Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion

This page hosts the moderated discussion, mandated by ArbCom, that will lead to an RfC about the lead section of the Jerusalem article. If you are interested in taking part, please ask Mr. Stradivarius.

Discussion overview

List of participants

Please leave your signature below, by using four tildes (~~~~)

1. Ravpapa (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Dailycare (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
5. BorisG (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
7. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
8. -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
9. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
10. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Zero^talk 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
12. Nableezy 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Mor2 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
14. Sepsis II (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
15. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
16. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
17. PerDaniel (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
18. Dlv999 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
19. ZScarpia   18:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Schedule

This is a rough schedule for the moderated discussion. This is by no means a finalised version of what will happen, and the steps may be shortened, lengthened, swapped around, or changed completely as the need arises.

• Preliminaries: participants provide opening statements. Scheduled length: 6 days.
• Step one: decide RfC scope. Scheduled length: 5-10 days.
• Step two: decide general RfC structure. Scheduled length: 5-10 days.
• Step three: decide the details of questions and/or drafts. Scheduled length: TBA.
• Step four: finalise implementation details. Scheduled length: TBA.
• Step five: RfC goes live. Scheduled length: 30 days.
• Step six: breakdown of RfC results. Scheduled length: TBA.

As you can see, the schedule moves from the general to the specific. It starts off with what exactly the focus of the RfC should be, moving on to the decision about the broad structure of the RfC (questions, drafts, or both? etc.). Only then will we get onto the details of what questions should be asked and/or what drafts should be written (plus whatever else we find appropriate to include). Then we will discuss the fine details of implementation, such as where to advertise the RfC, how to deal with potential problems such as votestacking, etc.

This is designed to eliminate the need for back-tracking. The idea is that once we have decided to do something a certain way, it should stay decided, and not be influenced by further discussion. The steps are structured in such a way that the prior steps may influence how we approach the later steps, but that discussions we have during later steps shouldn't influence the decisions we have made during prior steps. If you're aware of something that I have scheduled for, say, step four that might affect how we go about discussing steps one to three, then please do let me know. It will be a lot better to talk about this kind of thing now than to deal with the frustration that comes from having to back-track over issues that have already been discussed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What participants can expect from this process

Seeing as some of the participants here are not familiar with RfCs, and as I assume fewer still are familiar with mediated/moderated discussions leading to RfCs, I think I should give a little background. Most importantly, no matter how much time we spend carefully crafting the RfC structure and wording, it is the discussion in the RfC itself that matters. For example, let's say we make a particular draft of the first sentence of the lead, but then we reject it for some reason. It is entirely possible that someone could propose that same draft in the RfC itself, and that it gets enough support from other editors that the closing editors decide that it should be used in the lead. If this were to happen, it wouldn't matter that we had rejected that draft in this discussion - the consensus formed in the RfC itself is what will decide the contents of the article.

Similarly, no matter how much work we put into setting up the RfC, the result may end up being "no consensus". We can't force RfC commenters to think in a certain way, and there are no guarantees of what the end result of this process will be. All we can really do is structure the RfC in such a way that it will be easy to find consensus, and leave the rest to the respondents and the closing editors. And also, it should go without saying, but the final result of the RfC may be a consensus for a version that you don't personally support. This discussion will be a thankless task in that respect - it might be that you pour your heart and soul into making this the best RfC possible, only for the end result to go against you. If you can't face the prospect of having a long debate over RfC structure only for the final decision to be one that you don't like, then you might want to waiting for the RfC itself and not taking part in the discussion here. It is the RfC itself that will matter, after all, and you might find it less stressful to just make your views known there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC basics

For the benefit of editors unfamiliar with RfCs, I would just like to go through their basic principles. RfCs are essentially scaled-up versions of talk-page discussions. Editors will leave comments on the question(s) asked, and will discuss each others' comments, just as in talk page discussions. One of the main differences is that RfCs may be formally closed, which means an uninvolved editor will read the discussion and judge what consensus, if any, there is from the discussion. They will usually leave an archive template saying that the discussion is closed, and leave comments on how they arrived at their conclusion. In our case, we have three such closers, all administrators, who will all look at the discussion and decide between them what the consensus from the discussion is.

Another difference between normal talk page discussions and RfCs is that RfCs can be structured rather elaborately, usually in order to make the consensus as easy to judge as possible when a large number of editors are expected to comment. You can see some recent examples of elaborately structured RfCs in the Muhammad images RfC, the Verifiability RfC, and a slightly simpler one in the Beatles RfC.

RfCs are not a vote, so it is not the number of respondents that take a particular position that matters; rather, the closers will look at the arguments brought forth in the discussion and how well they relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In cases where the majority of respondents voice an opinion that goes against Wikipedia policy, it may well be the case that the closing admins declare the minority opinion to have consensus.

At the end of the discussion, we will edit the article to reflect the judgement of consensus reached by the closing admins. This may consist of all or part of any proposals or drafts that we include in the RfC, or of other points that come up in the RfC discussion. If the closing admins decide that there is no consensus for any change, then the article will remain as it is, per the guidance at WP:NOCONSENSUS. Obviously we want to avoid a "no consensus" outcome, as the point of getting ArbCom involved and the point of having this RfC is precisely to find such a consensus. So I would like all the participants to keep this prospect in mind during these discussions, and hopefully we will be able to come up with an RfC structure that will have the best chance of leading to a lasting consensus. This brings me neatly to the next section, on what I as the moderator expect from the participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What I expect from the participants

As this is a discussion about setting up an RfC, and not a discussion that involves content directly, what I expect from you is a little different than normal. In a traditional mediation or a normal talk page discussion, we would talk about the editors' opinions about the content involved and how they related to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, this isn't the proper place to bring up your opinions about content; that is reserved for the RfC itself. In this discussion, I would like you all to be neutral regarding the dispute. Even if you have a strong opinion about the dispute, I would like you to act as though you don't. If we forget all our preconceptions about what the end result should be, it will make it a lot easier to find a lasting consensus.

Sometimes, I may be called upon to close subsections of this discussion and to judge the consensus in those sections. This may involve tricky decisions with no obvious consensus either way. I mentioned above that the whole point of this process is to find a lasting consensus on the issue of how to treat the start of the Jerusalem article. So, everything else being equal, I will give more weight to arguments that consider how the RfC can reach a long-lasting consensus, and less weight to personal opinions about what the RfC should contain. I would be very grateful if you could all consider how the RfC can reach consensus while you are commenting.

Now, to get the RfC set up, we will all have to work with each other, and to work with each other, it will of course help us to follow WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I hope that we can take this one level further, however. I would like everyone to listen to each other with open minds, and for us to respect each others' opinions even if we disagree with them. If we can reach this level of open communication, then coming to agreement about the RfC structure should be easy. I will be here to help if people have problems, but the best solution is for us all to learn how to do this without a middleman. If you are looking for some inspiration, allow me to recommend this video on real-world mediation - and it might also help you understand where I'm coming from a little bit better.

If communication breaks down, then I do reserve the right to refactor, collapse, archive, or delete entirely posts that are not conducive to open communication. However, I don't like refactoring, collapsing, archiving, or deleting such posts. It is the lesser of two evils - the problem is that on the one hand you are removing comments that may derail discussion, but on the other hand you are often removing legitimate opinions that may be disguised by the inflammatory material. If you find that you are frustrated by someone else's post and feel like responding angrily, sarcastically, or in an otherwise less-than-optimal way, please send me an email with your post in instead. I can reformat your response and engage the other user in a way that will make the discussion more productive. It might take a little while if I am asleep or at work, but it is a lot better than derailing the discussion. (And by the way, if you send me an email, please use the {{ygm}} template on my talk page - you will probably get a quicker response that way.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous steps

• Preliminaries - the discussion introduction and the statements from the participants have been archived to Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 1.
• Step one: RfC scope - the step one discussion has also been archived to Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive 1.

Step two: general RfC structure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Welcome to step two! In step one we decided that the RfC will focus on how to treat, in the article lead, the issues of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and Jerusalem as capital of Israel. In step two we will refine this scope, and decide the general structure of the RfC. First, I had better define what I mean by "general structure". In step two I would like us to decide:

• Whether we will use questions, drafts, a combination of the two, or something else.
• Whether we should assemble evidence in the form of sources for any of the questions or drafts, and roughly how we should present the evidence if we do.
• How many different questions or drafts there should be.
• The rough layout of the drafts and/or questions on the page.

Things I would like to leave until further steps to decide include:

• The specific wording of questions or drafts. It is fine to discuss the general focus that questions and drafts might have, but only as far as necessary to decide the four points above.
• Individual items of evidence.
• Introductory text, such as the background to the dispute. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Step two statements

First off in this step I would like you to leave a statement. The procedure for this is pretty much the same as for the previous round of statements - please try and keep your statements short (preferably under 400 words), and don't reply in each others' sections. There will be time for discussion later. In your statements please answer the following question:

In step one we decided that the RfC will focus on how to treat, in the article lead, the issues of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and Jerusalem as capital of Israel. How do you think the RfC should be structured so as to stand the best chance of finding a consensus on these issues? Please bear in mind the points above about what is and isn't included as a part of this step.

Thanks in advance for your responses, and as always if you have any questions or comments about the process, please feel free to get in touch with me on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just to let everyone know that I'm in the process of summarising all the different positions that people have expressed, and drafting the next discussion point. I'll probably be finished some time tomorrow, so if you haven't yet left a statement you have until then to post it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ClaudeReigns

When considering the scope of the RfC, I thought it less helpful to bring up the general consideration of resilience, as any number of solutions large or small may be written well and endure; but when it comes to the structure of the RfC, the particular notion of the endurance and tenure of a piece of encyclopedia writing comes directly into play when we go about creating the structure of the RfC. That which we include in the article's lead as decided content should have a draft, and that draft should be well-referenced, and care should be given to expose the particular NPOV concerns which have made statements troublesome or untenable in the past. Likewise, a new draft may have other concerns not limited to current concerns.

If I should write even something small and inconsequential about someone and want my writing to endure, I take these pains to ensure that such statements are presented with the sourcing and voice to rise above disputes from all sides. A living person will have his admirers and detractors, and I must present what is stated in reliable sources with the weight due to its representation collectively therein. While cities are seldom as controversial as people, I find that in this particular instance, our very best practices are in order. Therefore, each draft should be presented with its sources, and all editors should go about presenting the hard questions about that draft in the voice of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The questions of concern, yes or no questions, not open-ended, should be presented to the community as well, in reference to each draft.

A draft, having already endured such scrutiny, is worthy of mandatory inclusion for some several years to come. Nothing less seems to suffice. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

On the Talk:Jerusalem page we discussed a two-step procedure that I think would be applicable here. It would consist of an intial yes/no question asking whether the current wording is OK. This would be very conductive to finding a consensus. For the eventuality that the first question is closed with a "no", the second question would then have a few options for an alternative wording. I think this would work. Now that the scope is agreed to also involve the Palestinian aspect, we could have a question three which would present, along the lines of question two, a few options on how to describe Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, declared/proclaimed/foreseen capital or whatnot. Advantages of this approach would include a high potential for consensus on question one (yes/no on the present wording of the first sentence), and this approach wouldn't present the current wording as automatically doomed since editors can opine "yes" in the first question. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mor2

Currently I have no inclination toward either structure and will reserve comments until discussion in the next step.(I'll appreciate any reference to previous RFCs that use both, so that we could contrast and see which way will fit us best).

On a little unrelated note. I agree with ClaudeReigns statement, if we choose a draft, obviously it should be fleshed out, well-referenced and comply with other WPs; so that it will be worthy for inclusion for some several years. Although I doubt that over the past several years, participants of previous RFC(some of them participate here as well), in which similar wordings were supported, operated under different assumptions. So just as we should avoid leading questions, it would be best to avoid any presumption for the outcome of this RFC. --Mor2 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis

This RFC would be utterly pointless without the gathering of evidence. If we do not go to sources for facts we will be going back to the level of talk page discussions where editors kept repeating false statements to back the addition of false statements to the article. We need to gather sources to be able to determine what facts can be stated. After we determine what facts can be stated, we can begin forming prose. Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I'll support any approach that minimizes the opportunity for anyone to express their opinion about anything other than how the evidence, reliably sourced statements about Jerusalem, should be handled according to policy to produce a summarized statement. I think the best way to achieve a genuine WP:CONSENSUS that incorporates "all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms" (my bolding) and avoids repeating earlier failures is to have near-zero degrees of freedom i.e. keep the focus on what sources say about Jerusalem. I'm therefore inclined to start with the evidence and build drafts from it rather than doing it the other way around, writing drafts and searching for evidence that support them. If any participants make a value judgement that isn't evident from the reliably sourced statements about Jerusalem (e.g. x is more important than y) we will know that the RfC is in trouble. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Perfect accord with S.Hoyland above. No blather, just high quality sources, preferably academic, to support each formulation.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by formerip

The trouble with the "just do what the sources say" approach is that the nature of the dispute is NPOV. The current version and all the serious alternatives can undoubtedly be more than adequately sourced. So, once we've presented our well-sourced options, it's still about editor preference (basically, the balance of opinion as to how NPOV is applicable to the case, which is something you can't decide just by meditating on the sources).

I think I favour the approach suggested by Dailycare, and I also get the impression from recent discussions that this has most support among involved editors. Formerip (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa

My position in this matter has already been thoroughly discussed, and pretty roundly rejected, so I have little new to say. But, rather than take my marbles and go home, I will do my best:

• The RFC should definitely include questions. Drafts I'm not so sure, as drafts tend to push the combatants back into their old positions. The questions should be surprising: they should cast the dispute in a new light, and certainly emphasize the readers rather than the editors (What is the reader likely to understand from specific versions of the lead?).
• Compiling a list of sources is always a good idea, but is unlikely to advance the cause of compromise. As others have pointed out, there are reliable sources to support every one of the positions in this dispute. In the end, we have to make a choice based not on reliable sources that are themselves conflicted, but on our own senses of fairness and on what we agree that we want the reader to understand --Ravpapa (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Dlv999

My understanding is that the core of the dispute is whether it is consistent with NPOV policy to state as fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in light of what has been published in RS on the topic. I would like so see a question included to resolve this issue (which should be addressed on the basis of source evidence and wikipedia policy). As long as this question is resolved I am fairly open minded on how the final draft(s) are assembled and selected. Dlv999 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hertz1888

At this point I want to share some misgivings that I alluded to briefly in my introductory statement. I believe the present statement pertains more to this step (two) than to the next one, but please let me know if I am mistaken. In what follows I will try to mention content only to the extent necessary to provide context.

We are dealing with a peculiar situation, because it involves mega-discussions about what may be fundamentally a very simple concept, the essence of which can readily be overlooked in a sea of obfuscation. There is a straightforward, commonplace definition, found in dictionaries, of what makes a capital a capital. Basically, a country designates a city as its capital, and if that city serves as the seat of government, then it is the capital (no modifiers needed). Nothing said about requiring approval or recognition by any outside party, but that and other conditions, such as undisputed sovereignty, have repeatedly been brought into the discussions, and attempts made to attach these conditions to the much-disputed statement or use them to disqualify it. A number of editors have insisted on reliable sourcing for calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel as a statement of fact. It can easily be seen and shown that Jerusalem is the designated capital and serves as the seat of government, but as the discussions have raged on, that never seems to be enough to gain a durable consensus. It has instead been denounced as POV.

It seems to me that if countries designate their own capitals, not subject to outside approval, then the only truly reliable source is the country itself. This is a matter of word usage. I am concerned that any formulation or option offered in the RfC that relies on other sourcing, or attaches irrelevant conditions, could have potentially far-reaching, serious consequences for Wikipedia by setting a bad precedent, and would overstep our constraints. I don’t believe we, as WP editors, are allowed to redefine words at will. Even dictionary editors lack complete freedom to concoct or change a word definition. I believe the wording of the RfC should strive to avoid the pitfalls of straying from the dictionary meaning. Otherwise the result could be immediately challenged, and we would be encouraging a continuation of the current impasse.

The principle involved here applies evenhandedly to all countries and is not invoked to favor any one in particular.

The editor who wrote this (requires scrolling down) apparently shares these qualms about using words other than per their ordinary definitions, particularly where he/she says, "My point is that encyclopedias should use language consistently, and (typos excepted) 'correctly'. By 'natural' I simply mean following the normal rules of the language rather than manufacturing exceptions to them…" Hertz1888 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BritishWatcher

I believe we should try to come up with draft proposals that can be put to people in the RFC rather than general questions which may not resolve the situation adequately. Each of the different draft proposals should be backed up with some sources either inline as they would be within the article, or after each proposal list the sources that back up the proposal.

I believe there should be a limited number of draft proposals, probably around 5 but no more than 10. That should allow us to have different proposed wording that cover all the main methods people favour. I would present the RFC in the following order..

RFC – summary of the reason for the RFC, summary of the history of the way it has been handled in the intro (how long it has said it’s the capital of Israel, when that changed to capital of Israel but not internationally recognised as such etc.), explanation about people being able to choose which proposal they believe is best way of handling the situation.

Proposal 1 (basic summary of the proposal, full proposed wording, sources)

Proposal 2 (basic summary of the proposal, full proposed wording, sources)

And repeat for each of the proposals. It is true that this process may take a bit longer than asking just general questions, but the extra time in the build up to the RFC is time saved from after the RFC as we will have a far better idea of the change needed, rather than having to debate the general approach people want us to take. If it is not possible to agree on specific draft proposals then i think the best way would be to do a similar thing as i mentioned but just with the basic summary of the proposal, without the specific wording. (Eg. "Proposal 1 - state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine in the first sentence without distinction"./ "Proposal 2 - state Jerusalem is Israels capital in the first sentence, say Palestinians claim it as their future capital in the second sentence)" BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Step two discussion

Thank you all very much for your statements, and sorry that this is coming later than I said it would. Because we have already spent a week gathering statements for step two, it looks likely that we will take longer than the upper end of my 5-10 day estimate. If enough people think that we are taking too long over this process, then I can impose a stricter deadline for the next sub-steps of step two so that we can speed things up. The speed we go at will be a trade-off; the faster we do things the more likely we are to have to progress without fully hearing everyone's opinion. There is something to be said for going quickly, as the real place to hear everyone's opinions will be in the RfC itself, but at the same time I do not want anyone to feel disenfranchised. Please ask me on my talk page if you would like me to do something like this, and I can bring it up here with everyone if necessary.

Now, on to everyone's statements. I've had a go at summarising everyone’s opinions, both from the step two statements, and from the preliminary statements of editors who didn’t make a step two statement (if they made a comment relevant to the general RfC structure). Though I have phrased some of these opinions as "should be" statements for simplicity, none of these points are my opinion; they are all taken from one or more participants here. Some of the opinions contradict each other, and some of them are more detailed than others. I have tried to structure this summary in a way that is easy to understand, but there may be parts that don't flow very well together due to the diversity of opinions expressed. So, without further ado, here is the summary.

Summary of views expressed in the statements

There were two general proposals for the RfC structure:

• Have a three-step structure. (This was discussed on Talk:Jerusalem as a “two-step” structure, but has developed a third step due to the inclusion of Palestine in the RfC scope.) First, include a question about whether the current wording of the first sentence is compatible with Wikipedia policy. Then have a second question to decide an alternative wording if the answer to the first question is "no", and have a third question to decide the wording of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine in the lead.
• Present a series of drafts of the first sentence and/or the part of the lead dealing with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. Do not include any general questions.

Participants expressed the following opinions on leading questions:

• We should avoid asking any leading questions in the RfC.
• We should not automatically discount the current wording of the first sentence.
• We should be careful to phrase questions and drafts in a way that implies being a capital depends on outside recognition

On evidence:

• We should gather evidence, as evidence is necessary to determine whether the drafts we write and the claims we include in them are compliant with Wikipedia policy.
• The RfC should, as much as is possible, restrict respondents to focusing on how the sources describe Jerusalem.

On drafts versus questions:

• General questions may be able to indicate a way forward even if any one draft fails to find a consensus.
• Drafts can lead to a lasting resolution, whereas general questions may not. Once a draft is decided and is binding, then there is no more scope for disagreement.
• General questions can help find a win-win solution or a compromise, but drafts tend to polarise discussion.

On drafts:

• We should have at least one draft.
• There should be between 5 and 10 drafts.
• All of the main points of view on the issue of Jerusalem as capital of Israel and Palestine can be sourced to reliable sources. Therefore, merely including sources in drafts won't solve the problem of whether those drafts satisfy the neutral point of view policy.
• As all the main points of view can be reliably sourced, the question of how the neutral point of view policy applies to this case is a matter of editor preference.
• We should derive drafts from the evidence, rather than write the drafts first and then try and decide which best fits the evidence.
• All drafts should be presented with sources.

About general questions:

• The RfC should include general questions.
• We should include at least one question which asks whether it is consistent with Wikipedia policies to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
• If we can't agree on a specific wording for any drafts, we might be able to agree on a meta-wording, e.g. "Proposal 1 - state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine in the first sentence without distinction" and other similarly-worded proposals.
• We should decide whether we want to mention Jerusalem's status as a capital at all in the lead.
• We should decide whether we want to mention Jerusalem's status as a capital at all in the first sentence.

My analysis

There have been a wide variety of opinions expressed in the statements, and we still have quite a bit of discussion to do before we find a consensus on how to structure the RfC. The only thing I see a strong consensus for so far is that we should not ask any leading questions in the RfC. We could debate all of the opinions expressed above, but to start with I want to deal with the most essential matters. Here is my take of the most important points we need to decide about the RfC structure:

1. Whether we use drafts, questions, or both.
2. Whether either of the full proposals for the RfC are compatible with the opinions others have expressed on drafts and general questions.
3. How many drafts to have, if any.
4. How any drafts should be presented. Whether we should include sources; whether we should use meta-drafts instead of drafts, or as well as them; and what process we should go through to make them.
5. How we will use evidence in the RfC. Do we present evidence directly to respondents, do we use the evidence to create any drafts, or both? Or is evidence not so important because of the NPOV nature of the dispute?

Looking at this list, the approach we take to points two to five all seem to depend on what we decide for point one. For example, if we decide to only include general questions, then the question of how many drafts to include would become moot. Therefore, I would first like us to decide whether to use drafts, general questions, or both, and I will ask a question to that effect below.

I welcome any feedback about my summary, my analysis, and the discussion question. If I have missed something out, misread someone’s opinion, or otherwise made a mistake, please make a post on my talk page about it, and I will fix things. Similarly, if you think of a new idea that you would like me to include in the summary, then just ask and I will add it unless there’s a good reason that I shouldn’t. And as usual, you are welcome to post any other questions or comments relating to the RfC discussion on my talk page too. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Step two, question one: drafts or questions

As I have outlined in the summary of everyone’s statements above, some participants in this discussion thought that we should use drafts, as if one draft gains consensus there is no more scope for disagreement. Other participants thought that we should use general questions, as questions can show a way forward even if any one draft fails to gain consensus. Also, they thought that questions can help participants find common ground, whereas drafts tend to polarise discussion. Still others thought that we should use both questions and drafts, for example in the “three-step” proposal of asking a general question about the current wording of the first sentence, and then presenting alternative drafts of the first sentence or the parts of the lead dealing with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. Due to the differences of opinion on drafts and questions, I would like everyone to discuss the following:

Should the RfC contain drafts only, general questions only, or a combination of both? Would including a combination of both drafts and general questions be a good compromise between editors who prefer only drafts and editors who prefer only questions? Or is there a reason that it may make it harder to find a consensus in the RfC itself? Do you agree with the rationales of editors who prefer drafts only or questions only?

Thank you in advance for your comments. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I think the "three-step" approach would offer several advantages, including 1) singling out the current text as a possible solution (some editors were worried the RFC might present the current version as just one option among many), 2) provide a high likelihood of at least some consensus, namely concerning the yes/no question, and 3) lead into a discussion on a specific long-term solution with the drafts. Even if only the first question is closed with consensus, the RFC will have accomplished a lot in terms of addressing the multi-year NPOV dispute. Concerning the leading questions issue, I frankly don't see the problem with having a "leading question" as the RFC question. Since we're inviting comments, we do want to lead the discussion to the specific issue we want comments on. I'm not aware of any policy according to which RFCs can't have leading questions (loaded questions are a different issue). In fact WP:RFC has as an example question "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?", which seems to be a leading question. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Dailycare. Asking at the outset whether the current lead is acceptable or consistent with policy will (Redacted) end with no consensus. I believe a much more promising approach would be to ask a general question which cuts across party lines, such as "what message do we want to give the reader in the lead?" or (my already rejected) "How do we want the issue of controversy (generally or specifically the Israel-Palestinian conflict) to be treated in the lead?" These are questions which, since they have not been posed in this general way, are more likely to generate original thought and discussion among participants (Redacted). --Ravpapa (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have liked Ravpapa's suggestions for compromise in previous discussions and I would have been more than happy to settle for something along these lines. (Redacted) The problem we have is that (Redacted) by default the current language remains and no alternatives are seriously discussed. (Redacted)

I believe the only hope of progress is to resolve this question with the involvement of the wider Wikipedia community (in this RFC) (Redacted) who look at the policy and the evidence and make up their minds based on that rather than pre-held positions. Unfortunately without resolving this question definitively one way or the other first, I do not see much hope of getting a consensus for the kind of innovative solutions that Ravpapa has suggested. I think it will be a wasted opportunity if we do not use this RFC to involve the wider community and resolve the core question which is at the heart of the dispute. On the other hand if we are able to reach a consensus on that point, I think coming to a consensus on the final text becomes much much easier, whether that is achieved as part of this RFC or not. Dlv999 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)