Talk:Jerusalem

Niqqud usage in Hebrew name?

I noticed that the Hebrew in the first sentence is written with Niqqud (vowels), but the version at the top of the Infobox is not. I'm curious as to why the difference and whether it should be made consistent. This is weaker than an edit request. I am *perfectly* happy to see if left the way it is if there is a reason. I don't know Arabic well enough to tell whether the Arabic in the article is written with or without the diacritics or even if the name in Arabic needs them.Naraht (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead edits

Tombah, please read the informational box at the top of this page regarding lead edits. Most importantly the bit that As the results of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem regarding the article's lead represent the community's consensus at a well-attended discussion, a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. Editors editing the lead without consensus from an RfC are subject to sanctions such as page or topic bans or being blocked from editing. Reverts of blatant and obvious vandalism or edits made in violation of this sanction are exempt from this restriction. nableezy - 14:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Add flag image "Al-Quds_flag.svg"

Al-Quds flag (Flag of Arabic Jerusalem)

and emblem image "Al-Quds_star.svg"

Al-Quds star (Emblem of Arabic Jerusalem)

Kxeon (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Where would I do that??? Kxeon (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You're in the right place, I'm thinking about it, other editors may also respond. The two emblems that are there seem to be "Israeli" somehow? Seems partial at first glance given that Israeli claims to Jerusalem are not generally accepted.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That flag at right is not "official", right? Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The flag in the article is Flag of Jerusalem, "made the "flag of a united Jerusalem" following the Six-Day War in 1967". Hum. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's not selectively quote. From the same article: "The flag was adopted in 1949 " And So It (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I linked the article, besides, no "Jerusalem" then, just the so called New City (West Jerusalem). Selfstudier (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The municipality of Jerusalem most certainly existed in 1949, and this was its flag. And So It (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There was the Old City of Jerusalem, different municipality. Selfstudier (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Old City had a municipality. And So It (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The description of the proposed addition says this is a "Hypothetical flag of al-Quds ". As such, it does not belong in the article And So It (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the Israeli flags/emblems don't belong in it either? Selfstudier (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

They are not "hypothetical", so no, your comparison is not apt. And So It (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Partial was the argument I made not whether they are "official". Selfstudier (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't quite parse what you are saying, but my point is that actual, existing , official flags and emblems are not the same as "hypothetical", so they can't be treated the same, and this change request should be denied. And So It (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The change request gave rise to this discussion but any change does not have to reflect the actual request, the change might be other, like deleting the images there now. Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Which I have now done, it is not a NPOV to include images as if there were uncontested control of Jerusalem by Israel when the international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

OP, the correct response is deletion of the imagery there not additional imagery of dubious merit intended to offset the prior imagery. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether the international community approves of it or not, the municipality's flag is in fact what is in the article; You should not made that change without consensus. And So It (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

Please restore the flag and seal of the municipality, which have been in the article for years, and were removed without consensus to do so . And So It (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CCC and I have challenged the inclusion of this material on the grounds that it is not WP:NPOV to include this imagery (see Status of Jerusalem). Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you have challenged it, but have not shown that you have consensus for this change. Please restore it, and we can discuss your request. And So It (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS lies with those seeking to include disputed content. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This "disputed" material has been on this article for at least ten years now; please restore it and seek consensus on this change. Tombah (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

ONUS overrides QUO. I have cited reasons for challenging the material, QUO is insufficient by way of rebuttal as is "ridiculous". Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted this. ONUS doesn't apply to content that clearly has enjoyed consensus for years. Sure WP:CCC, but it's up to you to show that it has, not unilaterally change it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The flag was added silently on 24 April 2010 as a part of an edit changing Infobox Israel municipality to Infobox settlement. At best this edit has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or is subject to WP:SILENCE ie the weakest form of consensus, there was no active discussion at the time afaics. I am not able to verify by reference to any policy that QUO supersedes ONUS when material is challenged with valid reasons (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 68#WP:ONUS vs.WP:QUO and current discussions at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#The meaning of the CURRENT text at ONUS (survey) appear to suggest the contrary).

Nevertheless, I will wait a while to see if there are any further comments before starting an RFC to "prove the negative" (ie Should those seeking to remove/exclude the material be required to explain why the material does not belong). Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont see how any edit that does not have a consensus besides silence is not subject to ONUS. Beyond that, we have a very large RFC establishing that we will not say Jerusalem is Israeli (or Palestinian), only that there are varying views on its status. The flag lays claim where we have, by consensus, said Wikipedia will not make that claim. nableezy - 17:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

One would imagine that the article should either display both POV insignias, the lion thingy and Quds star above, or neither - and probably not in the infobox, but in some separate section on Israeli and Palestinian insignia for the city, since, duh, disputed territory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you missed the fact that the flag containing the Rub el Hizb is hypothetical - it is not real, and not in use by any official Palestinian municipality. The two sets of images are not on equal footing. And So It (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well the lion thingy is theoretical as applied to both West and East Jerusalem, since, again, disputed. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not theoretical at all - it is in use today, by Israel, for all of Jerusalem. You may not like it, the international community may frown on it, but it is in fact used for the entire city. And So It (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Needles to say, flying a flag over occupied territory does not alter the disputed nature of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did not say otherwise. The dispute is well covered in the article. And So It (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I have no opinion one way or the other, other than that 12 years of silent consensus suggests there should be some discussion before changing in a contentious article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I gave two options, the other being to display neither. Displaying one POV is the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Treating a fictional symbol the same as an actual one is not really an option. And So It (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's odd to claim WP:SILENCE after 12(!!!) years of seeing this symbol at the top of this article. The so-called "Quds star" is probably hypothetical. It may never have existed outside the digital world, and even the most enthusiastic activists in East Jerusalem may never have heard of it. On the other hand, the lion symbol stands out as one of the most recognizable symbols of Jerusalem, no less than the Dome of the Rock, the Western Wall, or the Tower of David. It is present everywhere in Jerusalem, from official buildings to public services to official events to schools and even manhole covers. Yes, even in East Jerusalem. This symbol is likely to be encountered by readers who visit Jerusalem at some point in the future. General knowledge shouldn't be compromised to avoid offending anyone. Tombah (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless you can show some discussion with some level of participation equal to what we are seeing here now you cant claim an established consensus for this. Regardless, Im arguing on the merits here. You are welcome to join me in doing that. nableezy - 18:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok first off forget the supposed Palestinian flag, I agree that doesnt belong in anything calling itself an encyclopedia article. See WP:MADEUP. There is no argument about equal treatment here that is any way valid, a pretend flag is not the equivalent of the actual flag Israel uses. But the Israeli flag is laying claim to Jerusalem as an Israeli city, and we by established consensus do not do that in this article. It can be in the article, but it should not be shown as "the flag of Jerusalem" (or Coat of Arms) because that is in fact calling it an Israeli city. nableezy - 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't actually realised that the flag above was totally made up when I made the suggestion. I tend to make the good faith assumption that people aren't intentionally uploading completely unsourced crap all of the time, especially on Commons, which filters out a bit of the crud. But yes, not an option. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether the international community approves of it or not, the municipality is in fact administered by Israel, with those symbols. This is no different than listing the mayor of the city as Moshe Lion - elected by Israeli citizens. Or for that matter, having an article , complete with flags, for non-recognized entities like Northern Cyprus. And So It (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That is avoiding the point. The point is that we, per this extremely well attended RFC, do not claim that the "municipality" is in Israel. Prominently displaying an Israeli flag, which is a claim of sovereignty, and coat of arms does that. That violates that established consensus. nableezy - 19:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that displaying the municipality's flag or seal does this anymore than saying the mayor is Leon - it is just informational. Compare with North Nicosia - its administration is not recognized by the international community, yet the article displays its city seal. And So It (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea who created that seal, who imposed it, or when, nor am I aware of a consensus against saying that North Nicosia is not in Norther Cyprus, whereas I am aware of such a consensus against saying Jerusalem is in Israel. nableezy - 19:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

and as I wrote above, showing the municipality's flag is not saying that it is in Israel, that's just your opinion. And So It (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

showing the municipality's flag is not saying that it is in Israel The borders of the municipality include the 1967 Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem . That's not opinion. Flag (and the emblem within it as well shown separately) need to be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That is the flag of the municipality, just like Leon is its mayor. And So It (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That is the flag of a "municipality" as defined by Israel. nableezy - 22:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just like the mayor. And So It (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That should probably be removed from the infobox as well. Good point. nableezy - 23:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

So, there's an article for all this: Jerusalem Municipality - that's where this information can all be shelved. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The seal on the North Nicosia article, FWIW, is from 1958, so actually predates the division of the city. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• The Israeli proclaimed flag, Israeli proclaimed coat of arms and Israeli proclaimed "mayor" must be removed from the infobox. Israel is occupying the entire city with force and Israeli claims of sovereignty over the city is rejected by the vast majority of the international community. To have Israeli proclaimed symbols and titles in the infobox, we would be presenting the Israeli claims as a "truth". This is a clear violation of npov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is recognized by many, including both US and Russia. However, that doesn't matter as the municipality, duly elected by the residents of Jerusalem, is separate from Israel. The seal and flag of the municipality belongs, just like it belongs in all other city articles. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is recognized by many, including both US and Russia False. See Status of Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  You are denying US recognition? Also Australia and several other states. Not that it matters, the municipality is separate from the state. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  US recognition of what? Please get your facts straight. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  As for the statement the municipality.....is separate from Israel see Jerusalem Law

  Amendment no. 1 (passed by the Knesset on 27 November 2000):

  Area of the jurisdiction of Jerusalem

  5. The jurisdiction of Jerusalem includes, as pertaining to this basic law, among others, all of the area that is described in the appendix of the proclamation expanding the borders of municipal Jerusalem beginning the 20th of Sivan 5727 (28 June 1967), as was given according to the Cities' Ordinance.

  Prohibition of the transfer of authority

  6. No authority that is stipulated in the law of the State of Israel or of the Jerusalem Municipality may be transferred either permanently or for an allotted period of time to a foreign body, whether political, governmental or to any other similar type of foreign body.

  Entrenchment

  7. Clauses 5 and 6 shall not be modified except by a Basic Law passed by a majority of the members of the Knesset.

  It is clear that the municipality was created by and its continued existence guaranteed by the State of Israel. QED. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. The Jerusalem municipality existed prior to 2000, prior to 1967, and prior to 1948 for that matter. The Jerusalem Old Town Hall was used continuous by the municipality from 1930 to 1993 until replaced by a new building. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This article covers the entire territory of both western Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. By consensus, we do not say it is in Israel or Israeli. The seal and flag do that. nableezy - 19:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• It clearly says above "the proclamation expanding the borders of municipal Jerusalem beginning the 20th of Sivan 5727 (28 June 1967)" + see Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem defining the borders by way of an illegal annex, in contravention of UN resolutions, which is the reason why it is non-NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, again, the right place for an infobox containing these emblems is just that: Jerusalem Municipality. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't seem to be the case for any other city article, which all use the city's flag and seal (if any) in the city article's infobox, not the municipality article. And So It (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I guess this isn't just any other city article. Huh. How about that. I wonder what differentiates it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't put much stake in special pleadings. And So It (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well then stop with the special reasons to entirely ignore the import of international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to break it to you, but international law does not govern how wikipedia articles are written. I am not the one making special pleadings why this article should be written differntly than other city articles, including articles about cities with disputed sovereignty. The disputed sovereignty is far from ignored - it is covered in this article, but has no bearing on the displaying of the city's flag. And So It (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  international law does not govern how wikipedia articles are written It has a lot to do with it in this case. Nor is "sovereignty is disputed" a correct description of the situation, search for the word "disputed" in the section dealing with sovereignty and political status. Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  International law's relevancy to the political status of Jerusalem is covered in the article, but it does not govern how wikipedia articles are written. And So It (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is why we do not say (or imply) Israeli or Palestinian. Which is exactly what this discussion is about. Selfstudier (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This argument makes zero sense, please refer to every single other disputed city in a disputed country, and none are treated this way. Israel has complete and total control over Jerusalem, just like Kosovo does over Pristina. The country is stated as Kosovo (which nearly half of UN members do not even recognize) with a footnote stating that Serbia controls it. The Mayor is simply stated, not "Kosovar mayor" as if there is also a Serbian mayor. And there is no issue showing the seal and flag of the city. This is not a somehow unique case of a country controlling disputed areas, it happens all over the world. Bill Williams 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Or a country with even less support, North Nicosia is the capital of North Cyprus, which only Turkey and nobody else recognizes. Yet notice the seal is there without dispute, and the mayor is simply stated, not "North Cypriot mayor". Bill Williams 21:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I can list out numerous disputed capitals: Taipei is only recognized by less than a dozen countries as Taiwan's territory, Tifariti of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which almost only African nations recognize as independent, I could go on and on. There is zero issue with having the seal and coat of arms as well as the mayor in the infobox of this article. It has not been an issue on a single other article. Bill Williams 21:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

We already have a consensus on not saying Jerusalem is in Israel or in Palestine, that it is neither's sovereign territory. You can go on and on about things that do not have that consensus, so it is not relevant. These arguments about Israeli has complete control were already rejected in a [[widely attended RFC that was mandated by ArbCom. The view that this control, known to nearly the entire world as a military occupation of at least the eastern portion of what we cover here, makes it so this city is Israeli already has consensus against it. nableezy - 21:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Israel has complete and total control over Jerusalem, there is zero dispute over that. Your dispute is that its military occupation means it is not an Israeli city, but this is completely irrelevant. Its military occupation is the same as Morocco's over Western Sahara or North Cyprus over North Nicosia, yet once again, the capital of the Sahrawi Republic and North Cyprus both show the seal and the mayor. Every one of the article I listed is significantly disputed, with many countries not recognizing the sovereignty of the country over its proclaimed capital. Guess what, every single one of those articles states in the infobox that it is disputed, yet they also show the seal and the mayor of the city. You are disagreeing with basic facts, as the city has a mayor, a person who runs its day to day government, and pretending like it doesn't is not benefiting any readers. Bill Williams 21:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Also using a nine year old RfC is not exactly a convincing argument. Can you provide me with your own argument as to why a dozen other capitals of disputed countries show their seal and mayor, but this article cannot?Bill Williams 21:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Other crap exists is not an argument because the situation is not the same. Please explain precisely what is the disagreement with the 9 year old RFC? It reached the wrong conclusion? It should be done again? Or what? Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that is crap is your nonsensical propaganda against Israel. Once again, signaling it out compared to every single other disputed country is absurd. Find me a single quote from the nine year old RfC that states this article cannot show the mayor or seal of Jerusalem in the infobox. Instead of asking irrelevant rhetorical questions, why don't you tell me why your bias allows you to single out this article in opposition to the norms that govern Wikipedia. You are treating this differently from the infobox of any other city article (of the tens of thousands on this site). Bill Williams 22:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Also the biggest irony is that the mayor and seal have been in the infobox before that RfC, 10 years ago, and you suddenly felt the need to remove it and violate a decade of consensus. Bill Williams 22:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Not noticing something is not the equivalent of agreeing to it. Again, youre continuing to discuss other cities that do not have the consensus we have here, that is we do not say that Jerusalem is in Israel or is an Israeli city. The flag, imposed by Israel and based on the Israeli flag, clearly does that. I am not asking any pointless irrelevant questions. Nobody is disputing Israel controls all of Jerusalem. That control is called a military occupation, at least for a large portion if not the majority of what we cover here, and that means that this territory is not in Israel and is not Israeli. There is no insane bias in that. The norms that govern this article, like any other, are WP:NPOV and WP:CON, among others. And we already have a consensus that it is not neutral to give the Israeli claim to Jerusalem as a fact. And that is what the flag does. I am not opposed to including it somewhere as the Israeli flag for Jerusalem. But claiming it is the flag of Jerusalem is giving the Israeli claim as a fact. And we already have consensus against that. Its the same bs argument "any other country is allowed to pick its capital" that was already widely rejected in that aforementioned RFC. You can pretend things are equal to other cities, but they are not. And unless you would like somebody to discuss your insane bias that allows you to have Wikipedia endorse war crimes, kindly dont discuss what you perceive to be other editors failings on article talk pages. nableezy - 04:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The only one endorsing war crimes (Personal attack removed) You can accuse me of having "insane bias" and "endorsing war crimes" but I'm simply applying the same rules to this article as the thousands of other city articles. Anyway, North Nicosia is under military occupation by North Cyprus, yet it is treated the same as this article, with the seal and mayor in the infobox. The same is true for every other disputed country and Israel is not some magical country that differs from every other. Nobody is arguing that those other disputed countries are controversial or military occupiers, and the Mayor of Jerusalem is the one controlling it, there is zero dispute that he has authority, and pretending like he does not is only misleading to readers. Bill Williams 12:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats interesting. Ill give you a bit to refactor that, given I didnt accuse you of anything, only said you need to stop discussing other editors here. To follow it up with another personal attack is just dumbfounding. And tat argument you making, already been lost. We already have consensus on this. And oh, illegally changing the laws of an occupied territory is a war crime. And the word Hezbollah doesnt appear on my page, and nowhere have I said I enjoy watching terrorists bomb innocent people. Read and internalize WP:NPA, refactor that comment, and we can continue. Otherwise will see how AE admins feel about that level of discourse. nableezy - 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you just lost the moral and intellectual high-ground there, mate. Way to lower the tone. And Nicosia isn't occupied by Northern Cyprus, it is entirely populated by northern Cypriots. Apples and oranges. I don't think there are any direct parallels to Jerusalem, where a bullying military power is clearly occupying a part of city while actively attempting to displace its population. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

North Nicosia is under an illegal military occupation according to international law and the international community. The reason in is entirely populated by Turkish Cypriots is that the Greek Cypriots were expelled - a war crime. Stop making excuses for this. And So It (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Well you're welcome to go over to that page and start a consensus-forming RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

what? that page is written in a way consistent with other pages- it displays the seal of the city of Nicosia, reflecting the entire city, even though the Northern half is occupied. And So It (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The other crap argument has already been lost at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. nableezy - 14:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

thanks for linking to that discussion. I haven't read the whole thing , yet, but I think I read enough to see that you've been trying to pull the wool over our eyes with repeated references to it, when its summary clearly says it is valid for only 3 years, and all its conclusions expired six years ago. You can start a new one if you'd like. And So It (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

lol read the top of this talk page for the page notice on a discretionary sanction in place to this day. Yes, the ironclad lead was binding for 3 years. The consensus however remains, and it is incumbent on you to show that it has changed. Well, on the people qualified to comment in the RFC, and that aint you. Toodaloo, nableezy - 21:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with this page. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I knew I should have just closed this as needs consensus. Now it's a whole thing, and it's escalating. Sorry everybody. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I dont think you did anything wrong, and I would caution anybody removing it, but if this ends with no consensus my view of the process would be it gets removed, not stays. But in the interim I think its fine you restored it. nableezy - 04:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to remove something that's been in the article for over 10 years, it stays. And So It (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's already been said, and it's still not correct. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

ONUS > QUO unless there was an active consensus to add in the first place and even then if the argument against inclusion is strong enough, which in this case it is due to the (very) active consensus not to include this sort of material anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You've already said that, and were told it was wrong by the administrator who reverted your out-of-process removal of the flag But to repeat: "ONUS doesn't apply to content that clearly has enjoyed consensus for years. " And So It (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Is SFR an administrator? "ONUS doesn't apply to content that clearly has enjoyed consensus for years." We have clearly demonstrated that is not the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

He is not. Also for the record an editor with 170 edits may not particpate in the below RFC, so time to say fare thee well. nableezy - 15:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That was my opinion, and my reasoning behind my revert. A lot of discussion has happened since then, obviously. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Funny how an editor with 170 edits is so sure of our policies. But no, WP:ONUS requires consensus for challenged material. This has been challenged. nableezy - 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it right to leave the question of the theoretically expired RFC hanging? It seems unreasonable that such a well attended consensus can be just dismissed/ignored by commentators. Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The RFC hasn't actually expired though - only the absolutely binding "3yr no changes to the lead" clause. The principle stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Overly long lead

The lead is fairly clearly too long, and also poorly reflects the balance of the content in the article. The third paragraph, which is on religious and cultural significance, is the most obviously undue. Religious significance is a tiny section in this article, as there is a standalone Religious significance of Jerusalem page. So, unless anyone strenuously objects and provides a reason why the MOS:LEAD guideline should not be followed, I plan on reducing the presence of this material in the lead quite dramatically. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Should the infobox contain this flag and emblem?

Images under consideration
Flag Coat of arms

Should the infobox contain the pictured flag and emblem?

• Yes
• No

15:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No in the infobox, sure in the article - per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem Wikipedia does not state for either Israel or Palestine that the city of Jerusalem is either in their territory or an Israeli or Palestinian city. The flag given in the infobox does exactly that. It states that, as a fact, this is the flag of Jerusalem, when it is strictly an Israeli flag that lays claim to the city. It is already consensus that we do not do that in this article, and it is straightforward NPOV violation to do so with the flag when by established consensus we do not do so in the text. By all means, in a section on the Israeli conquest and later occupation and its effective (illegal) annexation of East Jerusalem, include the flag as an Israeli flag. But just claiming Jerusalem as an Israeli city is unacceptable for Wikipedia to do, and we already have consensus on that. nableezy - 15:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  There are a bunch arguments that are directly at odds with both the article and our NPOV policy. Assertions that Jerusalem is an Israeli city are flatly contradicted by already established consensus, and our article very specifically does not say Jerusalem is an Israeli city, or a city in Israel. The infobox is meant to, per WP:INFOBOX, to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. There is no reading of this article that supports the idea that Jerusalem is an Israeli city besides covering in part an area recognized as being in Israel and, in larger part, an area that is recognized as being in the occupied Palestinian territories. There is no summary of this article that supports the contention that Jerusalem is an Israeli city, or that the symbols the occupying power has imposed on it should be treated as, under NPOV, the flag and symbol of Jerusalem. The WP:OCE, while facially appearing substantive (like many other logical fallacies), falls on its own weight. None of those articles have a consensus against describing the city as being in such and such place. We do have such a consensus here. And the infobox cant just circumvent that. nableezy - 18:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• No - despite the different heading, I largely agree with Nableezy that it would be inappropriate in the infobox, if only because of the sheer amount of history encapsulated (let alone political considerations). In a section on Israeli rule would seem appropriate to me. I do kind of like the idea of a flag that incorporates the notion of Qere and Ketiv. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC) (edited after RFC altered)
• Yes, only in the body of the article As per Nableezy, WP in no way can acknowledge this as "official", but it seems certainly reasonable in talking about Israel's claim to governance that this is the flag they claim represents the city. The caption for that needs to be 100% clear to the non-official nature of that. --Masem (t) 15:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• No given the binary question related to the infobox. Absolutely doesn't belong there as it would make WP claim a side in the PI issue. --Masem (t) 15:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• No. This violates NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• No per the prior stated RFC. The wording of the lede is chosen so carefully in respect for neutrality, and as such including this flag in the infobox literally shatters all that because it is de facto taking a side. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• No because this is clearly not NPOV - this would be the case even without the explicit RFC clarifying the position on Jerusalem. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• (summoned by bot) No - Per User:Nableezy. NickCT (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• No since it's an obvious NPOV violation to symbolically endorse Israel's claims in the Israel-Palestine dispute. NightHeron (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Although I can understand why some editors would prefer to see this as a NPOV violation, there are times when we simply need to reflect the reality on the ground. The reality is that Israel controls the entire city, and the lion symbol stands out as one of the most recognizable symbols of Jerusalem, no less than the Dome of the Rock, the Western Wall, or the Tower of David. This symbol can be found all over Jerusalem, including on numerous governmental structures, at numerous public gatherings and tourist destinations, as well as on infrastructure and even manhole covers. I consider any efforts to remove it to be censorship. We can't keep information from our readers; we just have to trust them and let them think for themselves. Tombah (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Removing it from the infobox is absolutely not censorship. That's a problematic view to bring up. The choice by consensus to exclude information cannot be considered censorship since there's still other places on the Internet that have it. Masem (t) 18:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Seems a bit hyperbolic for a 1950 municipal emblem - the article Emblem of Jerusalem doesn't quite live up to that praise. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Per prior RFC and long-standing consensus, consistency with WP, and just reality. This was not covered in the 2013 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, but it seems implicitly accepted by that and it’s own long-standing consensus since they were in there for a few years prior and nine years following that RFC. They are in WP anyway as Flag of Jerusalem and File:Emblem of Jerusalem.svg so it seems just consistent that they are here. Plus reality seems they are the only flag and emblem for the city. If one would be very precise, the flag title might be “Flag of the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem”, and if there is any Palesinian flag specific to the city (i.e. not just generic Palestinian) then show it also. Do not fail to provide anything. And really I just don’t see this as the concern stated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, it would be extremely non neutral to exclude the official symbols of the municipality and the city of Jerusalem out of the article or its infobox. Noon (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• No The current Jerusalem municipality was created when Israel dissolved the East Jerusalem Municipality (Amanat al-Quds) on 21 June 1967, a few days after imposing Israeli law in East Jerusalem and extending the West Jerusalem municipality to include annexed East Jerusalem in contravention of UN resolutions. Subsequently a wall found to be illegal by the International Court of Justice was built around the newly created municipal border. The municipality seizes/demolishes Palestinian property as well as authorizing new Israeli settlements on occupied territory in flagrant disregard of international law. It is the face of the Israel claim to sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the inclusion of its flag in the article infobox is a non NPOV statement of that claim. This argument is on the merits alone but the prior consensus on Jerusalem in addition makes it clear that saying a thing is Israeli or Palestinian in Jerusalem is in any case not NPOV.. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  Wrong. The Jerusalem municipality is a direct continuation of the British Mandate municipality, and existed prior to 1967 and prior to 1948. The municipality operated continuously from the Jerusalem Old Town Hall from 1930 to 1993, when it relocated to a larger building. The municipal elements of the eastern part of the city were fully merged and integrated into the municipality, and the municipality is responsible for all municipal services throughout the city, there is only one trash collection service. The same garbage trucks pick up track in the east as they do in the rest of the city. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  Even though 38% of the city’s total population live in East Jerusalem, the municipality only makes 7% of dumpsters and 6% of garbage disposal routes available to East Jerusalemites.

  Palestinian residents of Jerusalem receive less than 10% of Jerusalem Municipality’s budget; Jewish Israeli residents (most of whom live in West Jerusalem) receive more than 90%. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, Jerusalem municipality is under Israeli rule, this is reality. According to Palestinian claim even Jaffa and Haifa are "Zionist-occupied city", so will we remove all Israeli municipalities? This is the anti-NPOV thing to do. MathKnight 19:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It would be no natural and very not neutral to single out Jerusalem as the sole city without the municipal flag and coat of arms. Much more contested cities, like Taipei, have them. The municipality has nothing to do with Israeli control, it provides municipal services throughout the city. The reality in the city is that this is the logo you will see on municipal buildings or on garbage trucks, where the lion tosses garbage into a dumpster. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• No per Curbon7. No one is disputing the reality of full Israeli control of Jerusalem (as well as most of the West Bank for that matter) or that the Israeli municipality administers the city (hence of course one would find the flag and seal all over town). It is Israeli sovereignty that is missing, at least regarding the eastern half, including the Old City. And finally, no one seems to be disputing inclusion of the flag and seal in a more appropriate section of the article — nothing pertinent is being censored. Removal from the infobox keeps the Lead in line with the referenced RfC. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - Wikipedia must display the de-facto information of real world regardless political recognition. We have plenty of articles on unrecognized and partially recognizes subjects, such as Transnistria, and they have their de facto insignia in Wikipedia articles. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - its the de-facto symbols of the city. Wikipedia should relfect the reality. I believe that not including it will be not neutral stand. Sokuya (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes for the official symbols of the government of Jerusalem. Palestine controls nothing, nor does it have stronger de jure claims to the entire city. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Eladkarmel (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• No - I see WP:NPOV (neutrality) issues if we include it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per the arguments made by User:Loew Galitz et al about the treatment of other contested places. Also, WP:NPOV warns us about false balance arising from giving equal validity to all viewpoints. In this case, it is easy to see that almost invariably the "emblem/coat of arms of Jerusalem" refers to the "lion thingy." Alaexis_¿question? 11:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• No Who are we to take sides? Should we also place a Russian flag in the lead of the Crimea article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. I support leaving the flag and emblem. They are all over the city. That is the reality, regardless of the argument about Jerusalem's political status. Atbannett (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

And Russian flags are on government buildings in Simferopol, the capital of Crimea, despite the fact most countries do not recognize it is as Russian. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an Israeli flag. It is a city flag and emblem, with lions. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is modeled after the Israeli flag, with a Tallit (Jewish prayer shawl) background and the Lion of Judah, representing the tribe of Judah, in the foreground. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. I support leaving the flag and emblem. They are all over the city. That is the reality, regardless of the argument about Jerusalem's political status.Deror (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Huh. And huh. nableezy - 21:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes every other disputed city shows a seal and a mayor in its infobox, even if the city is under military occupation. Please refer to the list of disputed countries and click on any of their cities, even their capitals, and they even if they clarify that the territory is disputed, they still show the city's seal and flag and its mayor. Treating this article any differently is simply misleading to readers. Bill Williams 21:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• No – The national status of different parts of the city, according to the lead are in dispute, therefore no emblem or flag should be included. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Per reality and consistency with other city articles. Like it or not, Jerusalem is an Israeli city. And that's not likely to change in the foreseeable future. –Daveout(talk) 10:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Wikipedia is meant to summarize facts, not hide or censor them for anyone's political tastes. If anyone disagrees with how Jerusalem is ruled (and there's plenty to disagree with), this isn't the way to change it. François Robere (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• No Per WP:NPOV. JJNito197 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• No, obviously; pr WP:NPOV. Including this flag would "recognise"/help give legitimacy to an illegal occupation, (That is: illegal in eyes of the international community; not Israel), Huldra (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, unbelievable level of bias to propose its removal. Even for so called Donetsk People's Republic, wiki article contains the flag and emblem. Tritomex (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - its the correct current emblems for the city. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• No - The Israeli proclaimed flag, Israeli proclaimed coat of arms and Israeli proclaimed "mayor" must be removed from the infobox. Israel is occupying the entire city with force and Israeli claims of sovereignty over the city is rejected by the vast majority of the international community. To have Israeli proclaimed symbols and titles in the infobox, we would be presenting the Israeli claims as a "truth". This is a clear violation of npov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• No per Nableezy and Selfstudier. It's disputed city, currently under illegal occupation by one of the parties in dispute. So it's POVish to include flag and emblem imposed by occupying power in the article like it's not disputed. Sorry for whataboutism, but when other serial occupier will roll out new flashy flag for, e.g, Mariupol, will we include it into infobox? The hell we will. Same applies here. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 08:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Not in the infobox, because there is insufficient space there to explain them properly. The Israeli emblems can be shown in some part of the article where the Israeli occupation is described. Zero^talk 08:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as is the normal Wikipedia convention including in capitols of completely unrecognized states: Hargeisa, Sukhumi, Tiraspol. The city government of Jerusalem is verifiable, the flag and emblem are verifiable. The city government is divorced from the issue of national allocation.

  

  Tiraspol flag has the colours of Transnistria with a river cutting down the middle

  

  Transnistria flag

  PrisonerB (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes as those are the flag and emblam of the municipality of Jerusalem, its the jure and de facto administrative body. It has nothing to do with Israel\Plasetine. If there was a different municipality in one section of the city the city there would maybe be a place for a discussion, but that is not the case. CLalgo (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

This is contentious, and a firm consensus one way or the other would certainly be beneficial for future discussions of this sort. I'll be placing a notification at WP:NPOVN about this, as it has been raised as an NPOV concern. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Dont think there any dispute about including it in the body, so would prefer this be a straight yes/no on including in the infobox. nableezy - 15:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There's already responses so I'm hesitant to change it now, and I don't think it will confuse the issue too much to have the three options. If there are further objections, and no objections to those who've already responded, I'll be happy to change it to binary. Dumuzid, any input? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the history of the article or this particular controversy, but if Nableezy is right that there's no serious dispute about putting it in the body, then maybe a dichotomy makes sense. With all things possibly contentious, however, it's never a bad idea to spell things out explicitly so there's no room for misunderstanding. I guess I would lean towards making this binary (feel free to remove my response) and then another binary if "in the article" provokes further debate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's binary now, feel free to edit your survey response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer a binary choice, less potential for confusion, I also do not object to the material being included in a suitable location elsewhere in the article but I do not think we need to address precisely where at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Either Jerusalem#Status_under_Israeli_rule or Jerusalem#Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel would be the appropriate section, I think. But yeah, as you state, that's for another day. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The "reality" argument, made by eight (!) editors, is a complete crock. The sources are WP reality and they are very clear about the situation in East Jerusalem no matter how many Israeli flags and emblems are stuck to walls, hung in windows or anyplace else. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment "In the case of Israel, Jewish symbols have been extensively used as signs of Jewish sovereignty e.g the lion (the symbol of Judah which is used as the emblem of the Jerusalem municipality.....In order to Judaize the geographical space....to serve the claims of the ideology in power. In contrast, the history and symbols of the Palestinians were either undermined or denied." Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is the case for literally every place whose sovereignty is contested (or "occupied" in the parlance of the side who doesn't happen to control it). We do note that Republic of China claims the whole of China, that both Korean governments claim the entirety of the peninsula and that Japan claims the southern Kuril islands, but in all these cases we do not hide who the de facto authorities are. Somehow only here this has become an issue. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

in the parlance of the side who doesn't happen to control it. This right here is the POV pushing. That it is occupied in the parlance of the side who doesn't happen to control it. No, it is occupied territory to nearly the entire world. It is contested to Israel and basically only Israel. It is the false balance that one with a straight face pretends applies to those using the language used by the entire world and not the language used by one of the sides. This is the POV pushing, and at least somebody was honest about it. nableezy - 12:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There are many more examples of the "entire world," or a significant part thereof, not accepting the sovereignty of the current holder of these territories: Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Transnistria etc. There are even more historical examples. We are not here to right all these wrongs by giving equal wright to everyone (per WP:NOT and WP:FALSEBALANCE) but rather to report faithfully on the situation on the ground and on the controversy. Alaexis_¿question? 18:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not about righting wrongs, or giving equal weight, because the sources do not treat any Israeli claim to Jerusalem equally. You have your false balance mixed up here. And, oh by the way, the article does not say Jerusalem is in Israel or that it is an Israeli city. And it does not say that by consensus. A consensus you and a number of other people are blithely ignoring. All while saying, with a straight face, that others are pushing for a false balance here. If it wasnt so absurd it would be funny. We can "report the situation on the ground" without violating WP:NPOV by claiming that Jerusalem is an Israeli city. We can show that Israel has imposed this flag and seal in a section on the Israeli occupation. But stating in Wikipedia's voice that these matter of factly are the symbols of a united Jerusalem under Israel's sovereignty, which sources outright reject as a fringe view, is what is a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is obscene how editors are twisting the policies of this website in such a way to push fringe-sized political viewpoints while claiming that others are "here to right all these wrongs". Jerusalem, at least most of what this article covers, is not Israel's sovereign territory. You are pushing a fringe-sized POV while claiming others are doing so. Truly astonishing. nableezy - 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• There is an existing consensus here, which is being blithely ignored. Selfstudier (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly is that consensus? Tombah (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"..it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" Showing the municipality emblems in the infobox implies that and RS was provided above to support that "Jewish symbols have been extensively used as signs of Jewish sovereignty e.g the lion (the symbol of Judah which is used as the emblem of the Jerusalem municipality". Obvious POV even on its own merit, faux outrage notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that someone from Lebanon has decided to influence this vote on behalf of Hasan Nasrallah and Hezbollah by threatening me and other editors who voted "yes" (Deror avi, Lilach5, researcher and Bill Williams). The hate machine never stops. Tombah (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Whoever it was got it wrong, since at least one of the editors just pinged has not !voted. WP:CANVAS and WP:FORUM. Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem at hand is a terrorist "warning" me in a thinly veiled threat because of how I voted. Bill Williams 12:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Parts one and two already completed. nableezy - 13:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

References