Talk:Jerusalem

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[1]: "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.[2] 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 [3], and the PCC has withdrawn its ruling [4]. 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." [5] 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) [6] 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 [7] 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". [8]. 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." [9] 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 [10]

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, "We're also entitled to use our common sense." —Dailycare, 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[11]

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/; Template:Lang-he-n 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 [12]. 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)

|}

Jerusalem is a settlement, not a city

Before I take any other action, I wondered if editors here have any ideas about how to deal with Jerusalem "neighborhoods/residential areas/places" that are considered settlements. Some editors have taken the position that A) being a settlement preclude these places (ex. Gilo) from being anything else, and have consistently replaced any descriptive terminology with "settlement", or that B) "neighborhood" etc. is a POV attributable to Israel, secondary to the majority POV of settlement. The sources clearly demonstrate that even pro-Palestinian advocates talk about these places as neighborhoods that are also settlements, so that we now, on Wikipedia, have created a novel position and redefinition of the English language that neither Israelis or Palestinians advocate. I've found that it is extremely difficult to get editors to address these sources, or even to bring their own. I am open to everyone's thoughts. Sources below:

• Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO's negotiating department {...} also Jewish neighborhoods like Ramot and Gilo are settlements for all intents and purposes."
• A new Israeli Neighborhood on the lands of Jerusalem city
• "As opposed to the large neighborhoods built in East Jerusalem, Ir Amim uses the term "settlements" in Jerusalem mainly for Jewish construction in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods at the initiative of settler organizations,"
• "In East Jerusalem and its environs, which Israel annexed to the municipality of Jerusalem after 1967, there are 12 large Israeli neighborhoods that are also deemed settlements under international law."
• "This will be the first new Israeli settlement neighborhood established in East Jerusalem since Har Homa. "
• "In these annexed lands Israel built 12 Jewish neighborhoods,"

Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Settlement neighborhoods seems like a good compromise to me. Futurist110 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The point made here is quite good in a sense. Exclusively Jewish settlements on the West Bank have been declared unilaterally by the Israeli government to be a part of Jerusalem, sometimes leap-frogging over Palestinian towns. So it might be an idea to describe Jerusalem in fairly bland terms as something like an "ancient" city over which different sovereign entities compete. So if the idea of Israeli claims are to be taken seriously, then the extent of those claims should be pointed out. Abedwayyad (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're title is misleading. A city is a relatively large and permanent settlement. Jerusalem is a city. The dubiousness of Israeli settlements in the West Bank on the other hand are relevant and should be discussed in the article, in a proper section.
—Sowlos (talk) 21:48, 9 October 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)

Revert by Tritomex

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: [13] [14]. 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. [15] 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 [16] 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 [17] 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)

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)

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)