Talk:Jerusalem

}}

Is Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine

Following the discussions at Talk:Birthright_Israel#Jerusalem.2C_Israel and User_talk:Debresser#1RR I want to open an Rfc about the question "Is Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine?"

After I reverted the removal of "Israel" from "Jerusalem, Israel" in a certain article, I was referred to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem. I noticed there that "There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine." It does not say what to do. I also noticed that that Rfc was about the Jerusalem article only, and that it is binding for 3 years only, till July 9, 2016.

My first reaction was that in the absence of any clear consensus on this potentially controversial subject, the only acceptable course of action per Wikipedia policies and guidelines would be to refrain from changing any status quo. Then I cam to the realization that I could also initiate a process to try and establish a project wide consensus on this issue, some guideline on the issue, much like WP:WESTBANK regarding another related hot potato.

I then did some research. A simple search of Wikipedia teaches that there are 438 instances of "Jerusalem, Palestine" on Wikipedia and 9,268 of "Jerusalem, Israel". I came to the conclusion that that fact proves that both alternatives are considered completely acceptable on Wikipedia, and with a ratio of roughly 1:21 even makes a point for "Jerusalem, Israel" over "Jerusalem, Palestine". Also compare the Google search results, which are 331,000 to 5,950,000, roughly 1:18. I remember from my elementary school in Holland, that there never was any issue that Jerusalem is in Israel. Mind you, I am not talking about East Jerusalem, the status of which is widely acknowledged as ambiguous, just simply "Jerusalem".

Then that same respected editor who pointed me to the Jerusalem Rfc, made another interesting point, namely that there is a difference between [[Jerusalem, Israel]] (or [[Jerusalem, Palestine]], for that matter) and [[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]] (or [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]), with the latter being more problematic in his eyes.

I see four general options:

1. Replace all instances of "Palestine" by "Israel" (unless specific reference was made to [[[East Jerusalem]]);
2. Remove all instances of "Israel" and "Palestine" from after "Jerusalem";
3. Keep all instances as they are. This means that no changes will be allowed to whatever is the present version. In the case of a new article, local consensus should decide;
4. Refrain from making a guideline and leave it up to local consensus. This option might be rephrased, and I mean this non-judgemental, as keep the present anarchy.

In addition there is an idea that can be implemented independently of whichever of the above options will be chosen:

1. Replace all [[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]] and [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]] by [[Jerusalem, Israel]] (or [[Jerusalem, Palestine]], to address at least the most problematic form of this issue.

Please take part in the discussion below, and at the end also express your vote. Please note that I made no discussion section regarding the independent replacement option, because I expect the general discussion to cover this as well. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding options 1, 2 3, or 4

Comment - I think this is too hard to make a general rule. What if an article is referring to something built in 1946. The land was known as Palestine at that time. Are we automatically going to change that to saying Israel even though it was not known as that at the time? - Galatz^Talk 13:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We can easily address the issue over before/after 1948 in the discussion below, as some editors have indeed done. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Calling some voters to make sure they won't miss this one: Nishidani, Huldra, Al Ameer son, Oncenawhile, WarKosign.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment It often seems sensible to avoid describing Jerusalem as being in Israel or Palestine altogether. For example, both Temple Mount and al-Aqsa Mosque describe the sites' location as the Old City of Jerusalem, and changes to "Jerusalem, Israel" or "Jerusalem, Palestine" are quickly reverted. See Gordian Knot. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Vote regarding options 1, 2 3, or 4

• Option 4 because in different instances, different phrasing is appropriate. For West Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, Israel"; for East Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, Transjordan", "Jerusalem, Palestinian territories" and "Jerusalem, Palestine" depending on the era. A blanket "Jerusalem, Israel" (option 1) is not acceptable for obvious reasons, and not having a country listed (option 2) is unhelpful to readers because the country listing makes it clear which part of Jerusalem is referred to. Option 3 is not a good idea because some may be wrong. Number 57 11:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 4: The usage of Palestine is problematic not only because Palestine is yet to be in the same recognition status as Israel (i.e. not a member of the UN), it also doesn't control East Jerusalem and was declared after it was annexed. In addition to that, per a long list of sources I provided in a discussion (that ended with no consensus because some editors tried to kick me from Wikipedia) that imply that Palestine (the state) doesn't physically exist because the process of its establishment never occured and most of its recognition is symbolic.

With that said I also add that West Jerusalem should be considered part of Israel. The Green Line is the recognized Israel and West Jerusalem will fall within it. Regarding West Jerusalem not as Israel is also problematic if you consider the fact its municipal boundaries expanded through the year so it will mean that every time Israel expand the municipal boundaries west, it expands its unrecognized territory which makes no sense. What about Ramat Rahel? it is outside the boundaries of Municipal Jersualem but completely serounded by it and within the Green line.

So Green lined Jerusalem should be referred as either Jerusalem, Israel or West Jerusalem, Israel and East Jerusalem should be referred as East Jerusalem or East Jerusalem, West Bank--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought about it more, and the text in Option 1 doesn't reflect my opinion. I think that only West Jerusalem should be always referred as Israel and it doesn't entirely fit with Option 1. I suggest that all that chose Option 1 to re-check on that, cause as it is written right now, it is unacceptable. I think that currently All options are unacceptable except Option 4--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Per argument of User:Number 57 the above is for present day and not for historic references.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment if the votes won't be homogeneous is seems to me that Option 4 will have to be accepted.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "homogeneous" votes? Debresser (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If we will not have a large majority for one option without a very strong opposition.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Plurality/Majority. For me, 4 is first, but I can go for 1 as well if it will swing it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 4 seems the safest. For items that are well within pre-1967 borders, then there is no reason not to show J,I. What I have been doing to help concerns is to have the J,I in two wikilinks, to show that it's not Jerusalem,Israel, but it's in Jerusalem and it happens to be in Israel. People need to realize that it's not Wikipedia making a final determination, but we do know with 99.99% certainty that many parts of Jerusalem will be part of Israel in any final negotiation and for ID purposes it is silly to not have a country. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Out of the four options its probably best but its very difficult to really say. West Jerusalem is on Israel's side of the green line which is internationally recognized border. Firstly this rule should only deal with West Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem, or the city as a whole. Anything that could be debated whether it is West or other, should not contain Israel in the description. Second, anything about prior to the end of the British Mandate should not say Israel. Third I think any article that deals with post British Mandate should say Jerusalem or Jerusalem, West Bank. - Galatz^Talk 13:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4, since the correct use depends on the context. For modern everyday use "Jerusalem, Israel" is correct, but when discussing Mandatory Palestine, "Jerusalem, Palestine" would be correct. When discussing issues of international law and recognition - just "Jerusalem". “WarKosign” 14:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Jerusalem's status is not something that is settled, for either East or western Jerusalem. That said I can accept option 4. Option 1 to me is a fairly blatant NPOV violation in that there are a number of sites in East Jerusalem that our articles just say Jerusalem for (and that isnt even a problem in my view for at least some of them), so we would effectively be promoting a minority viewpoint in those articles if this find and replace were instituted. nableezy - 15:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you call option 1 "minority viewpoint"? The simple research I showed above points to Jerusalem being in Israel and not Palestine by about 20 to 1. Debresser (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Because google search results arent reliable sources? Nearly every state on the planet says East Jerusalem is not in Israel, the overwhelming majority of scholars say East Jerusalem is not in Israel. So for those articles that just say Jerusalem for places in EJ, or the Old City of Jerusalem, adding "Israel" to that would be promoting a minority viewpoint. nableezy - 15:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

But we are not discussing East Jerusalem, just Jerusalem. That is the whole difference.

Google results are not reliable sources, but a 20:1 (and we are talking about over 5 million ! finds here) is pretty convincing... Debresser (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No, not at all, because we are concerned with what reliable sources say on the topic. Not how many blogs or forums or whatever use the term "Jerusalem, Israel". And we are discussing those articles for places in East Jerusalem, including the Old City, that simply say their location is "Jerusalem". Your proposed idea here would sweep those places with the rest and have them say that they are in Israel, which reliable sources by and large do not agree with. Therein lies the problem with option 1. Besides that, there is a significant POV that none of Jerusalem is in Israel. That is the view of the United Kingdom for example, and as far as I can tell also the view of the United Nations. So even for places in western Jerusalem saying that they are in Israel is a disputed POV. nableezy - 02:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 4 – per Number 57. Option 1 blatantly POV per Nableezy. Baking Soda (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Baking Soda Please notice that Nableez only meant those article where "Jerusalem" is used incorrectly or as short for "East Jerusalem". That should be fixed in any case, so this issue is not supposed to reflect on the Rfc as such. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Im fine saying a place is in Jerusalem, Israel if places in EJ also say East Jerusalem, Palestinian territories/Palestine (I prefer Pt). Oddly there seems to be a number of people that feel that only Jerusalem, Israel should appear and we shouldnt say places in the Palestinian territories are in the Palestinian territories, but thats a deeper problem. I dont think its necessary, I think Jerusalem by itself is sufficient in most cases. nableezy - 18:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that is we won't know the status of EJ until it's said and done. We do know that Western Jerusalem is in Israel and will 99.9999% stay as Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Making our decision here based on what we think the future status would be is WP:CRYSTAL though. The answer should be based solely on the current status. The current status of West Jerusalem is Israel, the current status of East Jerusalem debatable. - Galatz^Talk 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That isnt a little bit true. The current status of East Jerusalem is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory. It is no more debatable than saying western Jerusalem is in Israel. nableezy - 15:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 this is what is technically correct, as mentioned: the status of Jerusalem is not fixed. Option 1 is completely unacceptable. Option 3 & 4: well, I guess I could live with this: BUT: if there is one thing editing in the I/P area has taught me, it is to "keep conflict in as few articles s possible": I fear endless bickering eh, discussions, on literally thousands of articles if any of those options are passed. Sorry, but to me, it looks as a recipe for an endless waste of time. To avoid that: Option 2. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 as first preference, Option 4 as second preference. WP:NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." WP:NPOV says that "achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality" means "attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in" reliable sources "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." WP:NPOV says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Is the assertion that Jerusalem is in Israel seriously contested in reliable sources? Yes, it is. Is the assertion that West Jerusalem is in Israel seriously contested in reliable sources? Yes, contrary to what some editors are contending, it is. Therefore, would the assertion of those contentions as facts in Wikipedia articles be a breach of the fundamental policy requirement WP:NPOV? Yes it would. Option 1 may satisfy the Zionist ideologue (armchair or otherwise), but, unfortunately for them, their opinion on what the "reality" of the situation is, is totally irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources say. Also note what WP:CONSENSUS says, that consensus is not the result of a vote.     ←   ZScarpia   00:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1. The reality is that Israeli government administers all aspect of the area, not the PA. Any other wording may satisfy the armchair activist but does not reflect the reality on the ground and will confuse the reader. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Im pretty sure that "reality" does not translate to the place being in Israel. nableezy - 15:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 Option 4 is a vote for endless edit warring and Option 1 obviously violates NPOV so it wasn't a valid option from the beginning. Option 2 would bring us in line with most governments and international organizations; purposefully ambiguous, purposefully leaving out any reference to either nation when making statements on Jerusalem. Sepsis II (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1. Jerusalem is in Israel as a fact and there is no State of Palestine on the ground. Any other presentation of the facts is a lie, a misrepresentation of reality and motivated by political or ideological considerations. Wikipedia is supposed to state objective facts and not "obey the international diplomatic consensus" or whatever. Benjil (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that so I would suggest not using the word 'lie'. The international community doesn't recognize the sovereignty of Israel over the Eastern part of Jerusalem, annexed to Israel in 1967 (you probably know that) and therefore it can't be referred as a recognized part of Israel--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The international community doesn't recognise Israeli sovereignty over West or East Jerusalem (similarly, it didn't recognise Jordanian sovereignty over East Jerusalem during the period that Jordan made that claim); the difference between the two cases is that it doesn't regard the former as occupied while it does regard the latter as such. The position of the international community on sovereignty affects how that is reported in reliable sources, which in turn affects how that should be presented in Wikipedia in order to fulfil the neutrality requirement. It is what reliable sources say which concerns us; discussions or comments about what editors think the "reality" of the situation is have no pertinence to what the article should say.     ←   ZScarpia   10:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What I am saying is that while Wikipedia should state this fact, that should not prevent it to write that Jerusalem is in Israel because, simply, it is (you can just check yourself by booking a plane and going there). Wikipedia is not working for the UN or "the international community" as far as I know. Why should Wikipedia limits itself to the politically-motivated opinions of the diplomatic corps of countries ? Let them recognize or not recognize whatever they want and let Wikipedia just describes the reality as it is. Benjil (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

We can always list as Jerusalem, Israel with an inline note or ref that clarifies. This would be for those entries where it is within the pre-67 borders. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Even for parts of Jerusalem west of the Green Line it is contested that they are 'in' Israel. The position under international law is that they are not. To see the problem with your suggestion, ask yourself whether you would see a statement that 'Jerusalem is not in Israel' (with an inline note that Israel contests that) as neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   20:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia is not working for the UN or 'the international community'." True. Then again, it's not working for Israel or its supporters either. Another editor's 'reality' might be what international law (which is determined by bodies such as the UN) is regarding sovereignty over Jerusalem. Stating that Jerusalem is in Israel or stating that Jerusalem is not in Israel would both be pushing points of view as fact, which is why Option 2, which ignores the question, is a neutral solution.
• "Wikipedia is supposed to state objective facts." Actually, Wikipedia is supposed to neutrally present what reliable sources say about particular topics. It's purpose is not to state "objective fact", the reason being that, as with sovereignty over Jerusalem, what constitutes the facts is often a matter of opinion. In Wikipedia terms, facts are assertions over which there is no dispute; everything else is an opinion. Claims that some opinions are objective fact tend to indicate that the editor making them doesn't understand, or is incapable of following, Wikipedia policy.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Jerusalem is under Israel's control and de facto in it's territory. Everybody agrees on that wether they like it or not. So that's what Wikipedia should state. The recognition by the international community is not our concern, just a footnote. Benjil (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as your facts go, the truth of the first is obvious, but I doubt that your assertion that everybody would agree on the second is true. What Wikipedia should state is a neutral distillation of what all reliable sources say and, though it obviously isn't to your liking, what a large proportion of those reliable sources will say will be affected by the legal situation as formulated by the international community. "The recognition by the international community is not our concern." Of course, there will probably be editors pushing the opposite point of view who would say, "What the Israelis claim is contrary to international law and should be disregarded." I should think that there are numbers of editors here who will regard themselves as being part of the international community and for whom the position of that community is not insignificant who will take your comments to the effect that only the Israeli "reality" matters as a sign of rather extreme ego-centrism. Since there are competing views, the neutral path, as required by Wikipedia policy, is to treat the differing views as opinions rather than facts. Trying to promote one point of view, in your arguments, the Israeli, as factual is not the way to go.     ←   ZScarpia   13:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Benjil just leave it, it's much more complicated than that and you both are arguing about nothing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 4 - I had not planned to !vote on this issue, and I realize that this RfC was begun with the very best of intentions, but I think no matter what consensus emerges here there will not be any reduction in the controversy Wikiwide. Some of the options will actually increase the controversy on many articles. Wikipedia will not (and should not) have any bearing on the controversy in the real world, and as long as that controversy exists, there will be no panacea on Wikipedia. Option 4 is the lesser of the evils. Sundayclose (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2, if I must give an opinion, and if not that, then Option 4. But ther RfC should never have been raised. In a very technically complex area, any legislative solution to impose a principle is only a recipé for confusion. Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 Irondome (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4. As bumpy as that road is, every other option is worse. But Nishidani is right: this RfC should never have been raised. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 - As others have said, this is the least bad option. PPX (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4 – Anarchy on the ground, anarchy on the wiki… — JFG ^talk 19:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 (or 4) The consensus view is that currently no country has sovereignty over Jerusalem (colloquially, that Jerusalem is not in any country). The RFC cited above has a good collection of sources in there to establish this, and it is also reflected in its end result. Having said that, a few countries (Russia, China and some others) do recognize East Jerusalem as part of the State of Palestine (while no countries recognize any part of Jerusalem as Israeli), but Option 2 overall is simpler. Option 4 is something I could also live with. --Dailycare (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Vote regarding independent replacement option

Note: I made no discussion section regarding the replacement option, because I expect the general discussion to cover this as well. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

If there is a consensus to place Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine, exactly how pervasive is that decision? I am concerned because biographical articles sometimes simply state Jerusalem without designating a country, which seems the most neutral way to handle it. For example, this has been the long-standing way it is done on Natalie Portman, who was born in Jerusalem and has Israeli citizenship. Occasionally IPs or new editors will add Israel, which is almost immediately reverted with the explanation that Wikipedia does not take a stand on the political controversy and simply states Jerusalem. What I want to avoid is opening a can of worms on such articles that have been relatively peaceful on this issue by remaining neutral. Let's say hypothetically a consensus develops that Israel is in Palestine. Do we have a knee-jerk reaction and change [[Jerusalem]] to [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]? If that happens, we then have a relatively non-contentious issue in an article erupt into major controversy. I hope someone can address this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is already a contentious issue, and what we seek to achieve here is to resolve the issue and reach a binding decision for all Wikipedia articles. The position which reflects reluctance to change articles is one of the options above. Debresser (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

An Unreliable source told me that Natalie Portman was born in a neighborhood in East Jerusalem. As I think, West Jerusalem should be referred as Israel and East Jerusalem should be referred as part of nothing and this is entirely NPOV. In articles such as "Natalie Portman" where there are no (reliable) sources of where she was born, the best is to keep it as "Jerusalem". The current arrangement seems to be good there and reflect NPOV, and achieved consensus here won't affect this article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: "The position which reflects reluctance to change articles is one of the options above": Unfortunately for other articles that is not the only option in the RfC. So you're saying that if the consensus is to place Jerusalem in Palestine we have to place Portman's birthplace as Jerusalem, Palestine? That will resolve nothing on that and similar articles. As I said, there will be an explosion of editors on that article who will fight it endlessly. I'm not personally taking a position on where Jerusalem is located, and if editors for this article want to put Palestine as the location of Jerusalem, so be it. But I think it is ill-considered to force that into every article, just as it would be ill-considered to force Israel into every article. There needs to be some limitation so that we don't resolve a problem on this article and create huge problems for other articles. I propose that this consensus apply only to this particular article or other articles specifically named in the consensus. Accordingly, I'm am creating an option below. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just guessing here: If Natalie Portman was born "in a neighborhood in East Jerusalem," I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the location was the Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. That facility is located on land that was east of the "main" Green Line—but was an Israeli exclave within Jordanian-administered territory during the entire period between 1948 and 1967. (See Hadassah Medical Center § Mount Scopus campus. The original campus of Hebrew University of Jerusalem is also in this enclave, as is the Arab neighborhood of Isawiya.) This suggests to me that there are unquestionably going to be at least some articles where you can't even pin it down to "West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem". StevenJ81 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Restriction of the above consensus

• Note The following proposal is not part of the original Rfc and factually contradicts its purpose. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The consensus that emerges from this discussion shall apply only to this article unless any other article is specifically named and approved in this or another consensus discussion. Please provide !votes below:

• Support this restriction for reasons that I stated above. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this article will certainly have no country listed next to it. The proposal is how to identify Jerusalem in other articles. Is a neighborhood in West Jerusalem part of Israel or not? That's why option 4 for me makes the most sense, it's on a case by case basis. Clearly Jerusalem is a hot issue and we shouldn't enact a Wiki wide policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Just for clarity, can you explain an "oppose" vote here if you think "we shouldn't enact a Wiki wide policy". Maybe I have misunderstood you, but an oppose vote means that we should have a Wikiwide policy, that it applies to all articles, and that all articles identify Jerusalem as being in Palestine if the consensus here is for Option 2?? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It was my reading of option 4 which basically leaves it up to the talk page of the specific article. So this page, which can't have a country for obvious reasons, is one thing, but a neighborhood in the far western part of Jerusalem (which as an aside was annexed by Jerusalem municipality just a few years ago, as Jerusalem grows) would have Jerusalem, Israel. And for the record, what I do instead of Jerusalem, Israel is Jerusalem, Israel.

Thanks for clarification. But am I correct in assuming that if Option 2 is the consensus that you are OK with requiring "Jerusalem, Palestine" in all articles? Sundayclose (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Option 2 is to remove all mentions of Israel and Palestine, so all articles will just show Jerusalem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This Rfc was specifically designed to reach consensus for the whole project. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Your offer is equivalent to option 4.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. It's equivalent to Option 4 only if Option 4 is the consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Can we hat this? An RFC is to have one question so as to avoid confusion later on. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect (and I understand your concern), but I don't see any evidence of confusion. This particular issue could easily have been an Option 5 (and I would not oppose that), but it was not my place to alter another editor's wording in the RfC. Hatting this section would reduce visibility and thus participation. If anyone appears confused, we can discuss this again. Editors are free to ignore this section, and the 4 options are presented well above this issue. Additionally, if you look at some of the discussion where I sought clarification, there are others who have concerns about birthplace in some articles. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC expired

Umm, for those of you reverting a bot that goes through and removed rfc tags after thirty days, the bot is going to continue doing that, and having the tag is not going to bring somebody to close it. I thought it might be funny for this to keep happening, but seeing an edit-war with a non-sentient being with the non-sentient being winning was not as funny as I thought it would be. You want to have an admin close it ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and leave the rfc tag off. nableezy - 21:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. I had already requested official closure of the Rfc there. However, I fail to understand how the bot "knows" to remove the template even after I remove the rfc-id. Debresser (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

timestamp in the signature following it. nableezy - 08:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

On a completely different topic ... can we promote this article to at least B-class?

Is this article really only C-class, after all the attention it gets, and with 419 distinct in-line references? Really? I could see where this article is just too politically hot to make it through a GA (not to mention FA) discussion. But C-class? I'd like a quick show of hands (include WikiProject[s] you work on) to see if people would be comfortable calling this B-class. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as proposer. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (WikiProjects: Judaism, Israel, and occasionally Geography)
• Support Much and varied information, many sources, no serious tags. I think it could go even higher than B-class. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support This is certainly a lot better than C class. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support It's well sourced and thorough. I've seen B-class articles worse than it. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Per arguments above. Such a topic deserve more than C.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs)
• Support as per proposer.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  Comment. Compared to the number of people who come here, six isn't a large number of votes. But it does cover at least a reasonable bit of the political spectrum as it relates to Jerusalem. So absent somebody's objection in the next 24 hours, I'm going to go ahead and push this up to B-class. (I'm personally not going to try to push it higher than that. As I recall the discussion that demoted this from FA a while back, one of the problems was that this page had ongoing political and POV controversies. Anyone see that stopping any time soon? ) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

   Done StevenJ81 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Shuafat, (pre)historically, is NOT Jerusalem

As I have written to the editor who first reverted the separation between "AGE / Shuafat" and "AGE / City of David and J'lem proper":
"Some smart newspaper guy - or municipality PR smart... donkey - made up the line "Jerusalem's age pushed back: now 7000 years old". BS. Shuafat has only been "included" (pro forma, administratively) into J'lem after 1967. Not 7k, 6k, 5k, 4k, 3k, 2k, 1k, 500 years ago, or 100 years ago - no, hardly 50. Finding Chalcolithic or other prehistoric traces in Shuafat and basing a new "birthday" for J'lem on that is... it starts with "bull" and ends beneath his tail."
I can rephrase that, but the truth remains the same: Jerusalem as a historical city that has grown organically out of the first settlement next to the Gihon Spring has its own (pre)history, which has NOTHING to do with Shuafat. Shuafat was administratively added to the municipality of Jerusalem AFTER 1967 (b.t.w., this has not been recognised internationally), the fact that Shuafat's prehistoric settlement is far older than Jerusalem's does in no way make Jerusalem older. Cairo growing as much as to include Gizeh does not make the pyramids part of Cairo's history.
If anyone wishes to deny such basic logic, I won't waste any more time with arguing on this topic. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The distance between Shuafat and Old Jerusalem is less than 3km, the distance between old Cairo and the Pyramids is over 11km. Just because Jerusalem diminished to the Old City throughout history doesn't mean that the the extent of Jerusalem in 1947 is the historical extent of Jerusalem and all archeological founding related to Jerusalem can be found only there. Shuafat is part of the archeological human settlement in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the city but around Jerusalem there were and are villages so Shuafat very will be in this article. Jerusalem's 1st century population was estimated at 80,000-600,000 so I think it is safe to say the the city's extent was very close to where is today shuafat and every human settlement there had connection with the city.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Shuafat is Jerusalem area. It is definitely not Jerusalem, not now and even more so in older ages. I think this should be removed form here. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Again I say, Shuafat is only less than 3km from the old city. Any human settlement there, especially 7,000 years, much be in that article. Tell es-Sultan which is actually "ancient Jericho" which gives Jericho the title "the oldest town in the world" is actually 2.6km from the center of Jericho, which was the only part of the village some 130 years ago (per Survery of West Palestine map). So we should remove any reference to ancient Jericho from modern Jericho because it is actually historically 2.6km from modern Jericho? Shuafat is today part of Jerusalem and this article discusses Jerusalem today. Removing neighborhoods becuase they weren't historically part of Jerusalem is like removing references to ancient Jericho from modern Jericho becuase historically the village was established far away from ancient Jericho.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and change my mind. It was not in Jerusalem then, but is now, so should be in this article. But the way this was placed in the lead suggests that Jerusalem is as old, and that is misleading. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

a) see heading: Shuafat, (pre)historically, is NOT Jerusalem
b) check the Shuafat lead: "about three miles north of the Old City", and Google maps (https://www.google.com/maps/place/31%C2%B048'55.0%22N+35%C2%B013'48.0%22E/@31.7916441,35.2221465,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d31.815278!4d35.23?hl=en): some 5 km from center of Sh. to CoD AS THE CROW FLIES, which is not the right way. If 5 or 11 km is irrelevant, clearly 2 distinct settlements - they didn't have tramway in the Chalcolithic period, for crying out loud!
Debresser, we're this time in full agreement - relevant enough to leave the info somewhere within the article, but not in the lead, and not as the age of Jerusalem, but of an entity now admin'ly included by Israel into J'lem municipality. Let's put it to rest and leave it as it is. ArmindenArminden (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Addition to the lead

@Irondome:, regarding my revert of your revert, cus the edit summary wasnt long enough, but this material was added without discussion just 3 days ago. There was an RFC that was mandated by the Arbitration Committee and is binding for at least another few weeks. Part of what was binding was no one may add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead. nableezy - 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I just finished a brief note on your talkpage Nableezy. Stick it here for the whole pedia to see if you want. It is a rare instance of someone admitting they were wrong. Regards Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sourced, relevant, neutrally worded. The Rfc is expiring. The Rfc avoided the issue. All in all, ample reason to keep this addition. By the way, is there anything you think is wrong with the text, apart from bureaucratic arguments? Debresser (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not neutrally worded, it is unnecessary, the RFC is binding for more than another month. All in all, actual reasons not to include it. And, fyi, binding means an obligation that cannot be broken. nableezy - 22:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"to which Israel is seen as having a legitimate claim to sovereignty" is sourced to a quote saying that Israel's claim to sovereignty in the west is stronger than it's claims in the east...evidently no source could actually be found to back up such text. The added information was unnecessary and also very unbalanced as nothing was added on Palestine's claim to sovereignty. Sepsis II (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Can't we all act sensibly on this, and take the Arbcom ruling as dictated by good sense, and only worth breaking when, if ever, some fresh political arrangement by the two parties breaks the deadlock and sets out terms that, mutually agreed to, allow us to drop POV manouevering and battling, and simply transcribe what a final negotiation determines. I suggest all those of good will endorse a maintenance of the relevant textual status quo beyond the term of expiry. If you don't, I'll be heavily investing in suppository company stocks, which are bound to rocket when the 3 years of peace here expires, and the invariably pain-in-the arse POV warring resumes, giving all participants cerebral hemorrhoids.Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I would leave it Dov. I reverted, but I had a cup of Tea and by that time it had been reverted by N. I re-read it, and do you know, it is actually better. It notes that neither party has much or any international support. It's good NPOV. Lets leave it and continue the gradual detente which appears to be growing and the colleageate discussions which are now becoming far more common in this area from my observations. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The name is Dovid, by the way. I have made my point, and am fine with leaving this article with or without that paragraph at this time, if only because of that Rfc. At the same time, I do think this issue should be revisited and clarified in the near future, and I the text that was recently added is good. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended you Dovid. Irondome (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I just wanted to clarify what my name actually is. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no need to change the lead just because the RFC will expire soon. If there was another RFC all the arguments and sources would be the same and the result would remain the same. Perhaps we should ask for a 3 year extension considering this. Sepsis II (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

A consensus that was time-limited, can not simply be "extended". The subject is up for discussion, and we might as well start it here and now. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that consensus is supposed to be established by the strength of the arguments not as the result of a vote, with arguments based in policy having a greater weight, it will be interesting to see how claims for a change of consensus are handled.     ←   ZScarpia   10:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it can. Let's extend it. The facts on the ground haven't changed over the last 3 years, the same arguments remain true. If there was another RFC I would just copy and paste my old comments. Sepsis II (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, what had a time limit was the RFC being binding, meaning modifications to the lead in violation of the RFC should bring sanctions for those 3 years. Consensus doesnt, and you would need to show that consensus has changed before making changes to the article. Good luck with that. nableezy - 19:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No problems here. That is more or less the same as what I was saying. On the other hand it can be argued, that consensus that was enforced, is less of a consensus, because the natural process of consensus confirmation was forcibly interrupted. Either way, I agree that some consensus has to be shown for any serious changes can be made. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it cant be argued, because an RFC is an explicit method of determining consensus, unlike the sneak an edit in and wait a few days hope nobody notices and then claim the edit has consensus modus operandi of unnamed editors. nableezy - 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If the consensus had been challenged over those three years, and been upheld time and again, it would be another story, but a consensus reached three years ago, that stands only because of an arbitrary decision made three years ago to not allow changes, has no real backing. I am not saying it can be dismissed out of hand, but it certainly does not enjoy the same degree of consensus as in the first case. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The RFC was binding because we are all sick of people trying to add in their biases every month and going to the talk page and arguing constantly that there is no consensus, consensus can change, blah, blah, blah. For the third time show us the reason you believe consensus will change or drop it and stop wasting our time. Sepsis II (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

lol, I think you seriously misunderstand how things were put together. The basis for consensus on the lead having the formulation that it does (Israel and Palestine see it as their capital, neither claim has gained international recognition, dont say its in Israel or its in Palestine) was the RFC. Regardless of it being binding for 3 years or not, the RFC is what determined consensus on this issue. ArbCom, due to this perennially being edit-warred over, made that consensus unchallengeable for 3 years. That is coming to an end, and you are free to challenge it. However, the consensus is what it was until it changes, and you will need to demonstrate that it has changed. There was no arbitrary decision, there was a close by uninvolved administrators of an ArbCom mandated RFC. Im not going to waste any more time dealing with this completely pointless discussion about process, because this is a talk page for an encyclopedia article and as such discussion about the article is what should happen on this page, not talking about your idiosyncratic views on strength of consensus, whatever that is supposed to mean. nableezy - 22:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to admit my point, if you feel that would diminish you in any way. Still, it is true in and of itself. That indeed does not detract from the fact that it is consensus, as you righly point out. Debresser (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)