the view of the State of Palestine?
• If not, how shall we improve the lead section?

It's not a nutshell question, it's a pea-pod question. Again, this is how I see it. Of course, this roughly mirrors how I had envisioned writing the lead section, so nothing new here. Sorry if it isn't helpful - we have talked the ear off of this subject. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite see the point in asking about Jerusalem's notability and views of Christians etc. The way I see the arbcom motion is that the binding RFC is supposed to address the point that's been agued about here over the last 9 or so years, namely is it OK to say "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" (as part of any phrase) in the lead. In other words, to address the content dispute that caused the arbitration request to be filed. If Claude's proposal would be the question, we'd have megabytes of text about the correct way to spell "Yerushalayim" et cetera instead of a discussion on the root cause of the dispute. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made a request, which is here. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the questions. However, I would like the question to also examine whether the lead for Jerusalem is the appropriate place to delve into the political niceties, which are wholly avoided in other articles such as Taipei which is the capital of a country whose entire sovereignty has been internationally challenged. Ankh.Morpork 12:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's comparing apples and oranges, as the saying goes; that is to say, they do not share enough of the same attributes to be compared in this context.Ubikwit (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ankh has put his finger on the crux of the issue. The question is not how to present the political controversy, but whether to present it at all in the lead. And Ankh is absolutely right that there is an unspoken standard in Wikipedia that articles on cities read like tourism promotion brochures. Look at the article on Belfast; or Pristina, site of some of the most heinous war crimes in the last 50 years. What does Wikipedia have to say about Pristina? That it is served by the Pristina International Airport. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Would that be adopting a position that defacto recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?Ubikwit (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

• I.e. avoid the political niceties by writing:

'Jerusalem is the capital (and largest city) of Israel?' as per

• Taipei City (/ˌtaɪˈpeɪ/; Chinese: 臺北市 or 台北市; pinyin: Táiběi Shì; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Tâi-pak Chhī) is the capital of (the) Republic of China (Taiwan).

• Belfast (from Irish: Béal Feirste, meaning "mouth of the sandbanks")[11] is the capital of, and largest city in, Northern Ireland.

• Pristina, also spelled Prishtina listen (help•info) and Priština (Albanian: Prishtinë or Prishtina, Serbian: Приштина or Priština; Turkish: Priştine), is the capital and largest city of Kosovo.'

or simply elide this statement about its capital claims which is causing huge problems, and write the lead of Jerusalem in terms of its nonpolitical, massive historical character? Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

None of the comparisons are actually comparable. There is no dispute that Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland, that Pristina is the capital of Kosovo, or that Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan). In those cases the dispute is over whether those regions should be under the control of another sovereign. Regardless of what government controls those regions, the capitals will presumably remain as capitals of those regions. Here the dispute is specifically over what state should have Jerusalem as its capital.

There is no dispute that ... Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan). I don't think this is quite correct. Republic of China is not recognised as an independent state by most nations (and is not a member of the UN). Accoding to some editors here, if it is not recognised by other nations, then its very existence is disputed. But if Republic of China does not exist, then Taipei is the capital of something that does not exist. Your logic would apply if the article said Taipei is the capital of Taiwan. But it says Republic of China (Taiwan). Incidentally, Wikipedia article on Taiwan states as a fact that it is a sovereign state, even though we know that many countries do not recognise it as such. - BorisG (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"There is no dispute that...Pristina is the capital of Kosovo". Nonsense. Kosovo's independence is not recognised by many countries; it is idiotic to assert there is no contention as to Pristina's status. Ankh.Morpork 14:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that none of the cities offered for comparison are divided, subject to UN resolutions, is under military occupation, etc. The "very existence" of Jerusalem isn't disputed, its status as a single city or as two cities with the accompanying implications.

In fact, it could be said that its status is only disputed because of the intransigence of the government of Israel in trying to take the city illegally by force; that is to say, there is no dispute regarding the position of the UN and all of the countries that have removed their embassies from the city. The RfC is aimed at addressing whether the lead reflects a disputed minority POV. Ubikwit (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

My proposal above to say it is the disputed capital of the respective parties would encapsulate that and it is a phrase that has been frequently used to describe Jerusalem. Books and news sources often use the term "disputed capital" or "disputed city" to describe Jerusalem and it concisely reflects how Jerusalem is viewed in the international community, rather than favoring one side of the dispute over the other. I think that option should be considered in any binding dispute resolution.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, I'll play the advocate's devil--just kidding...

We agree that the above-described comparisons are off the mark, for starters, and I think your explication of that was lucid and to the point.

Your suggestion of phrasing has some merit, but the situation seems complicated by the fact that the status of the city itself is not clear--as indicated by "disputed city"--except for what the UN resolutions state. Since I have not read those through in detail I'll defer to those who have, but I believe that the UN recognizes Palestinians right to sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and that is where the say that they will establish their capital. In that scenario, there would be no "Jerusalem" as a city in the formal sense, but two cities of "East Jerusalem" and "West Jerusalem", so stating that it is the "disputed capital" or even "disputed city" doesn't provide the full story. And if we say something like "divided city", then that would be the equivalent of voicing defacto support for the "undivided capital" position of the government of Israel.

I don't think that is a trivial distinction, so it should be reflected. Ubikwit (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I think Mor2 inadvertently proposed the solution to this earlier, namely if we have the two-step question, one of the options in the second question would be to not mention the capital issue at all. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the question could be: (the "not recognized" phrase would need adapting in some options of question 2):

1) Is the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" compliant with WP:NPOV?
2) If the answer to 1) is "no", which of the following alternatives would you prefer to the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"?

a) "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital"

b) "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government"

c) "Under Israeli law Jerusalem is Israel's capital"

d) "Jerusalem is Israel's established Capital"

e) "Jerusalem is Israel's official capital"

f) Don't mention the issue.

In case of f) we might have problems, would it mean that we can't mention the issue anywhere in Wikipedia? I think agreeing on a wording would be preferable to that. --Dailycare (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you thinking that this would be two separate RfCs, or one RfC with two simultaneous questions? Formerip (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Do any of the formulations b) thru e) adequately reflect the majority POV of the international community? I think that "seat of government" is a valid description of the status reflecting the Israeli POV when incorporated into a sentence that isn't an identity statement, because that situation is in a state of transience that will be resolved at some point into "capital" or not. I don't think that the lead should present the status in a hypostacized manner, as it is dynamic, in a state of flux.

Perhaps the description of the partitioning of the city should perhaps be described first, as a deterministic historical fact that was followed by the adoption of the present stances of the government of Israel, the international community and the UN. I had that somewhat differently in the paragraph proposed above.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Dailycare, actually it was very much intentional. Few point:

1. replaced 'sentence' with 'lead' - because the lead has different rules then the rest of the article.
2. replaced 'compliant with WP:NPOV' with 'neutrally define the capital status of the city' - per Implication by question see jail expample.
3. removed option C because no side suggest it.
4. rephrased A to have the same structure as the rest i.e. Jerusalem.. to avoid attention.
5. I added the option "None of the above." to avoid issues of presupposition that one of the bellow options we put is the correct/better answer.

I had a few other ideas as well but this for later.--Mor2 (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest (c). I think it is the most neutral formulation. Things like "established" and "official" are a bit woolly, but "under Israeli law" is clear and beyond doubt. Formerip (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@FormerIP, the idea would be one RFC with two questions that would be closed separately. @Ubikwit, I understand this RFC as a bid to resolve the major years-old content dispute, so discussion on partitioning etc. should be kept separate to allow editors to focus on the key issue. @Mor2, again I think the issue is whether the "Jer is Cap" statement is in-line with WP:NPOV or not, in a lead, body, combined with something, or anywhere. An RFC settling that will be a success. "Capital status", as has been argued, would make the question loaded by implying there is a "capital status". As to the implication-by-question point, I think the same applieas as to "leading question". Editors have explicitly charged that "Jer is Cap" violates WP:NPOV, and we want the RFC to specifically address this. Therefore, it makes sense to specifically ask about that. Option C is one of the solutions that has been proposed on this page in recent months. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to mediation for formulation of RfC question

I propose that we discuss the formulation of the RfC question here in a localized and focused manner.

While many here editors working on this article would seem to be political scientist and historians, a few of us have a multidisciplinary background that makes it incumbent upon us to consider the issues at hand from more than one perspective.

One problem is that the present opening sentence is logically inconsistent insofar as it embodies a minority view that is qualified in a manner such as to give it the appearance of a majority view through placement at the very head of the lead as an assertion of fact, which is not in accord with the factual status of Jerusalem in the shared objective world as presented by the reliable sources.

Therefore, I propose that the RfC question be restricted to addressing the content of the identity sentence itself, as it seems that is the foremost aim of the RfC. In other words, the RfC should aim first and foremost to answer the question “Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?”, because that is the core issue of the content dispute relating to the composition of the lead. If the answer is “No”, then it is clear that the present opening sentence violates NPOV, whereupon it becomes a question of how to represent the balance of the respective notable POVs proportionately.

The “factual status of Jerusalem in the shared objective world as presented by the reliable sources” is at the heart of the matter to be addressed in the RfC, not mediation, I believe. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

We have two threads and one mediation already ongoing to select the question, is a third thread really needed? --Dailycare (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Ubikwit like to start new threads, placing his post at the top or atleast this is the case in 9 out of 12 recent content sections.--Mor2 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Most editors have agreed to seek mediation by outside uninvolved administrators with respect to forming the question, and they should be afforded a clear view of the positions set forth by the editors working on this question. If they have to sort through a labyrinth of comments that includes comments related more to the content of the RfC than the question, mediation is less likely to succeed.

I have continued commenting in the sections above, but think we should present the arguments that are to be the subject of the mediation here in this section in a cogent manner.Ubikwit (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

"Most editors have agreed to seek mediation" has nothing todo with your continual attempt to "sort" the labyrinth of comments for others.--Mor2 (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see too much discussion about material that is more related to the RfC than the question in those sections, to which I have also posted. This section is intended to present the arguments related only to the formulation of the question, because I assume that there is a committee that is going to evaluate our discussion about formulating the question in order to determine whether mediation is a viable option. Incidentally, Dailycare, your string of question above are almost all identity statements, which are restrictive and must meet highly demanding truth condition criteria to be valid. Basically any sentence that says A = B (A is B), is an identity statement. Therefore, your sentence of "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government" might better be rephrased using a verb other than a form of the verb "to be"; such as, "Israel has its seat of government in Jerusalem". The response ClaudeReigns gave following the discussion between you and Sean above was relevant, so I'll copy it below as a block quote, hoping that no one minds.

*Considering our responsibility to represent views based on their prevalence in reliable sources and to show the relative predominance of opposing views:

• Can "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" be stated as fact?
• If not, how shall the assertion be presented?
• With what weight (majority, equal, minority, fringe) shall opposing views be represented?

Granted that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is the statement with the most controversy, but the sentence forms a logical conjunction for good reason. Consequently, if we cannot state it as fact, we probably have some 'splainin' to do. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think there are any other relevant statements that pertain to formulating the question and would like to move them here, feel free to do so. But bear in mind that a request for mediation specifically on this narrow topic is what we are talking about in this section, and our audience is the administrators on the committe that will decide whether they take on this mediation effort or not. Some people have expressed their misgivings about the need for such an undertaking, but the overwhelming majority is in support. Ubikwit (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Thank you for reposting, I don't mind at all. Anyone should feel free to offer any amendments to my phrasing of the question. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see too many people who fail to make a point, delve into psedologic trying to manipulate the discussion, or trying to promote their selective views/drafts/responses through editing games. With that in mind, I reiterate that you should read on the many fallacies of leading questions. Here is a simple example explaining the use of words to indicate an answer, to illustrate it further I'll post the response I gave in relation to your blockquote, "hoping that no one minds".

* Considering that a capital defined as a city that enjoy a primary status in a state as its seat of government and is normally fixed by its law or constitution. Which is often, the largest city of its constituent area.

• Noting that 'State of Israel' has established Jerusalem as its Capital, over half a decade ago. That Jerusalem serve as Israel seat of government and administrative center, its position fixed by Israeli law and that it is the largest city in Israel. Noting that "international recognition" is not part of any definition of Capital.
• Can anyone in his right mind and not effected by "political-cum-linguistic", suggest that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel?

Also I suggested this variant "Is the lead: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such[ii]...", neutrally describe the capital status of the city." Anyone should feel free to offer any amendments to my phrasing of the question. --Mor2 (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While it is appropriate that you make alternative suggestions, a second to your suggestion as well as your agreement to participate in an RfC to moderate question-forming would support your suggestion more strongly. As the question you have formed is clearly an attempt to argue the case, I cannot endorse it. For my part, I did my best to incorporate strongest policy-based concerns per NMMNG as I understood them in the phrasing of the question. Demonstrating the policy-based concerns from both sides which actually outline specific concerns with the lead section as defined by those who wish to change it without arguing the case by presenting semantic, historical, and ad hominem points therein as you have done. Are you afraid that the assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" cannot withstand examination in and of itself as a statement of fact without presenting evidence one way or the other? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not certain what any of this has todo with my comment about your question being a leading question. Also I am afraid that your question: "Are you afraid that the assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" cannot withstand examination in and of itself as a statement of fact without presenting evidence one way or the other?" begs the question, if you looked into the topic of leading questions and logical fallacies.--Mor2 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the question presented by Mor2 correctly and adequately describes the nature of the dispute; however it is grammatically incorrect. The first word should be Does instead of Is. Attempts to discuss only part of the sentence are misleading. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello BorisG, How would you describe "the nature of the dispute"?

What would be misleading about discussing only the identity statement made in the sentence?--Ubikwit (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I think that by now, even you figured out that by definition Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel(though I doubt you'll admit it). Which is why you attempt to change the subject of the discussion to much more loosely concept of identity. Much like your practice to "sort" comments, this argumetns is your sole domain. --Mor2 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, to answer your question, because words have a range of meanings, and thus context is important. Heard of quoting out of context? To give you an example an interaction with a guest in my home: isn't this a printer? Yes, it is a printer, but it does not work (with that computer). I hope it is clear now. - BorisG (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Boris, I find that response a little amusing. Have you heard of the concept of the Loaded_question and Complex question?--Ubikwit (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

Where the division lies

Noting the disparity over the discussion, let's take this to its core elements, starting with:

• Is the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" contested?
• Is it seriously contested?
• If you answered yes to both, simply indicate that. If you disagree with either, indicate to which degree.

No need to argue your point - that's not what an RfC question is for. Neither is this the wording of an RfC question, but a simple poll to see exactly where the division lies per NPOV policy. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes to both ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes to both

By the way, ClaudeReigns, have you seen Lord Roem's suggestions on the Mediation page? They are quite elegantly simple.--Ubikwit (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Oh no they're not, they're hopelessly broad and vague. Try to imagine closing an RfC that asked either question. In answer to the questions above, although I'm not sure where this is leading, yes to both Formerip (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we can't let the opposition talk in circles and avoid the facts presented in RS, and that is basically why I have tried to narrow the scope and prevent them from framing the question as a question about a statement that is derived from two other statements--which are conjoined by a modal operator--that obscure the main point at issue, "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?", or another formulation thereof, which ClaudeReigns has provided at least one alternative, which question the factual status of the declarative statement instead of asking the question directly.

Your point, I gather, is that the opposition would not respond to such an elegantly framed question in good faith, and basically, I'd have to concur that we need to narrow the scope to answer the single question we've been discussing. --Ubikwit (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

• comment, Looks like we may need an RFC to sort out where the division lies in the current RFC ;) reiterating from before: implying that the core issue here is with Jerusalem capital status is ridicules. The city political status as well as its role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is already addressed in the lead, history section and dedicated article. In fact I haven't seen objections regarding the description of Jerusalem status in the article or the lead, only minor wording issues that can be worked out. As far as I can tell the real "core issue" or the reason for this RFC is predicated on several users wishing to either move up the Palestinians claim to Jerusalem and the topic of Israeli–Palestinian conflict into the city introduction or remove the description of Jerusalem as capital of Israel from the city introduction, quoting violation of NPOV. This is exactly why the statement "though not internationally recognized as such[ii]" was introduced, a compromise of sort between keeping the lead informative for the reader and avoiding politicization of the topic. p.s. Keep in mind that this user has POV. --Mor2 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You have no justification for dismissing what a majority of the editors discussing this matter are pursuing as "ridicules"(ridiculous), and that borders on a personal attack on those of us in favor of that approach. Please see WP:TPG, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. If you pretend not "have seen objections regarding th description of Jerusalem status in the article or the lead", you are either being disingenuous or haven't read the comments on this page.Ubikwit (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

And You have no justification to attribute to yourself the majority view. Note that even your suggestions didn't argued that the description of the issue in the article and lead(not the opening sentence) was wrong. You argued that the opening sentence of the lead, was giving the wrong perception to the reader and focused on various ways to ~CE the first paragraph and then the lead, to reflect your view of reality better.(other intermediate issues or rather concerns, like the one about the 'holy city' were very minor). So like said IMO the issue here is not about the orphan sentence you try to focus on, but the full sentence, the context and the location where it is presented in the article is the "core issue".--Mor2 (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That is another misrepresentation of what I have said in my comments. The opening sentence of the lead frames the scope of the article, and that is where the primary problem lies. Everything related to the status of the city that is contained in the main body of the article is, as a matter of course, effected by the scope as presented in the lead, particularly the opening sentence/paragraph.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

I think its close enough. My point was that the core issue is not that partial quote you guys seem to focus on, but the "context and the location" in which it is presented. Which you confirmed in your comment that the problem is with the "opening sentence", "lead", "scope of the article". So before we loos track of the issue at hand, would you agree that the "formulation of RfC question" should include more than just partial quote from the lead void of context?--Mor2 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Sean's statement that this is about policy and the facts presented in RS, I'm not going to address your request that I recognize something in the context of partisan opposition.

With respect to context and the opening sentence of the lead, please see the comment I left BorisG regarding Loaded question and Complex question.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

I am asking as per Ubikwit. You just said the primary problem lies in the opening sentence of the lead. So do you agree that the core issue is with lead? (I assure you this question is not loaded or complex, no need to randomly link things you don't understand).--Mor2 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's interesting that you see the dispute that way. I too have a POV, but I don't think you've identified it. Sadly, I don't think avoiding politicization is an acceptable compromise to informing the reader when the topic is of such political import. Palestine's claim to Jerusalem need not be viewed as supremely notable nor zero-sum, unless I am missing the balance of some very important sources. It could be feasible; it might not be; that is beyond my mandate as an editor.

On the other hand, I think issues of global security are both supremely notable and hard to ignore without detracting from the sum of our knowledge. I could go on again about how important this topic is, and expand upon the idea that the international community has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some feel that Israel has the unilateral right to declare its own capital, among other things. It seems the international community disputes this while old grievances remain unresolved. I can see how there might be some apprehension at asking the Wikipedia community, international in nature, to resolve whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" can be stated as fact. I for one would like the question settled. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to imply that the reader is not informed about the issue, while the information is already presented in the lead/article, you just think it doesn't receive enough prominence. While I think that we already have a number of articles that deals with various aspects of Jerusalem, one of which is dedicated to informing the reader on the political views, while this article inform the reader on the municipal city, its services and prominence inline with other Wikipedia city articles and even though the geopolitical controversy and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is important to you/many, I find that the attempt to push those recent developments to the top of every article about Jerusalem (city/history/demographics/transport/etc) is nothing but a political statement, rather than trying to inform the reader on the topic at hand.--Mor2 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Recentism, eh? [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] I've rather enjoyed listening to your views about the merits of assuming the reader has read the article backwards and everything else before getting an overview on the topic. I plan on exploring Jerusalem's municipal security and infrastructure much more closely. I'll do my best to make sure my information is up to date. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have more clear, recent as since the last RFC which already dealt with all of those issues.--Mor2 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Mor2, the "core issue" is that nobody has demonstrated that the statement of fact complies with NPOV. Many editors rightly or wrongly are not convinced that it complies with mandatory policy. In order to establish the degree to which the statement of fact complies with NPOV, editors can simply examine a large sample of reliable sources and compare our statement with their statements. The statement that best complies with policy can only be found by examining the evidence. Every time someone expresses their irrelevant personal opinion about Jerusalem here it disrupts the process. The reason I have an enduring interest in this issue is because it is the best example that I am aware of in the topic area where editors have persistently failed to do what they are supposed to do. Editors have the rare luxury of a large amount of data available and a relatively simple set of rule that allows them to objectively measure the NPOV compliance of a statement and yet they argue for 10 years. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone "demonstrated that the statement of fact" doesn't complies with NPOV? For that matter do we have another view on how a Capital city is defined? As for the rest I can say the same about the "other side"--Mor2 (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What "statement of fact"?Ubikwit (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

Of course no one has demonstrated that the statement of fact "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" doesn't comply with NPOV by examining a large sample of reliable sources and comparing our statement with their statements. That is the point. The various definitions of capital city aren't relevant to deciding whether the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" complies with NPOV. Deciding whether Jerusalem matches the various definitions of capital is out of scope for us. What "other side" ? What are the sides ? This is just about data and content rules. That's all. Nothing else. Nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with what people think a capital is, nothing to do with recognition, nothing to do with any of the myriad of distractions unrelated to the evidence in RS and policy people have brought up over and over again for ten years. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sean, yes, that is clear to you and I as a matter of course, but you have to be careful even talking about "statement of fact" here, as the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not a statement of fact, it is an attempt to assert a false statement of fact veiled with a qualifying statement. The way I see it is that the points that can be represented as statements of fact with respect to the position of the government of Israel include: that they "have claimed the entire city as their future undivided capital"; they "have occupied the city with military forces"; and they "have established the seat of their government" there, etc. It is not a fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel".--Ubikwit (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

Unless scope is defined by policy, your attempt to redefine it is part of where the division lies. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" by every definition. The various political views on Jerusalem are already addressed in the lead and additional comment/note was introduced to to distinguish between the two for those who don't understand the difference, those are the facts of the case, thus there is no NPOV violation. Furthermore, there was no recent change in Jerusalem status, only in "your" attempts to address the topic in a different way that it wont be thrown out again in an RFC.--Mor2 (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, to clarify, when I use the term "statement of fact" in this context I'm not intending to make any comment on whether it is true or false. It is just shorthand for "unattributed statement in the voice of the encyclopedia", the kind of statement that is required to be true. Actually I don't care whether the statement is true or false. What I would like to establish is the degree of consistency the statement has with a large sample of sources. I genuinely don't know the answer to that question and because I don't know the answer I don't know the extent to which the statement complies with NPOV. I think the degree of compliance is substantially less than 100% but what I think doesn't matter and I know not to trust statistical intuition.

Mor2, the scope is defined by policy. It's called WP:OR. You can't establish whether Jerusalem is, as a matter of fact in the real world, the capital of Israel by attribute matching without violating that policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could set aside space in the RfC structure specifically for presentation and discussion of sources. Formerip (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR has nothing todo with scope, only if someone can back his ideas with WP:RS or not. I can establish that Jerusalem is capital of Israel, while you can't establish that is not. You can only establish that Jerusalem is not recognized as such or that Israel declaration wasn't recognized, which is already in. So what view is not presented in the scope of the lead? --Mor2 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Mor2, I don't think there's anything to be gained from re-treading this old ground now. You'll be able to make those arguments in the RfC. Formerip (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish it was old ground, then we wouldn't need to discuss "Where the division lies", but as it is, it seems that we cannot agree about the simple things, for example that the issue is in the lead section. Something that IMO should be part of the question. After all leads has their own policy and we like policy, right sean?--Mor2 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I appreciate that some of these questions might not be old ground for everyone. What I really mean to say is that I think its highly unlikely that the re-introduction of an old argument, whatever it happens to be, will suddenly win everyone round after a decade. And I think its also unlikely that anyone will think of a new argument. Much better to just allow the RfC to proceed and open things up to the wider community.

I agree that we need to agree on the simple things and not bicker for the sake of it. But, taking your specific example, I'm not sure anyone is in any doubt that the issue is with the first sentence of the lead. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Mor2, to be polite I shall reply, despite FormerIP's wise words. It's quite difficult to discuss things with you because there is little common ground. Things like "you can't establish that is not" and "what view is not presented in the scope of the lead?" are puzzling responses for me. Try to imagine what it would be like if you had no personal knowledge of Jerusalem, you've never heard of it, you can only generate sentences based on policy and RS that discuss Jerusalem. These for interest are some things that I think are necessary for there to be sufficient common ground. An understanding that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not presented as "a view", it is presented as a fact in the voice of the encyclopedia. An understanding that it is possible, even just in principal, that sources exist that actually present this information in a different way, as a view/claim/disputed claim etc, rather than a fact. An understanding, even just in principal, that when there is an inconsistency between what we say using the voice of the encyclopedia and what sources say, there is the potential for a policy violation. An understanding that we can't prove nor is it our business to prove that Jerusalem is or is not anything, we can only reflect what reliable sources say about Jerusalem using the sources and content rules at our disposal. If you can establish that Jerusalem is capital of Israel good luck to you but that has nothing to do with the task at hand. The task is about establishing whether the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" complies with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion addressed to editors who think the current wording is non-neutral

I think that we should ignore the problem of how to word the RFC question for the moment. All that's really necessary in that regard is a reference to the Arbitration motion regarding Jerusalem. I suggest that we move ahead and figure out how to put the case for making a change. The choices are to either write individual comment sections at the RFC or to combine and produce a joint comment. If any editors are interested in doing the latter, I would suggest creating a page in user space as a place to make a start. The editors who oppose changing the current wording can decide among themselves how they will act.     ←   ZScarpia   20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't spend many weeks discussing the question. The Arbcom motion should be described in the RFC in any case (e.g. as a warning concerning the sanctions it mentions). I'm not sure if we need joint comments, we can have individual ones responsive to issues that come up. On a practical note, should we wait for ArbCom to nominate the closers, or can we go ahead and open the RFC? --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure ArbCom intend to nominate the closers. We could ask them to, I suppose, but I don't see that it would make a great deal of difference who does it. Formerip (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC suggestion

I see multiple options that could work. The two that I think would be best are a. Have multiple leads prepared and vote on each. b. Ask multiple questions about the points of contention, the answers of which will determine how the lead is constructed. The first is relatively simple, so I dont think it needs an explanation, but for the second I would see it going like this: anybody can add questions or options, and an, as in a single, argument for or against is formulated in advance by whatever group supports/opposes. Each "side" would work out their arguments on their own. The questions/answers could look like this:

rfc

1. How should Jerusalem's political status regarding Israel be addressed in the lead?

a. Jerusalem should be called the capital of Israel with no qualification

Argument for: Because it is

Argument against: Because it isnt

b. Jerusalem should be called the capital of Israel though it should be qualified with it being unrecognized

Argument for: That is NPOV

Argument against: That is not NPOV

c. Jerusalem should be called the claimed capital of Israel

Argument for: That is accurate

Argument against: That is misleading

d. whatever other option people want to throw out

2. How should Jerusalem's political status regarding Palestine be addressed in the lead?

a. Jerusalem should be called the capital of Palestine with no qualification

Argument for: Because it is

Argument against: Because it isnt

b. Jerusalem should be called the capital of Palestine though it should note that Palestine does not control any part of Jerusalem

Argument for: That tells the whole story

Argument against: That isnt part of the story

c. It should not

Argument for: Palestine doesnt exist

Argument against Palestine exists

3. Should the first paragraph include the political status or only focus on the history of the city?

...

Im on the fence on which I think is a better option. Thoughts? Suggestions? nableezy - 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth issuing a reminder that editors should be bearing in mind that the wording of the Lead is supposed to be summarising the body of the article.     ←   ZScarpia   20:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have presented one re-envisioning of the lead in terms of organizing the material into three paragraphs, as opposed to what there is at present. I think that it might be a useful exercise for other editors to attempt to do the same. That is to say, presenting formats for outlining the article might contribute to facilitating an understanding of underlying issues related to problems such as drawing up the opening sentence.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Any question based on a range of options is going to be hellishly complicated to put together. I'm not saying it would be impossible, but we don't have the most efficient of decision-making processes at our disposal. Firstly, particularly since the RfC will be binding, we will considerably more options that in the examples above (this problem applies to either your option a or option b). To give just one example, "official capital", "declared capital", "capital under Israeli law", "proclaimed capital" (etc etc) could all be valid choices alongside 1c. Including all permutations, we could easily get to 20 or more options. That would mean a vote split in such a way that calling consensus is going to be impossible. We could arbitrarily limit the choices, but this would be making the mistake of designing our question to fit our structure, rather than the other way around. And it would inevitably lead to participants objecting that their preferred choice is not listed or, worse, we could have editors starting to add additional options halfway through the RfC. Even if we could get the choices down to four or five and be lucky enough that no-one objected, the chances of a clear consensus would still, IMO, be too low.

Secondly, we need the think about equality of voice between voters. In your example question 2, I might think that J should be described as the capital of P but have no further opinion about whether it should be qualified. That option is not listed above, but lets say it was. I would vote for it, make no comment on a or b and oppose c. So I have registered 2 votes. Someone who thinks that J should not be described as the capital of P will vote for option C and oppose everything else - i.e. they have exercised twice as much voting power as me. This is distortion which would need to be identified and compensated for.

BTW, I think that there is zero chance of getting a consensus that J should be called the capital of P in WP's voice.

Thirdly, there is the problem of assessing consensus when you have options that are variations on a theme. What if three slightly different versions of "J is the capital of P" get 20% each and "it should not" gets 40%. Is that a majority for "it should not" or a combined majority for some version of "J is the capital of P"?

I'd be seriously pessimistic that we can iron out those sorts of problem. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's a bad idea to put forward suggestions that will lead to an end result based on a show of hands. We should be aiming to seek a judgement of the policy-merits of the cases by the closing editors. The fundamental judgement required is whether the current Lead wording is neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   14:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The objective of the RfC should be a definitive statement from the closers related to the policy issues. The concrete formulation of the text can follow, and should in fact be based on the statements related to the policy issues set forth in the findings presented by the closers.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On the principle of being prepared in advance, would co-operating on producing a statement of the case for changing the Lead's wording appeal to you?     ←   ZScarpia   12:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If we ask a basic RFC asking is the current first sentence neutral (it has to be the whole sentence, not just half of it forgetting the bit where we make clear it is unrecognised which does provide balance). There would then have to be a full discussion after the RFC, and the potential for an additional RFC in the future on specific different options for how it should be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If an RFC establishes that the article can't state definitively that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel I think that it would be fairly straightforward to find an acceptable alternative wording. For myself, so long as the the wording is presented either in terms of points of view or undisputed facts I don't particularly care what it says. If the wording is presented in terms of points of view, I think that it would be fairer to allow supporters of the Israeli point of view to decide what the Lead says about the Israeli point of view.     ←   ZScarpia   12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The notability of the debate itself

• Miller, Jason, "Apple’s Jerusalem Problem" The Jewish Weekly, Sep 28, 2012 (also appeared in Huffington Post)
• Moussa, Julnar, "Interview with Jimmy Wales" Morning Talk. Al-Jazeera, Nov 25, 2010

Probably not worth an article until a secondary source notes how we've been arguing over it for nine years. But worth a chuckle. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A few last-minute suggestions for a rephrasing of the disputed opening sentence(s).

I know you are already headed for an RfC and I wish you all the best of luck in resolving the matter. I just thought I'd throw in a few suggestions I've been formulating in the back of my head while following this dispute for the past weeks (although I have not, admittedly, read through the decade worth of logs) -- who knows, maybe everyone will miraculously agree that I have solved everything! It could be a New Year's miracle.

These are mere examples and suggestions for rephrasings of the bitterly disputed opening sentence. The numbers mean that "1." could be a first sentence, "2." could be the second sentence and "3." the third. I have listed several suggestions to show that there are different options, and none of these options are meant to be seen as unalterable or set in stone. Words or formulations from different suggestions could also be freely combined to find a better choice. Individual words or terms could be thrown out, switched around, replaced, and so on.

These phrases have been formulated with the applicable policies in mind -- I don't think there should be any trouble in sourcing these statements but I could be wrong. And of course to reflect and lead into the body of the article which discusses these matters in greater detail.

Maybe this is worth something, or maybe it's just more text on the talk page -- but I thought I'd give it a shot. Maybe it could prove useful in the RfC, or something. Maybe it could just be the starting point for a new round of thinking or a fresh perspective. Best wishes.

1. "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel."

1. "Jerusalem is a city in the Judean Mountains which houses the government of Israel."

1. "Jerusalem is a politically contested city in the Judean Mountains which houses the government of Israel."

1. "Jerusalem is an internationally contested city in the Judean Mountains which houses the government of Israel."

2. "It is administered by Israel, which considers Jerusalem its capital, although the United Nations and much of the international community disputes the city's status."

2. "It is administered by Israel, which considers Jerusalem its undivided capital, although the United Nations and much of the international community disputes the city's status."

2. "It is currently administered by Israel, which considers Jerusalem its capital, although the United Nations and much of the international community disputes the city's status."

3. "Furthermore, due to this legal and political contention, the international community tends to regard Jerusalem as divided into a western and an eastern half."

3. "Furthermore, due to this legal and political contention, the international community, and some within Israel [insert Haaretz ref here], tend to regard Jerusalem as divided into a western and an eastern half."

3. "Furthermore, due to this legal and political contention, the international community, and some within Israel [insert Haaretz ref here], tend to regard Jerusalem as divided into a western and an eastern half, along the so-called Green Line."

(Note: "administered" could also perhaps be substituted with "governed" or "controlled".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.224.61 (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The contents of each of your statements are, I think, both factual and neutral (that is, verifiable and undisputed). I would be quite happy for any of them to be included in the article. A sizeable group of editors here would object because they do not contain an unequivocal statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though. That's central to the current disagreement. For them, it is a fact, undisputed or otherwise, that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. If they acknowledge that Jeruslem's status is disputed, they will argue that the dispute doesn't change the factuality of Jerusalem being Israel's capital. Further, they will argue that because the Lead notes the dispute that the neutrality condition is met. Other supporters of the current wording deny that Jerusalem's status is disputed. They cling to the word 'recognition', arguing, in contradiction to the wording of UN resolutions which say that all Israeli attempts to change the status of Jrusalem, including declaring it the Israeli capital, are null and void, that non-recognition does not mean that the international community does not view Jerusalem as Israel's capital. So, statements similar to the ones suggested by you have been suggested in the past and rejected. Before getting down to the nitty-gritty of selecting alternative wordings, therefore, it must be determined whether or not it is necessary to select an alternative wording.     ←   ZScarpia   14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's a good point. I suppose that question should be resolved. Thank you for clarifying the issue.

However, even with that issue still outstanding, perhaps what I suggested could still be interesting even to editors who support the current wording, as a compromise -- that is, a new compromise, superseding the old one -- and as a way of getting rid of the "neutrality disputed" tags and resolving the difficult ongoing controversy? Maybe these suggestions could still be used in an acceptable lead and find a wider consensus? -- and with a wider basis of sources?

Another point: perhaps it might be felt, even by those editors for whom the assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is self-evidently true, that some combination of the suggestions I made could still convey that assertion, but on the (perhaps stronger) foundation of the precise and objectively material conditions put forward in the suggested statements, such as the location of Israel's government there, and the fact that the city is under Israeli control, and is situated where it is? Isn't that, anyway, a stronger case that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, rather than an unqualified (albeit sourced) assertion? And one which might clarify the actual situation for the reader, and perhaps even change the minds of some with a previous but inadequately informed opinion to the contrary? For while unqualified assertions are sufficient in other articles of capital cities, this is after all a special situation, and that surely prompts special care and explanation.

In other words, even though, as you say, "it must be determined whether or not it is necessary to select an alternative wording," which is indeed the first and most central question at the heart of the matter, perhaps the ten years' worth of wrangling might itself signify the necessity to find a solution -- and if that is so, I would like to hope my suggestions might be acceptable to all involved, without appearing to favour one perspective or the other, indeed regardless of perspective, in light of the encyclopedic purpose and of policy. But now I think I've made my argument, and I leave it to be considered by you all. (Although I will gladly attempt to respond to any questions or comments as needed.)

Perhaps, in the end, it really is best that an RfC is allowed to create a new precedent as to whether something like the current opening statement is compliant with policy.

80.216.224.61 (talk)

As one of those who support the current wording (but representing solely myself and not anyone else), I'd say I am open to suggestions, but I find none of those presented above as representative of what I want to see. That is, I find the current wording fair and balanced, and represenative of the range of reliable sources. However, this is not the only wording I can support, and maybe not even the best; I am open to other suggestions. Although I find the current wording balanced, it is not without drawbacks. For instance, it is obviously stylistically awkward. Furthemore, if there is so much disagreement, perhaps the best way is to avoid talking about the status in the lead, just like Britannica does. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Boris. Does your reasoning fit into one of the patterns in the scheme I outlined in my comment above or do I need to modify it? I've suggested in the past that, like the Britannica, we omit mention of Jerusalem's status from the Lead and leave it to the material in the body of the article, which nobody was disputing, to describe the situation, but, from among the editors who want the wording of the Lead to remain exactly as it is, there were no takers.     ←   ZScarpia   12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you say that Jerusalem is the capital, you're the Associated Press or the Democratic National Convention - you have to retract; if you say that Jerusalem is not the capital, you're The Guardian - and you have to retract; if you say nothing, you're the BBC, and end up having to comment anyway. I propose, since the RfC is using the 'picture of Mohammed' precedent anyway, is a Danish solution:

"Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital. Due to the conflict and unclear situation concerning the city's status foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv."

I find such a wording to be general, neutral and resilient. ClaudeReigns (talk)

I find it a poor reflection of the situation. First Israel didn't declared or claimed Jerusalem as capital but established it as its capital, which reflects the de facto situation and definition of capital, in contrast the Palestinian declared/claim Jerusalem as the capital of their future state in 1988. Second there is a geopolitical controversy, but as far as I know there is nothing unclear as to the reason why the foreign embassies were moved out of Jerusalem. It concerns the UN security council instruction todo so following the Israel attempt to annex East Jerusalem in 1980.

Furthermore, I find the paragraph in the lead that deals with the political issue less general, more neutral and far more informative. Starting with the fact that the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and continues to describe the turn of events, without your attempt to streamline it. So as before the question is not about correctly describing the situation, but your personal misgivings regarding the first sentence in the lead, describing the city as capital city(which will be true even if you guys get an agreement). Regardless, this was already addressed stating exactly what it means to make it clear.--Mor2 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But, don't you feel that it might be even more clear, and less contentious, to say (approximately) that "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel", so that everyone knows what editors are saying when arguing that it is the capital of Israel? And then, as I mentioned, go on to say for example that "Israel considers Jerusalem its capital", and point out that Israel administers the city, which surely carries a lot of weight, since it implies both de facto control, force of (Israeli) law, self-evidence from the Israeli perspective, and so on. All without making a single controversial step. And then get into all the details and history, afterwards.

Surely it would be a victory to achieve a broader consensus among readers, editors and sources.

I am simply arguing in good faith here, by the way, and I very much appreciate your comments and all opinions on my suggestion!

80.216.224.61 (talk)

Hi! Maybe it could be something like this: Israel has established Jerusalem as its capital, but this status is not recognised as such by (most of) the international community. I have to say that I don't find this as a very crucial desicion to make, and could live with AP and BBC version alike. I would oppose a Guardian version but won't fight to the wikideath, since I do not believe this is a top issue for quality of Wikipedia, let alone my own well being. Sorry if my suggestion is out of order (we are not in rFc yet, right?). I'd better go and watch some tennis. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I could accept that wording. Is the word established meant to convey four things: that the city is under Israeli control; that, under Israeli law, Jerusalem is both Israeli territory and the capital of Israel; that most branches of the Israeli government have been moved to the city?     ←   ZScarpia   14:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion might better take place in the RFC. FWIW, what's the difference between "established" and "is"? The sentence overall should have two aspects: Israel's view and the rest of the world's view. The second part we already have, presented as a view. We need to first part as well, presented as a view. To this end it makes no difference that I can see whether we say Israel insists, Israel has declared, Israel has proclaimed, Israel claims, Israel says, Israel considers, under Israeli law, or that J is Israel's seat of government (although it isn't internationally recognized as Israel's capital). But for now, let's concentrate our energies on getting the RFC started, with an appropriate question or at least the text from ArbCom's motion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC draft

This is based on the suggestions of Mor2 and Dailycare, above, and on the format of the Muhammad Images RfC.

Extended content

"Jerusalem/capital/2012" Song "Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" ("It is five o'clock, Paris awakens") is a single by French singer-songwriter Jacques Dutronc, released in 1968. It features on his self-titled second album. Composition Place Dauphine, mentioned in the first line of the song. The song originated from an idea put forward by Jacques Wolfsohn, an artistic director at Disques Vogue, during a meal with songwriting partners Jacques Dutronc and Jacques Lanzmann at his home. He suggested a song on the subject of Paris in the morning. The other two Jacques began writing the song at around 11 pm that evening, and completed it at daybreak. It takes lyrical inspiration from "Tableau de Paris à cinq heures du matin", an 1802 song by Marc-Antoine Madeleine Désaugiers, updating its description of Parisian life in the early hours for the 1960s. The song describes well-known Parisian locations (such as the Place Dauphine and the Eiffel Tower and the activities of groups of people, including transvestites, strippers, bakers and café-owners. The Gare Montparnasse is described as "no more than a carcass" ("...n'est plus qu'une carcasse...") because, at the time the song was written, it was in the process of demolition. A new station was built nearby and, on the site of the old one, the Tour Montparnasse was built. The flute solo in the recording was added at the end of the session. Dutronc and Lanzmann were unhappy with the arrangement and felt that it lacked something. Dutronc had the idea of adding a manouche-style guitar part, but a flautist working elsewhere in the same building, Roger Bourdin, was asked to listen to the recording and agreed to improvise the solo the appears on the finished track. The lyrics to the song are co-credited to Lanzmann's wife at the time, Anne Ségalen. Release and promotion "Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" was released as a four-track EP in France in March 1968. Dutronc performed "Les play boys" on the French television show Palmarès des chansons, broadcast by Radiodiffusion Télévision Française on 16 November 1966, accompanied by the Orchestre Raymond Lefèvre. He also toured to promote the single. Reception and legacy "Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" reached number one in the French singles chart on 23 March 1968, where is stayed for one week. It also reached number two in Belgium and number four in The Netherlands. Although the song was not intended to have any political significance, it's refrain of "Paris s'éveille" ("Paris awakens") found an obvious resonance in the context of the events of May 1968, a few weeks after its release (the first campus occupation, at Paris X University Nanterre, began the day before the song reached number one). It has, therefore, been described as a "hymn" to those events. A re-written version was mimeographed and sung at the barricades. The song was withdrawn from the playlists of most radio stations and was quickly adapted by the protest singer Jacques Le Glou, with new verses depicting a city of overturned Peugeots and dead poicemen. In 1991, "Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" was voted the best French-language single of all time in a poll of music critics organised by Le Nouvel Observateur for a TV special broadcast on Antenne 2, beating Jacques Brel's "Ne me quitte pas" into second place. Rock critic Thierry Coljon describes Dutronc's song as "one of the most beautiful there is". Cover versions As well as Jacques Le Glou, the song has been covered by Sylvie Vartan, Patrick Genet, Ange, Dominique Grange (Le Glou's version) and An Pierlé. Track listing Words by Jacques Lanzmann and Anne Ségalen, music by Jacques Dutronc. Side A No. Title Length 1. "Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" 02:55 2. "L'augmentation" 02:31 Side B No. Title Length 1. "Comment elles dorment" 03:09 2. "Fais pas ci, fais pas ça" 01:40 References External links Video of Jacques Dutronc performing "I est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille" on the French TV show Palmarès des chansons, April 1968.

Transcluded from here. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there will be questions relating to its status vis a vis the State of Palestine as well, yes? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not according to what I've mocked up, but I'm not sheriff of this thread or anything. It's based on suggestions made above. Personally, I would say that should be mentioned in the first paragraph, but it isn't the thing that has been the focus of all the historic arguments (well, maybe a small percentage of them), which is why it is not in this proposal. I also think that it is among the various things that could be sorted out much more easily once this hurdle is crossed, whichever way it goes. But the whole thing remains open for discussion. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, historically speaking, Israel didn't declare Jerusalem its capital until a little over forty years ago, so I don't see why the Palestine question shouldn't be at issue in the RfC. I agree with you that it ought to be in the first paragraph (pending compliance with WP:UNDUE, of course), but I also think it's necessary to address the question in the RfC to ward off future disputes. Last time I was active at this talk page it seemed to be very much in contention. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, well IMO it would not make the RfC unmanageable to add a further question or questions about the relationship of Jerusalem to the Palestinian state, if other editors agree. And if they are comfortable with this mock-up in the first place. Formerip (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I support FormerIP's suggestion. The sitation relative to Palestine wasn't really part of the dispute we referred to ArbCom that caused this RFC to be decided on, but a final question e.g. "How should we describe Jerusalem as the State of Palestine's claimed capital?" would be OK as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) We have a number of issues to deal with, but it would be better to deal with a single, simplified as much as possible, issue in an RFC. I think the answer is to hold a series of RFCs, each individual RFC dealing with one of the issues. So, the way I envisage it is that we would hold an RFC to deal with whether or not the current wording is neutral, deal with the fallout from that and see what the next intractable issue to come up is, hold an RFC to deal with that or use some other mechanism and so on.     ←   ZScarpia   21:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, I am not certain how my suggestions attributed to this. I have certainly haven't been asked or commented on such format and I don't appreciate my name mentioned here as if I participate in some form of consensus to achieve it. I don't know what is 'Muhammad Images RfC' is and only offered some input on the 2 question you guys were pushing(you ZScarpia, ClaudeReigns, Ubikwit) after the rest gave up on trying formulate a non leading question with "your team". From the start I noted that that the 2 question/closed variant will be inherently a leading question, my input was focused on each question and trying to show you why its leading(most of which you ignored), or that we can find some common ground to build from it. Considering that this process becomes more and more similar to Ubikwit draft practice, feel free to make whatever you want in your RFC drafts.--Mor2 (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to play dumb, Mor2, but I thought the general structure and the Q1 including the second clause reflected what you were asking for. Would you mind saying again why you think the question is leading?

"Muahmmad Images" refers to a previous binding RfC motion, which ArbCom has used as a model for this one. You can see it here. Formerip (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And while we're at it, could Mor2 also explain why he feels the RFC question couldn't be leading? We do intend and want to lead the discussion to specifically address the NPOV compliance of the "Jer is Cap" statement. There is nothing wrong in principle with leading questions. Loaded questions are a different matter. This ground was already covered above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the current version should be listed as one the various options which should all be introduced with a broad statement that does not appear to question the merits of any particular version. e.g.

The first sentence of the Jerusalem article currently includes the wording:

"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such..."

Taking into account Wikipedia policy, and the need for accuracy and neutrality, which of the following versions do you prefer? (and the current version should be an option on the list)

This should obviate any concerns regarding the RFC being a leading question. Ankh.Morpork 18:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, no-one has yet provided any reasons why the questions couldn't be leading. In fact a question that leads the reader at once to the crux of the dispute could be described as the most efficient way to get input to the core of the dispute. Of course everyone agrees the question shouldn't be loaded, which is a different matter. A completely open-ended question raises the question, why has someone bothered to start the RFC to begin with, and why anyone should bother to participate in it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to have one final discussion it should also include Jerusalem as Palestine's capital. I would also like to see a statement on the ownership of the city. My ideal statement would be something similar to "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital and seat of the Israeli government and the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though, the international community does not recognize eithers proclamation or ownership of the city." Sepsis II (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Objection to the proposed RFC

The proposal does not question whether the lead is the appropriate place to discuss the political intricacies, which are wholly avoided in other articles such as Taipei or Pristina which are capitals of countries whose entire sovereignty has been internationally challenged. This should be examined in the RFC before the various options are presented in Q2.

Secondly, none of the options attempt to provide an alternative version that does not require qualification, such as "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel", as was proposed above. I would remove option 2) which nobody seems to have proposed, and reduce 4), 5) and 6) to one version since they are essentially the same. I would replace them with:

• "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel"
• "Jerusalem is a politically contested city in the Judean Mountains which houses the government of Israel."
• "Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital. Due to the conflict and unclear situation concerning the city's status foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv."

Ankh.Morpork 18:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

On your first suggestion, I'm not sure exactly what the question you are proposing is. If it is something like "Should the article lead state Jerusalem is the capitial of Israel, say no more about it and make no reference to Palestine?", then I wouldn't object in principle, although I think consensus in favour is extremely unlikely (i.e. why bother?). I don't think your comparisons to Tapei and Pristina make sense, because their sovereignty is disputed, not their status as capital cities. And it obviously wouldn't be appropriate to cite arguments in favour within the wording of the actual question, but that doesn't mean the question can't be asked. How would you propose wording it?

On your second suggestion, I don't propose the list of options I put to be definitive, so any other options, as well as removing those that are there, is open for discussion. I would say, though that "houses the government" is not good English and that throwing in a reference to "Judean Mountains" would doom any option given the separate controversy over that. Formerip (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously more contentious to state that X is the capital of Y if the entire sovereignty of Y is in dispute, as opposed to just the status of parts of X. Included in challenging a country's sovereignty is an implicit challenge to the status of its capital city. If countries do not accept Kosovo's independence, is it not obvious that they would not describe Pristina as the capital of Kosovo?

Regarding Judean mountains, I agree that can be discussed separately. Perhaps Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government is better than "houses"? Ankh.Morpork 21:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, independence is not required for a place to have a recognised capital city (Cardiff, Baton Rouge, Barcelona, Xining). So, "Pristina is the capital of Kosovo" is not contentious from any perspective and, in "Tapei is the the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan)", the contentious part is whether to use "Republic of China" or "Taiwan". Anyway, like I say, that doesn't prevent us from asking the question you suggest, with appropriate wording. Formerip (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As the author of the "Jerusalem is a city which houses the government of Israel" suggestions made earlier, while I don't necessarily think it's not good English -- it's one of the few physical verbs that can be used with regards to the noun 'government', though I agree it might be a bit old-fashioned --, I suppose something else might be thought of, such as "Jerusalem is a city that contains/holds the government of Israel"; or, "Jerusalem is a city in which the government of Israel is located/situated"; or something like it.

As for "... in the Judean Mountains", you are quite right, that term the subject of controversy and ought to be avoided. Perhaps instead, as someone else suggested, "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East ...", etc.

Furthermore, I agree that, if the RfC is to give options for alternate wordings, there should be at least one option with an unqualified statement, as Ankh.Morpork suggested, perhaps along the lines of what I have proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.224.61 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This objection in fact has little to do with the RFC. The goal of the RFC is primarily to settle the "Jer is Cap" NPOV controversy once and for all, not so much address specifically what should go in the lead of this or that article. The RFC motion does mention an emphasis on the lead section, though, which would seem to explicitly also address this objection. The "houses the government" options are essentially already present in the seat-of-government option, and can moreover be discussed in the RFC. I'm not sure what's meant by unqualified statements. If the idea would be to remove the not-recognized aspect, that would pose another NPOV challenge since it's a very prevalent view in RS. I'm OK with leaving an "other" option in the RFC question to allow for other ideas to crop up in the discussion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@Dailycare: I agree with you on what the goal of the RfC must be. One of the objections raised here is simply that, in the template draft which Formerip presented, under "Question 2", the different example options provided are all so-called qualified statements -- that is to say, first the assertion that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", immediately followed by a comma and a qualifying clause, "though not internationally recognized as such", which is apparently meant to render the first assertion neutral. This is what's called a qualified statement, one that can be made only on the condition of a second assertion. A qualified statement is, in many people's view, undesirable because it is awkward both stylistically and logically, as has been strongly critiqued by those who are dissatisfied with the status quo. The idea that Ankh.Morpork is raising here and that I agree with, is that IF the RfC finds that the current wording is unacceptable, then at least one of those options for alternate wordings should be a simple, one-clause statement that does not require a qualification, such as "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East which contains/houses/holds/whatever the government of Israel", full stop.

But yes, of course "Question 1" -- is the current opening sentence compliant with policy or not -- is the primary focus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.224.61 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a good point we can discuss in the RFC. The BBC has referred to Jerusalem, for example, as simply Israel's seat of government. We could then mention, if this option wins favour, the non-recognition as capital later on in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Resolved by motion atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").

• In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
• The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
• To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
• The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
• The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.

We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

1. Keilana (talk · contribs)
2. RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
3. Pgallert (talk · contribs)

We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @239  ·  04:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this