Talk:Jerusalem

WP:NPOV - status of Jerusalem

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.
• NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
• Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Partial explanation of editing from a neutral point of view:

• "Avoid stating opinions as facts."
• "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
• "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."

I'd say that:

• The status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not universally accepted, which is related to the non-acceptance of Jerusalem as Israeli territory.
• Reliable sources state that that status is not universally accepted and explain why.
• It's probable that the non-acceptance is the majority view.
• Some editors here, in some cases for years, have, contrary to the neutrality rule, been arguing that one point of view, the Israeli one, is a fact rather than a point of view.
• The job of editors is to fairly represent what the reliable sources say, not to argue that one point of view is correct by advancing arguments based on dictionary definitions or carrying out votes on who thinks that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel etc.
• Not only does the first sentence of the Lead breach the neutrality rule, it doesn't even properly summarise the body of the article.
• It has already been explained to the editors breaching the neutrality rule that they are breaching it (in some cases repeatedly over a period of years).
• The editors who have been breaching the neutrality rule will probably go on quite happily breaching it.

Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   18:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the AE process is capable of dealing with issues like this ? I'm not sure. I've filed a couple of AE cases specifically to test the process without success, in the sense that I didn't learn much from the results. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114#DionysosElysees was to test whether a violation of a guideline, WP:POINT, presented in the context of the active arbitration remedies statement "After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing." would result in sanctions. The editor was blocked for sockpuppetry before I could find out. The other test was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive87#Uruandimi to address "non-stop soapboxing and refusal to get the point on the talk page." The test did show, in my view, that AE is not well equipped to deal with situations that involve reading a substantial amount of evidence and making the effort to understand it in context. The editor stopped editing, so again, no result. I would have liked to have filed a lot more test cases to address specific issues but it's time consuming. Soapboxing and original research on talk pages in the topic area is an important one for me. I think there should be a very high cost to editors for doing that. At the moment the cost is paid by everyone else having to wade through it/address it. That is just wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking to myself that this page isn't busy enough and what it could use is a hollow threat and some discussion about the failings of AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to consider how to proceed with this issue as the discussion above has been closed with a finding of no consensus. While I don't agree with everything the closing editor said, I accept the finding and I'm grateful he dedicated the time and effort to look at the issue. The options I see now would be to consider this a content issue and pursue mediation, or to consider this an editorial conduct issue and involve ArbCom. --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

[EC] I think that it's clear that the current wording is not neutral and that it results from long-term point-of-view pushing, point-of-view pushing which it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that it is such. What the latter takes is showing how editors have insisted on presenting something that is not an established fact, that is, in Wikipedia terms, an opinion, something reliable sources don't agree on, as a fact. First you establish that there is disagreement about the status of Jerusalem, then you list the reasons that the various point-of-view pushers have given for why the Israeli point of view is the "correct" one. I think that could be achieved simply and clearly. As far as I can see, there are two, complementary, approaches that could be used to get out of the current situation: to have problem editors removed and, if necessary, to ask for adjudication. To simplify things at AE, I would suggest taking problem editors there individually, one at a time, rather than making a request against a group.     ←   ZScarpia   20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia, in all fairness (and, as you know, I support removing the word "capital" from the lead), you are misrepresenting the argument of the pro-capitalists. They contend that calling Jerusalem the capital is the neutral point of view - that, in the ordinary, everyday use of the word, Jerusalem is the capital. Moreover, they argue that removal of the word capital would be a capitulation to political opponents of Israel, thus rendering the lead non-neutral. So the argument is not between neutral and non-neutral positions but over what is neutral.

While I disagree with the pro-capitalists' position, I respect that they are arguing for what they see as neutrality, in an arena where neutrality is, I believe, a pipe dream. I also believe that with a little flexibility on both sides, the issue could be resolved. However, the rancor that has become injected into the discussion renders that impossible, at least for the time being. So I say, give it a rest. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many editors are arguing for what they see as neutrality, but that is the problem. Content is being defined by what editors can see rather than by the rules and the sources. We already know that time won't bring flexibility. There's nothing to lose by trying something different. I think the rancor is just a way of avoiding addressing the content issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Three questions: have opinions been stated as facts; have seriously contested assertions been stated as facts; has the relative prominence of opposing views been indicated? If the answer to any of those is No, then the article is not neutral. I think that the answer in each case is No and that the reason is that a number of editors have been pushing the Israeli view for a very long time. Imagine if the article was to state that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel but that Israel disagrees! Point of view pushing happens when editors are so wedded to a particular view that they cannot admit that it is only a view and that is what has happened here. The status of Jerusalem is disputed. It does not matter if some editors feel that their own point of view is a neutral one; if they fail to present their point of view as a point of view, they are point-of-view pushing. The wording of the first sentence has been argued over for years. We came close to a resolution a year or so ago, but it was blocked by someone with more hardline views. I think that some editors have already made it clear that they are not prepared to be flexible.     ←   ZScarpia   12:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll stick my neck out. I've no doubt 'Jerusalem' is the capital of Israel. I've no doubt 'Jerusalem' refers also to East Jerusalem which is not a part of Israel, has never been formally annexed, and is disputed occupied territory. In this sense, that East Jerusalem legally does not form part of the capital of Israel, since you cannot place your capital in land not belonging in international law to the state. The conceptual confusion is elementary. I understand why several editors in good faith find objections to the use of capital suspicious (the anti-Israel/antisemitic perspective used to interpret almost any attitude not consonant with Israel's self image) and counter-factual. I understand why many editors in good faith find the use of capital to denote an area that is belligerently occupied and not a legally constituted part of the state of Israel, dubious, a form of preemptive ideological annexation to tilt world opinion into accepting the status quo as in fact legal. The NPOV crisis lies precisely here, in the refusal to allow that, given the denotative ambiguity of 'Jerusalem' (in Israeli rhetoric 'unified': in international law 'divided') any sentence on the status of Jerusalem must be finessed in order to (a) provide a nuance which copes with this ambiguity or(b) eliminate the word 'capital'. The division is between those who face the problem of denotative ambiguity, and those who refuse to (often on what they regard as commonsense lexical grounds (that ignore the ambiguities).Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the individual views of editors about the status of Jerusalem are irrelevant. What matters is that the status of Jerusalem is disputed and therefore any statements about it should be presented as points of view. However, in relation to the status of Jerusalem, there are undisputed facts, such as that Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in Israeli law or that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel. I doubt that anyone has a problem with those as statements of fact. Something that is disputed, though, is what the article states, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The view of what we term for convenience the international community is that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Until agreement is reached, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country and that no country can unilaterally, as Israel claims to have done, change its status.     ←   ZScarpia   13:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So what people are proposing is not just to alter the introduction of this article to give undue weight to the Palestinian point of view, but a fundamental change to the entire way the article on Jerusalem is handled and indeed potentially dozens, or hundreds of other articles on wikipedia. This is an absolutely massive and fundamental change from many years of wikipedia handling this situation a certain way... yet the small minority of editors on this page demanding change cannot even get a majority to support a alteration to the introduction of this article? Incredible. The introduction IS balanced and i take offence at suggestions those of us who oppose alterations are some how supporting a biased article. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though not internationally recognised as such. That is a balanced statement of fact that is fully in line with wikipedia policies. If such a fundamental change is to take place it will need a major discussion involving editors from different pages and wikiprojects. This single articles talk page would not be appropriate for what some people seek to impose. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might be wrong ? Everyone should do that. Can you prove that you are right, that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is fully compliant with policy using sources that discuss Jerusalem ? That's the problem I have with the statement, a statement that is certainly consistent with lots of sources. I don't think I would be able to prove that it is an undisputed fact based on a large sample of sources that discuss Jerusalem. So for me at least, there is something fundamentally wrong, and that is enough for me to think that there must be better ways out there. It has nothing to do with the numbers of editors and their views, it's about the sources and policy. I think Nish summed up the problem quite nicely. Actually I think what is required to solve this is probably very little. I think that is clear when you look at ZScarpia's statement above - "in relation to the status of Jerusalem, there are undisputed facts, such as that Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in Israeli law or that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel." Those are undisputed facts that could be stated in the encyclopedia's voice in full compliance with policy. But people are so tied to stating as a fact that 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' for reasons I don't really understand, no matter what, no matter how disputed it is, no matter that much of this capital of Israel is across the green line, no matter that it's the most contentious city in the world and the most contentious issue in a decades long conflict that has cost thousands of lives. People just need to go back to the sources, and if it can't be done here, it needs to be done somewhere else, in arbitration for example because this issue is clearly not going to go away. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The status of Jerusalem is disputed. The neutrality policy says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Therefore, to insist that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is point-of-view pushing (as would insisting that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital).

Regarding consensus, a few points to bear in mind:

• "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
• "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."
• "Many of these [consensus-building] discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."
• "In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately."
• "Tendentious editing: The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."
• The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct noticeboard may be used "to critique a long-term failure of an editor to live up to community standards."

    ←   ZScarpia   21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia Stop please repeatedly threatening editors for voicing their opinion, which you don't like, with different administrative sanctions. This is against Wikipedia rules.--Tritomex (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In what way have I threatened anybody? Where have I complained about editors who were just voicing their opinions? Who have I threatened? Why should anyone who feels they haven't broken any rules feel threatened? Quote the rules that I, personally, have violated?     ←   ZScarpia   23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have said "Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia(NPOV)." and you continued latter "Until agreement is reached, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country" West Jerusalem is considered by international law to be part of the State of Israel. To declare entire Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem, as outside of any sovereign territory can be seen as POV.--Tritomex (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore, I think that it is time to start reporting editors to AE for failure to abide by one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia(NPOV)." That is a statement of an opinion of mine. What threat does it contain? Note that it doesn't say that unless particular editors do, of stop doing, something, I will do such-and-such.

West Jerusalem is NOT considered by international law (or the international community) to be part of Israel, but nor, unlike East Jerusalem, is it considered to be occupied. It was exactly the same with East Jerusalem and Jordan up until 1967. The BBC rules for reporting on Israel and the Occupied Territory explain the situation.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the state of Israel's capital. Nobody has yet provided evidence of how a country requires international approval for its capital city, or that a capital is only somewhere that foreign countries have their embassies. You are being selective by simply focusing on "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", the introduction clearly states it is the capital of Israel but not internationally recognised as such. That is fact and it is balanced. It is the small number of editors on here that are demanding radical changes to this article and indeed dozens of other articles, who are making a big fuss when they cannot even get majority support for a change to this introduction. How long has this article said that Israel is the capital of Israel in the way you dislike? And why all of a sudden has this become such a problem it must be changed, when there has been numerous debates on this matter in the past? Just because some editors do not like the current wording, is no reason to justify radical changes that remove facts simply to bias the article in favour of palestinian POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a fact is something which is not disputed. The status of Jerusalem is disputed, as stated in sources which have been provided. Therefore, as far as the rules are concerned, whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel should be presented as a point of view. You can say, the Israeli position is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (that is a factual statement about a point of view which nobody will argue with), but you cannot state, as a fact, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Everything you say is either erroneous or irrelevant.     ←   ZScarpia   23:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that a state cannot determine its own capital city? if it views it as its capital, treats it as its capital, and it is declared its capital in law.. how is it not the capital of the state of Israel? It is clearly fact that it is Israels capital, but its not recognised internationally and its future status is disputed.. this is ALL made clear in the introduction already. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's all totally beside the point. We're not here to adjudicate what the position should be, but, since Jerusalem's status is disputed, to neutrally present (ie. not making claims about the rightness or wrongness of views) the different points of view. Explain to me, though, by what right should a country expect others to accept a city is that country's capital if it chooses a place which is not in that country's sovereign territory? You don't stand a bloody carcass's chance in a piranha pool of producing something neutral if you go on using partisan arguments to argue that a point of view is more than a point of view.     ←   ZScarpia   01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

""Avoid stating seriously contested assertions " - It is not an assertion.. it is a fact, the state of Israels capital city is Jerusalem. It is also fact that this is not recognised by the international community, so the two points are combined into a very clear first sentence that was a reasonable middle ground. Some would rather that second bit had no place in the opening sentence at all, but it is the moderate centre ground position for the current wording. Some do not respect the fact Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland which is a country of the United Kingdom. So should we go and make lots of changes to those? Belfast is the claimed capital of Northern Ireland, which is claimed to be one of the countries of the United Kingdom, but this is not recognised by everyone with some believing it is a city in one of the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland? Where will it all end? We should not give Undue Weight to Palestinian POV by in anyway suggesting it is in a similar situation in terms of being Palestines capital compared it being the State of Israels. The key issue is the fact it lacks international recognition, something the introductions first sentence makes very clear. It is not the fact that Palestinians claim it as a capital for their future state. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) As far as "the international community" is concerned, Jerusalem is neither sovereign Israeli territory nor the capital of Israel. Therefore, in Wikipedia terms, it is not a fact, but a point of view, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I'm sure that you could provide sources which say that Northern Ireland should not exist, but please provide ones that say that the geopolitical entity with that name doesn't exist, nor that Belfast is its "capital".     ←   ZScarpia   00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with BritishWatcher. Jerusalem(West+East) under its legal status from 1948, hase only 300 000 inhabitants today, including only 50 000 Palestinians. It does not include almost all East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods, do not have the seize mentioned in this article. I do not think that international community(although this wording is abstract) can legally determine the capital of any state, it can refuse to recognize it, therefore the current wording is absolutely neutral--Tritomex (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that's tough, because the international community says differently, which is why we're in the territory of presenting points of view (Israel's point of view is such-and-such; the international community's view is such-another; those in the middle don't have a point of view). As far as the international community is concerned, any unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, including declaring it a capital, are (and were) illegitimate and have no standing.     ←   ZScarpia   00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's go back to the sources for moment. What are we meant to make of a source like the BBC ? It says "Israel and many of its supporters regard a united Jerusalem - Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 - as its undivided capital. Most major powers do not, including the US which, like many other countries, has its embassy in Tel Aviv."[1] We can't ignore it and its approach is very different from ours. We have to factor sources like this into our decision making, and there are many of them. BW/Tritomex, what do you propose we do with sources like this given that ignoring them isn't an option ? If sources like this, or sources that explicitly state that Jerusalem is the capital, are ignored in a discussion, we have a serious problem and we need help to solve it. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The other thing I'd like to say is that AE isn't just about smiting editors. It's about fixing things, behavorial issues, so that everyone is forced to comply with policy and guidelines. The original research/synthesis, personal opinions and analyses, arguments from first principals, arguments based on dictionaries, soapboxing, bickering etc etc all has to stop. It's not how we are allowed to make content decisions. AE is meant to be able to help with things like that, enforcing compliance with the rules, although I'll admit that I'm quite skeptical about that. AE could be a positive thing in this dispute to force people to focus on the sources and policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia,Sean.hoyland I have personally nothing against inclusion of third party in any dispute resolution in accordance with Wikipedia rules. ZScarpia What is in your opinion the capital of Israel? or is there some source which states that anyone from outside can determine the capital of another state? Just to repeat we already pointed out that Jerusalem is not recognized by "international community" as the capital of Israel(this is my answer to Sean question), so the only question which remains are:

1) If there is possibility (under international law or international agreements ) that some institution, state or entity from outside could determine legally the capital of another state

2) Did it happen in the case of Israel and what was determined as Israeli capital? Tritomex (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no view on what the capital of Israel is, not that my own view, or the view of any other editor, on the matter has any relevance to Wikipedia. What I think the sources show is that the capital of Israel is disputed. One viewpoint is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Another viewpoint is that it isn't. Some sources used to state that Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel; I don't know if more recent ones still do.

We're not in the business of arguing the rights or wrongs of the various positions, just trying to neutrally present them, so, unless you can point to a binding decision made somewhere on Wikipedia that, in the matter of capitals, one side's viewpoint gets to predominate, then your question about institutions has little relevance. Even if, say, there was an Institute For Specifying Capitals Under International Law, if Israel still insisted that Jerualem was its capital, we would still probably end up having to write something to the effect that Israel says that Jerusalem is it's capital, but the IFSCUIL has determined that, under international law, it isn't. Note that the various UN resolutions don't state what IS the capital of Israel, they stated that, without agreement from other parties, Israel cannot change the status of Jerusalem, including making it its capital, which is different. If arguments based on your questions were used to contend that, despite the international community's view, Jerusalem is, undisputably, the capital of Israel, that would be, in effect, trying to circumvent the neutrality rules using arguments not based in policy, that is, point-of-view pushing.

A question for you: Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?

    ←   ZScarpia   14:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Some more questions:

• Scenario: Some sources say that the duck-billed platypus is a mammal, others that it is a reptile. Question: Would it be neutral to write: The duck-billed platypus is a mammal, though some say it is a reptile?
• Scenario: Some sources say that the egg came first, others that it was the chicken. Question: Would it be neutral to write: The egg came first, though some say the chicken did?
• Scenario: Israel says that Jerusalem is its capital, the international community says it isn't.Question: Would it be neutral to write: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though the international community disputes that?

    ←   ZScarpia   16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Would it be neutral to write: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though the international community disputes that?" - Yes it would be neutral and balanced.. and that is exactly what the introduction already says. We express the facts... It is Israel's capital de jure and defacto, provide us with evidence that says a country cannot determine its own capital? But at the same time we explain very clearly in the very first sentence that this is not recognised by the international community. That is extremely balanced! Can i suggest that you guys demanding radical changes for this article make clear proposals on what wording you want in the first sentence and also what other changes you want for the article. For example what will be done to the info template if you guys had your way? Would we remove the Israeli city flag and emblem if we are wanting this article to pretend this isnt an israeli city?

Instead of asking pointless, irrelevant and meaningless questions.. how about clearly state your proposals and then we can all scrutinise them. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And your answer to the question: "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" There are years' worth of proposals in this talkpage and its archives. Read back and see if there's any that you fancy. One proposal was to add a single word, changing the text to read: Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel. Perhaps your claims of radical change are a bit exagerrated? I hope you don't mind me saying so, but it looks to me, from reading your answers, as though you're suffering something akin to a WP:IDNHT condition. My reason for mentioning that is to (gently) remind you that I've already stated that I think it's time to start reporting editors to noticeboards. I'd also like to point out (to nobody in particular) that I'm not about to be drawn into another long-conversation-to-nowhere with editors who wipe their bottoms on the principles which are supposed to govern how things are done around her.     ←   ZScarpia   02:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making more hollow threats, why don't you go ahead and start "reporting editors"? This is, what, the 3rd time in a week you are talking about unspecified editors you'll report somewhere? You can start with me if you think you have a case. Nobody here has done anything worthy of sanctions, except maybe you with the continual threats against basically anyone who doesn't agree with you. Threats that you can't follow through with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

See the response I made on 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC) above. Now, this is what I think a threat looks like (Remember it? Though I suppose you'd like to call it a warning.). It says that, if I don't do something, then the person issuing the threat will do something unpleasant to me. Here, I haven't said I will do anything; in particular, I haven't tried to coerce anyone into doing anything by saying I will do that thing; lastly, I haven't directed my comments at anyone in particular.     ←   ZScarpia   14:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Let me know when you "start reporting editors to noticeboards". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

An insult? Am I supposed to care?     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you see an insult there, except maybe in the sense of when someone calls your bluff and you feel foolish. You're not going to "start reporting editors to noticeboards" because of the discussion here and your attempt to intimidate editors who don't agree with you has failed spectacularly. We're not impressed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a question. The question was made because I was trying to figure out whether you were making a misguided attempt to offend me by writing the word "yawn" - misguided because I would only care about the opinion of someone I felt any respect for.     ←   ZScarpia   01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't say that! Your respect means so much to me! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Predictable! But I suppose that predictability has its positive aspects.     ←   ZScarpia   02:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, I predicted you'd come back to edit your post to get it "just right". It's important to you because you don't respect me. And you only did it twice! So good laughs for all involved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think that intimidation and bluffing are more in your line. I'm not trying to get anyone here to do anything they wouldn't normally do. In fact, the more the problem editors block, filibuster, refuse to compromise and generally make arseholes of themselves, the easier it'll be be to have them kicked out.     ←   ZScarpia   02:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. Don't forget to let me know when you "start reporting editors to noticeboards" "to have them kicked out". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia Concerning your question "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" many RS do not dispute it, contrary to us, by our at minimum already balanced description of Jerusalem status as " not internationally recognized as such" Examples can be found at National Geography [2], CIA factbook [3] Country Watch [4] Maps of World, even official US documents (State Department documents) [5] academic papers [6] or [7] Some geographical sites states Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with fuss note that foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv, without even mentioning the dispute regarding international recognition [8]....etc I found sources (mostly political newspapers) which are explaining the lack of international recognition of Jerusalem status as the capital of Israel, as we did, but I did not found RS which categorically states that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and which claim Tel Aviv or other cities to this position. Also, I would agree with other editors that threatening other editors who do not share your opinion, is serious violation of Wikipedia guidelines, therefore I kindly ask you again to refrain from continuing to do so.--Tritomex (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So, at least you would agree that sources explain that the status of Jerusalem is disputed?     ←   ZScarpia   14:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The introduction makes clear the status of Jerusalem is disputed.. Nobody is denying that. Above you said maybe i was exaggerating about how radical the changes to this page would be if you guys got your way.. but that seems to be the position you are taking. Do you accept that Jerusalem is a city in Israel? No.. so do we need to remove the Israeli city's flag and emblem from the infobox template or put silly disclaimers? This article would need completely changing, far more than just adding a single word or two to the first sentence. This is why we need to know details of what exactly you are proposing. Are you and all the others happy with the neutrality tag being removed and this debate resolved if we simply add the word is the "declared capital of Israel" instead of just capital? Im prepared to debate that and im not entirely against such a change (as putting declared and linking to the Israeli law could make sense) though i do not think such wording is required. But some of the recent proposals have been totally unacceptable. And yes ive read some of the past debates on this matter. Just because there has been past debates does not mean after a few days of you being unhappy with an outcome you can take this matter somewhere else to complain. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have more or less everyone here on the record with the arguments that they've advanced. My suggestion is to proceed, one question I have is if we decide to proceed to mediation, can some editors prevent the mediation from going ahead by not consenting, or prevent the mediation from succeeding by claiming to "not support" the mediated edit after the fact? I recall hearing of editors who didn't participate in a mediation opposing the mediated result after the mediation concludes. Is that possible? --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new talkpage section for a discussion about mediation?     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should rather decide where we want to go: mediation, AE or ArbCom, and then go there. If we decide mediation, then we can start a new thread on details but we need to decide what we're going to do first. --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, I hadn't appreciated exactly what you were trying to do.     ←   ZScarpia   21:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good compromise to say that "Israel considers (all of) Jerusalem to be its capital, but the international community disagrees"? After all, Israel is the one currently governing all of Jerusalem. Futurist110 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that (though I'm unsure why the part in brackets is necessary). It contains two factual statements, both of which are undisputed by sources (assuming that the term "international community" is accepted as shorthand for resolutions made by the UNGA and UNSC), which is the problem I have with the current wording. The other issue to think about, given that the sentence is in the Lead, is whether they summarise the contents of the article well (which I don't as yet have an opinion about).     ←   ZScarpia   19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "considers" if we are talking about the first sentence. Id maybe not oppose "is the declared capital of Israel" linking to Israeli law.. But saying considers is totally not appropriate for the introduction. Otherwise every article on a capital city would start.. State considers it its capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as no other country's capital is disputed, your last sentence is untrue.     ←   ZScarpia   00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus disputes that Nicosia is the capital of Northern Cyprus, so it's your statement which is untrue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right? In Cyprus, it's not recognition of the status of a city which is in dispute, but a whole "state". Only Turkey recognises the breakaway Republic of Northern Cyprus. The Lead of the Nicosia article says: "The northern part of the city functions as the capital of the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ... ." Since you made the comparison, perhaps you'd accept comparable wording for the Jerusalem article: "Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel." That looks factual to me.     ←   ZScarpia   02:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Recognition of the capital is part of a wider dispute. Not unlike the situation we're talking about here.

Not that wikipedia is a reliable source for anything, but I'd be happy to consider your suggestion, if you'd explain to me what the difference between "functions as the capital" and "is the capital" is. Without resorting to OR, naturally. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My question was ironic. It was pointing out that, in the article on the comparison you chose, the "IS the capital" wording, which is in dispute here, is not used. Do you really need the difference explained? After all, it has been explained on this talkpage many times before. In Wikipedia you can only state things as facts if they are not disputed in sources. That Jerusalem "is the capital" of Israel IS disputed. As is well established, there is a raft of UN resolutions which reject Israel's moves to change the status of Jerusalem. They state that Israel's laws on the matter are null and void. Therefore, the more neutral sources are careful to explain that, though Israel's position is that Jerusalem is its capital, the international community rejects that. As has been pointed out, the BBC issued an apology and made a correction when one of its sports reporters wrote an article in which it was stated that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Whereas it is disputed that Jerusalem IS Israel's capital, it is not disputed (as far as I know) that Jerusalem functions as/serves as/is de facto Israel's capital. If that is not disputed, then it is permissible to state that as a fact, rather than a point of view, in Wikipedia. However, I was not suggesting a form of wording, just pointing out a flaw in your argument.     ←   ZScarpia   10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As you pointed out in your response, it contains two "factual statements", the first being Israel considers it its capital, the second the international community disputes this. I agree it wouldnt need the second statement, but it is a statement of fact if the UK considers London its capital city. Perhaps it would start the United Kingdom and the international community consider London the capital of the UK? Still waiting for any evidence that says a country cannot determine its own capital. Also if we did put "considers" in the first sentence, do we go and add that word everywhere.. Israel considers this the flag of the city of Jerusalem, Israel considers this the emblem of the city. Israel considers this person to be the mayor of the city, Israel considers this to be the city government.. I bet if i looked i could find dozens of locations in the article where wed have to put "considered" if we go down this path that Jerusalem is not a city in Israel and its not its capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for these fine gentlemen to decide if they want to go to mediation or Arbcom or AE or whatever and not waste time on suggestions that have been rejected in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Before you withdraw into silence, would you answer the same question I addressed to BritishWatcher: "Do sources dispute whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital?"     ←   ZScarpia   10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources say that Israel declares the city its capital, and that the international community do not recognise this. Just because the international community do not recognise something does not imply it is not a fact. Several people have asked on a number of occasions, where is the evidence that suggests a country cannot decide its own capital city? No definition i have yet to see has stated that it is decided by the international communities recognition of a city, rather than the state itself. The introduction clearly states the status of Jerusalem is disputed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Very few sources dispute that Jerusalem is the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Are you including those which present the view that Jerusaslem is the capital as the Israeli point of view or only those which say, definitely, that Jerusalem is not the capital?     ←   ZScarpia   21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, there are also sources which say that is only the Israeli view and that the international community do not accept Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. And the rules say that points of view, which is what we have here, have to be presented as points of view.     ←   ZScarpia   22:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there are sources say that the international community does not recognize it. Your interpretation of what that non-recognition means is OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand in the UN, most of the world's countries have said that Israel's attempts to make Jerusalem its capital are "null and void". The plain reading of "recognize" is clear on its own, for example when the international community didn't recognize Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, it meant that it didn't consider Kuwait to be a part of Iraq. Similarly, as France for the time being doesn't recognize the State of Palestine, it means France doesn't consider that state to yet exist. I don't see any reasons why non-recognition would have a different content in this case. (The Security Council said of Iraq's annexation that "(...) annexation of Kuwait by Iraq (...) has no legal validity, and is considered null and void; 2. Calls upon all States (...) not to recognize that annexation". Sound familiar?) --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What sounds familiar is you presenting your opinion rather than a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• What exactly do you want citations for? Hopefully, after all the discussion that's preceded this, you're not asking for one for the first sentence. Have a look at: UN Resolution 476 of June 1980 (uses the "null and void" phrasing), Resolution 478 of August 1980 (uses the "null and void" phrasing), Resolution 252 of May 1968 (declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid” and called upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”), Resolution 267 of July 1969 (noted that Israel had since “taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”; it reaffirmed “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible” and deplored Israel’s further violations of U.N. resolutions, censured “in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, and confirmed “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status” and urgently called on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem), Resolution 298 of September 1971 (deplored Israel’s continued violation of U.N. resolutions, and confirmed that Israel’s attempts to annex Jerusalem “are totally invalid”, Resolution 452 of July 1979 (again deplored Israel’s continued violation of Security Council resolutions and again emphasized that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”; it again also noted that Jerusalem is included in “the occupied Arab territories”).
• From the Recognition section of the Online Britannica article on International Law: Recognition is a process whereby certain facts are accepted [my emphasis] and endowed with a certain legal status, such as statehood, sovereignty over newly acquired territory, or the international effects of the grant of nationality.
• Question: Does the non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital mean that , as far as the international community is concerned, Jerusalem is not Israel's capital?
• Earlier, I wrote that "the international community do not accept Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." You insisted that "the international community does not recognize it," calling my wording original research. Note that the Online Britannica description of diplomatic recognition defines it as "a process whereby certain facts are accepted and endowed with a certain legal status." That is, recognition is defined in terms of acceptance, the word I used. Rephrasing sourced facts is a normal process in Wikipedia (necessitated by the need to avoid copyright violations); it is not, as you claimed, original research. I've told you before that your interpretation of what constitutes original research is incorrect.
• Question: Is the use of dictionary definitions in order to justify claiming that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel original research?

    ←   ZScarpia   01:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Are you the only one allowed to ask questions, and if people answer your questions, will you consider answering ours? You ask about the international community.. They do not officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The issue is, does their lack of recognition stop Jerusalem being the capital of Israel? You have provided NO evidence that shows a capital is only what the international community endorses. It is notable that the international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israels capital, which is why it is clearly stated. Now here is my question.. You do not believe this article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That being the case... Do you propose we remove the city flag and emblem and mayor of the city from the infobox? If we want to pretend that this is not an Israeli city then all these things have to go too. If we can take the position (seen as it is the reality on the ground) that this is a city in Israel despite a international dispute.. then why is it such a big jump to stating it as the capital? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question: Iran does not recognize the State of Israel. Does that mean that Israel is not a state? How do you suggest we change the lead of the Israel article to accommodate this fact? We can't just say it's a state if someone doesn't recognize it, right? How about Taiwan? Is that a state?
• Question: do you have anything other than OR and SYNTH to offer? Because that's what your long post above amounts to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your first question, NMMNG, yes, that is correct. Are you not aware that if the whole world were to ignore someone, he actually disappears? I know a guy that happened to. -- tariqabjotu 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the use of dictionary definitions in order to justify claiming that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel original research?

I'd really like to see a definitive answer to this, because the concept of the use of a dictionary constituting original research is new to me. -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, see this comment from the earlier discussion. Using a dictionary to circumvent the fact that sources actially dealing with the subject present the issue as a substantive dispute isn't correct. See also this comment on happy Amsterdam. Concerning the Iranian recognition question, the answer is that as far as Iran is concerned, Israel isn't a state. Now that doesn't mean that Iran is necessarily correct in this, and in fact most countries do recognize Israel. Note, that no-one is proposing to edit the article to say Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, so the question misses the point. The proposed edits are e.g. that Jerusalem is the capital according to Israli law, or that Jerusalem functions as Israel's seat of government. --Dailycare (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but you are. The proposed edits are tantamount to saying it is not simply the capital. That's equivocation and dilution. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first edit hinges on the fact that (a) one accepts that dictionary definition [there are no doubt many definitions that rule out the conclusion you make] and (b) one accepts your interpretation, which -- to be honest -- I don't. For your second edit, I'm sure I'm not saying anything new when I say that that comparison to the Netherlands is not apt because Israel has declared its capital as the same city in which its governmental institutions are located.

As I said in my response to Ravpapa below, it is not incredibly unreasonable to believe that recognition is a pre-requisite for a city being a capital. (I'm not one of those people, of course.) My point is that you're making yourself look silly by hinging your position on the idea that looking at a dictionary is OR. Surely you can do better than that. -- tariqabjotu 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Amsterdam article specifically notes that it's the capital despite not being the seat of government. If the two weren't normally connected such clarification wouldn't be necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, we have highly reliable sources that clearly state Jerusalem isn't "simply" the capital. In fact, I just discussed them with you in the above discussion. Tariqabjotu, those considerations apply equally to using a dictionary to arrive at the conclusion Jerusalem is the capital. NMMNG, the situation with Jerusalem is even more unusual than with Amsterdam and the other capitals that aren't seats-of-government. For example, there is no disagreement as to which country, if any, Amsterdam can be found in. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

The issue is, does their lack of recognition stop Jerusalem being the capital of Israel? From the point of view of the international community, yes it does. Israel's unilateral moves to change the status of Jerusalem are seen as illegal. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the real issue is whether the status of Jerusalem is disputed by reliable sources, which it is. Here, if some thing is disputed, it cannot be presented as a fact, but only as an opinion (that is, a fact about an opinion). As the status of Jerusalem is disputed, it cannot be stated that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. Nor can it be stated that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. What can be stated is that, from Israel's point of view, Jerusalem is its capital. Also, you can state as facts things that are not disputed, such as that Israel declared that Jerusalem is its capital or that, under Israeli law, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Personally, I have no problem with the flag and emblem being in the infobox. You say that it is a pretence that Jerusalem is not an Israeli city. Of course, here, it is not editors' views of what the facts are that count, but the views expressed in reliable sources. Again, the sovereignty of Jerusalem is disputed and so we are, once more, in the realm of presenting facts about points of view rather than pure facts.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

Apparently, a number of countries do not recognise Israel as a state. As indicated repeatedly, if reliable sources dispute some thing, which I assume is the case here, that thing should not be stated, unqualified, as a fact in Wikipedia. However, with regard to Israel's statehood, there are undisputed facts that could be presented, such as that Israel is a member state of the United Nations and, that being so, under international law it is a state.

Do you have anything other than OR and SYNTH to offer? Present specific examples (and, just to make sure you understand, WP:SYNTH is a specific type of WP:OR, making what you wrote a tautology). Otherwise, as I've also told you before, stop wasting everybody's time by making accusations you can't substantiate.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@tariqabjotu 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

I'm sure that Nessie, the Yeti, Robin Hood, the biblical Kind David, King Arthur and King Lear would be upset to find that their existence is presented in Wikipedia as something other than a fact.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how this has anything to do with what I said. -- tariqabjotu 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment was intended as a reminder of the nature of facts on Wikipedia. If you can't see the connection to No More Mr Nice Guy's comment and your reply to it, not to worry, it wasn't that important.     ←   ZScarpia   08:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@tariqabjotu 02:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC):

In Wikipedia, editors are supposed to be neutrally presenting what sources say, not determining which of a number of disputing sources is correct.

Part definition of the term Original Research: original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." One source, a dictionary, contains a definition of the term capital city. Another source says something about Jerusalem which matches the definition given in that dictionary. Using a synthesis of the two sources, editors argue that, despite the majority view to the contrary, it is a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. As synthesis is a form of original research, by definiton, orignal research has been used.

There are difficulties attached to using dictionaries as sources. Dictionaries attempt to describe how words are used, they do not prescribe how they should be used. Many words don't have precise meanings, which means that different dictionaries define them in different ways and that the definitions given may not fully cover all the different meanings given to the words. The word capital, as applied to cities, is one such word. Conveniently, editors found a dictionary definition which matched an undisputed fact about Jerusalem, that it's Israel's seat of government. However, other dictionaries contain less convenient definitions. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the meaning of the term as "the head town of a country, province or state." From the international viewpoint, of course, because Jerusalem isn't seen as being part of Israel's territory, it's dubious that definition would be seen as applying. But then, fortunately, since, as Wikipedia editors, we're not in the business of determining what the facts are, only of presenting what sources say the facts are, none of that matters to us.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That OED definition seems perfectly in line with calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel. And I'm not going to repeat my opinion about the absurdity of these Original Research claims.

And, again, as has been said a million times over the years, there are tons of sources that say that few or no countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. No one denies that. But there are few or no sources that say these countries don't actually believe it's the capital. I honestly can't understand why this is so difficult to understand. Saying you're not recognizing something is the not the equivalent of saying it doesn't exist. If a country, for example, were to say they don't recognize the State of Israel, it doesn't mean they don't believe a State of Israel exists; obviously, it does, they just refuse to give it any credence. Unless the body doing the recognition is the definer of a concept, that recognition does not make the claim invalid. So, what the article says is what the sources support -- that most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, but it is.

Another thing I don't understand is why a wording nearly identical to what's currently in the first sentence of Jerusalem gained support as a compromise in the Israel article in February 2010 (and essentially has not been challenged since), while this is still a problem here.

But, please, let's not continue this too much here. It's not going to be resolved in the next couple days. Let's see what comes out of the mediation. -- tariqabjotu 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Overlooking for the moment that, here, facts should be properly sourced, not inferred by editors from dictionary definitions, the point made with the OED definition is that, using it, conclusions drawn about the status of Jerusalem will depend on opinions held about whether Jerusalem is Israeli or not.

There are different types of non-recognition. With what we could call implicit non-recognition, no statement is made about whether something is accepted or not. With what we could call explicit non-recognition, definite statements are made that something is not accepted. As far as the status of Jerusalem goes, the international community has stated that unilateral moves by Israel, including declaring that city its capital, are illegal, null and void. That is, the international community has made an explicit declaration that, as far as it is concerned, the Israeli moves have had no effect on the status of Jerusalem and that its true status is as was declared in previous resolutions, that is, an international city. To that effect, we have, as primary sources, the UN documentation itself and, as secondary sources, ones detailing and explaining the UN resolutions. In addition, we have secondary and tertiary sources which attempt to describe the status of Jerusalem neutrally in terms of points of view, with the position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as an Israeli view which is not recognised (accepted) by the international community. Northern Cyprus, which was brought up earlier, is an example of explicit non-recognition and you'll see that in the article on that place it is, reflecting that non-recognition, described as a "self-declared" state. You wrote, "But there are few or no sources that say these countries don't actually believe it's the capital." That's wishful thinking. The sources described show clearly that the international community rejects Israel's claims, both that Jerusalem is Israeli and that is is Israel's capital. Insisting in the article that it is a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, based on extrapolations made from one dictionary definition, violate Wikipedia's fundamental neutrality policy.

I wasn't involved in the discussion at the article on Israel and find it a bit startling that the current wording is being called resulted from a compromise.

It would be nice to believe that mediation would lead to a common position being reached, but I suspect that what would happen is a re-hashing of the arguments that have been put forward for nine years, then a failure to reach a decisive result. I'd prefer to go to some kind of arbitration, where neutral editors examine the arguments and rule on their merits.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)(redacted -- 10:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

You know I disagree with nearly everything you said, but, as I said, I see no point in explaining why at this stage. Your dismissive approach is very off-putting though. There is no "wishful thinking". What I think many of the people who support changing the wording fail to understand is that it's not like we don't know that the sources you reference exist (UN documents, the "null and void" declaration, etc.); we just disagree on their interpretations and implications to the reality of whether Jerusalem is actually Israel's capital. Perhaps a mediator will assist with toning down arguments that boil down to "can't you see these sources?!?!" and get to the root of the issue -- interpreting what these sources mean. And, yes, I know you're going to call original research, but if several well-meaning people can come to different conclusions about what a source means, obviously some interpretation is necessary (and, frankly, is a part of any writing that isn't just direct quoting).

And, yes, that was a compromise. Many editors, including Dailycare, who were staunchly in favor of removing the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel agreed with the wording in the article. Perhaps it may appear shocking that this was a compromise because there was the issue of how much weight to give to the Jerusalem capital issue in an article about the entire country; here that's less of a problem as it's the Jerusalem article and its status is capital is much more relevant.

Unfortunately, the Arbitration Committee does not do content disputes, and there is no forum for binding content dispute resolutions. So, unless you believe there are user conduct issues here -- which would be a highly controversial and inflammatory assertion -- mediation is all we've got. I'm not optimistic that will resolve this dispute, but you never know; maybe the mediator will have a different approach to solving this. -- tariqabjotu 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your 'reality' is only a point of view ... and a minority one (in the world at large) at that. 'Truth' isn't a justification for violating the neutrality policy.

Arbitration on content issues, at least informally, does happen. The outcome would be no less binding than that from mediation. For me personally, it would carry more weight and therefore be more final. I did write about 'some kind of arbitration', not the Arbitration Committee specifically.

I didn't question that a compromise had taken place. It's just that I would have hated to have seen what the original wording, or the suggestions of more extreme contributors, were. I'd meant to state that I found it startling that the wording was a compromise, not question that it was a compromise.

I do believe that there are user conduct issues here.

Thank-you for your comments on my approach.

    ←   ZScarpia   09:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC) (redacted -- 10:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

I can already tell that this mediation is going to be my least favorite experience ever on Wikipedia, and I regret returning to this page. I hardly said anything furthering the debate in my previous comment, but you found something out of which you could manufacture an issue. If you reread the sentence with the word "reality", you'll realize it also includes -- just two words later, if you can get there -- the word "whether". That was a general statement about perception of reality, with the word "whether" indicating that there were multiple options (namely, it is or is not the capital). Obviously, because you're not new here, you know my position, but how you saw that as an indictment of your position and call for you to tell me once again in your conceited tone how right you are is unclear. But because you seem intent on getting the last word in, no matter how little it contributes to resolving this issue (how many times have I said that now?), I'll let you invent one more excuse to repeat your position and repeat said position in a comment to which you will receive no response from me. -- tariqabjotu 11:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, congratulations for pointing out a fundamental flaw in the anti-capital argument. It is a flaw that illustrates the level of prevarication and subterfuge of both sides of this argument.

It is absurd to say that using a dictionary definition to justify a lead is original research. It isn't (unless the editor is also the author of the dictionary). On the other hand, it is certainly a very flimsy justification. Dictionaries are not references that give in-depth analyses of all the linguistic, political, and legal ramifications of a word. The laconic dictionary definition of "capital" - "seat of government" - doesn't come near to defining all the constituents that make up a capital.

The anti-capitalists certainly know this. The trouble is that there is no clear policy against flimsiness, only against OR. So they have, completely artificially, attached the OR standard to the dictionary argument. For most of those arguing on this page (I hesitate to say all), this appeal to an irrelevant standard is simply a way of promoting their own political agendas.

The pro-capitalists are no better. They are perfectly aware that the dictionary definition does not capture the complexity of the term capital. Otherwise, why are they so adamantly against using what the dictionary considers synonymous - "seat of government"? The reason is clear: they believe that if they say "capital" loud enough and long enough, it will somehow become true.

No, it is clear that both sides are using specious arguments of policy to grind their own political axes. The complete lack of dedication to the principles of neutrality, as Wikipedia dreams of it, is glaring throughout this discussion.

If the sides could, for a moment, put aside their political zeal for a moment, the issue, I believe, could be easily resolved. But it seems that is asking too much of mere mortals. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to request that you not repeat the characterizations and suggestions you made in your last two paragraphs. There are no doubt, I'm sure, people who hold their respective positions because of political zeal, but there are no doubt people who hold their positions because, after reading the opinions presented by those who disagree with them, still believe they're correct.

Your own description of the two sides seems to more clearly get at the problem here. There is nothing in the dictionary (or in the general definition of a capital) that makes recognition a prerequisite for a city being a capital, but there's also nothing in the dictionary saying it isn't. Likewise, there is nothing in the dictionary (or in the general definition of a country) that makes recognition a prequisite for a region being a country, but there's also nothing in the dictionary saying it isn't. Yet, in the latter case, I'm sure most here would agree that without recognition, a country is nothing, and really is not a country at all. Does the same apply to capitals? Well, we have limited situations in which this is even a question, and unfortunately the primary situation is this one, coming in the context of a bitter, and ultimately stupid, conflict. I personally think the same standard does not apply to capitals, as there is something physical (e.g. government institutions, place of residence of the head of state) to denote the capital. But if one operates under the belief that a state (and we all agree Israel is one, right?) can be without a capital, then maybe one can believe that recognition is a pre-requisite for capital status. Okay. I don't believe that, but go ahead. -- tariqabjotu 12:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, I'd prefer not to be characterised as an anti-capitalist. My view is not that it should be stated that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, but that it should be presented as a point of view that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. You can call me an anti-pro-capitalist, though.

The view of the international community is that Israel's unilateral acts, such as declaring Jerusalem its capital, were illegal, null and void. To circumvent the neutrality rules, which require, when something is disputed, that it is presented in terms of points of view, a dictionary definition has been used as the basis for stating that the Israeli view is factual and that Jerusalem is its capital. Now, the dictionary definition doesn't mention Jerusalem, so, to produce the conclusion reached, something akin to "analysis or synthesis", part of the definition of what original research is, must have been used. If you don't want to call it original research, what would you call it? Dictionaries have their legitimate uses in Wikipedia, but using them to establish facts, other than facts about the definitions and usages of words, isn't one of them.

    ←   ZScarpia   08:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A general question: is there any precedent for (which would justify) deleting the disputed sentence from the Lead, leaving the (undisputed) description given in the body of the article to explain the status of Jerusalem, until a more generally accepted form of wording is agreed on?     ←   ZScarpia   12:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[edited: 22:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)]

The sentence is the result of a specific consensus. You need consensus to change the STATUSQUO as your friend Dailycare informed me repeatedly in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus for removing that sentence so attempts to remove that sentence will be reverted. Especially if the sentence is removed then we are bogged down with months of mediation over something that has been in the article for many years. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you're an involved editor, are you willing to participate in mediation? --Dailycare (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When you decide if you want to go to mediation or not I'll decide if I want to participate or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What's with this brinksmanship? Mediation is not an indictment against editors. There are no sanctions that can come out of mediation. The proceedings of the mediation are privileged, and so they can't be used against you in the future. So why is this a big deal? Why are people insisting that there be some agreement that mediation goes forward? Why are people using "mediation" as some sort of threat and treating it as one? I don't think this issue has ever been to mediation before, so putting it to ArbCom -- which generally doesn't deal with content disputes -- will be seen as premature, while lesser forms of dispute resolution have us spinning in circles. So clearly MedCom is the answer. Do you need help creating the mediation request? If not, just do it already. -- tariqabjotu 12:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well i would be ok with some form of mediation but i am unsure if it will resolve anything. This has been debated extensively in the past couple of months, attempts to change a consensus that has existed for a very long time. And radical and totally unacceptable proposals that would totally change this article were rejected. A vote took place above some weeks ago showing majority support for the status quo. A small number of editors are demanding change after years of this article addressing the issue a certain way, trouble is they refuse to even put a specific proposal for us to debate. They insist on having in line tagging of a disputed sentence and a disputed introduction template which tarnishes the entire introduction just based on the first sentence which is already tagged anyway. I propose the editors above arguing for change, create a new section with a very specific proposal that we can all specifically discuss and debate. All the mediation is going to do is try to bring us together to discuss the situation, frankly we could do that without wasting other peoples time too.. if those demanding change actually said exactly what they want. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I can only put it in negative terms: Isn't it fairly obvious that what they want is some way, any way, not to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Or, at the very least, to qualify or dilute the direct statement more than it currently is by its juxtaposition of the "not internationally recognized" phrase. To this end they bring in one extraneous argument after another, and try to redefine the meanings of words. That indulges in OR and POV advocacy; referencing the dictionary meaning does not. The torrent of words here, year after year, does not change the simple reality. I think we would be better served by a reminder of the duck test criteria, rather than by recourse to arbitration or mediation, and wouldn't be wasting other people's time (not to mention the time of people here). Hertz1888 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking about dictionary meanings as though that were the only thing that mattered. How about the definition of occupied territory? How is that less relevant to Jerusalem's status than the proclamation, rejected by every other competent party, by one state? nableezy - 17:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good examples of extraneous red herrings. As far as I can tell, the definition of a capital (i.e., what makes a capital a capital) does not depend on either criterion (occupied/non-occupied status, universal approval). I didn't know that editors were allowed to change the meanings of words as they please. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that isnt extraneous and isnt a red herring. You, and a number of other editors who are adamant about the word capital being used on the basis of the definition of the word, have quite the history of ignoring other words that have plain meanings. You support what you like, and oppose what you dont. It has exactly squat to do with what the dictionary says. You ignore things that dont toe the Israeli party line, and support to the hilt what does. Thats fine, lots of people are like that. But at least drop the act here that this isnt what it so clearly is. nableezy - 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors accepting sources that present the information in a certain way, as a statement of fact, and ignoring sources that do not present this information as a statement of fact is wrong. It's wrong because it is inconsistent with our content rules. When editors stop doing that, we might be able to address this issue properly. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. So if, for example, I were to provide sources that do not present as fact that the State of Palestine is a state, or that actually say it is not a fact, you'd support changing the lead of that article? Do let me know, maybe we'll do a test case over there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with saying Palestine is a "declared" state in that lead, as it isn't even nearly universally recognized. Concerning mediation, I certainly didn't earlier intend to issue any threats by suggesting mediation as a possible way forward and it's a bit tragic if editors got that impression. However, speaking for my behalf I have very limited experience from mediation, I recall that the first hurdle is to get all involved editors to agree to it which is why I asked. --Dailycare (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Surprise me and put a POV tag on that article like you did here. Don't forget to insist it stay up until the issue is solved to your satisfaction. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Both these cases must be analysed at the light of WP:DUE WEIGHT.

Not what people think is the truth.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Due weight is important yes, and the current introduction has the right approach. The proposed changes some are demanding would give undue weight to palestinian POV and bias this article. Jerusalem is israel's capital, but the international community does not recognise this. That is stated extremely clearly in the first sentence of the article. For us to pretend that the reality on the ground is not the case, there must be clear evidence that a "capital" is only a "capital" when it has international recognition. No such evidence has been produced. It would be undue weight to treat a palestinian claim to the city as their future capital, in exactly the same way as we treat the fact this is Israel's capital. Quite clearly at present it serves as the capital of the state of Israel, de jure and de facto. No sovereign state of Palestine in control of the territory exists. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I finally got around to filing the request for mediation. There are a number of parties, if I missed someone s/he can be added. --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the statement "capital of Israel" results in many others taking offense, why not include the phrase "self-declared" in front of it? Just like the article on Somaliland. Otherwise, it really depends on a point of view, as Jerusalem is the de facto (it is the seat of the Israeli government) and (by Israeli law) de jure capital of Israel. Assassin3577 (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wordings such as that Jerusalem is the de facto capital, the capital under Israeli law or the declared capital have all been suggested previously, and rejected by those who insist on using the current, unconditional, version.     ←   ZScarpia   18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to try and avoid people taking offence. Its not our job to shield people from realities in the world they get angry about. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, dejure and de facto. Nobody has provided any evidence that says a capital is determined by international recognition of it being a capital, and that a country cannot determine its own capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the summary of relevant Wikipedia rules at the head of this article. We're not here to establish whether Jerusalem is or is not, objectively, the capital of Jerusalem. We're not interested in the reality on the ground, but on what sources say. Any assertion which is disputed by sources cannot be presented as a fact on Wikipedia. Editors insisting that the article states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel have admitted that the statement is disputed, yet they seem to think that it is permissible to then go on to argue that the Israeli view is factual and that any other should be discounted.     ←   ZScarpia   18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I rather think that there's a lot of unnecessary wrangling over a simple statement as whether it is Israel's capital or not. To quote the article on Tskhinvali, South Ossetia is "a disputed region which has been recognised as an independent Republic by Russia and another four UN members, and is regarded by Georgia and all other UN member states de jure as a region within Georgian sovereign territory". This format would arguably be acceptable for Jerusalem, sans the part about international recognition. Anyway, in my opinion, de facto control of an area constitutes the best argument for the wordings on Wikipedia regarding the status on Jerusalem - namely "self-declared". Assassin3577 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher, you are right that a country can determine its own capital, but one limitation is that it must be within the internationally accepted borders of that country. Israel has declared that the entire city of Jerusalem is its capital, but the entire city is not within the internationally accepted borders of Israel. This is the core of the problem. I'll give a similar hypothetic example to illustrate the problem: USA can't declare that Edmunston, New Brunswick is their capital, because it is not within the borders of USA. Because Israel has declared that the entire city of Jerusalem is their capital all countrys have moved their embassies from Jerusalem, mostly to Tel Aviv. Consequently Israel has two "capitals": Jerusalem according to israeli law, and Tel Aviv according to the international recognition. Here is one source that supports this: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/multiplecapital.htm If you think that Tel Avis is not the capital of Israel, try to google "capital tel aviv". I got 16 million hits. PerDaniel (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

USA can't declare that Edmunston, New Brunswick is their capital, because it is not within the borders of USA

Maybe if they just declared it as such, as the Palestinians have done with Jerusalem. But if the U.S. president lived there, the U.S. Supreme Court met there, and the U.S. Congress sat there -- for sixty years, no less -- it would be considered its capital. The idea that Tel Aviv is the actual capital of Israel is a point of view that no one else opposing the current wording has had the courage to back, because it's based on nothing. -- tariqabjotu 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, the article Israel should state the capital as something else, or it should be with POV. Within Wikipedia, there are two different/wrong information.

What is the capital of Israel as per Jerusalem & Israel? It seems to me unreasonableness and no logic. As neural view, in the second line, we can mention that Palestinian authority consider Jerusalem as their future capital. --Anton017 (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

By Israeli law, Jerusalem is their capital. But most, if not all foreign nations are inclined to recognize Tel Aviv as Israel's capital. However, all of Israel's national and state institutions are located in Jerusalem.Assassin3577 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely one suggestion on the table for resolving this issue, namely saying that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. In fact, I'm not aware of real policy-based reasons for not doing the edit, so the proposal seems to have consensus by default, but the case is now going to mediation and we'll see how things turn out there. --Dailycare (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, I don't know how or why you believe you've gone into the mediation in good faith when you hold statements such as "the proposal seems to have consensus by default". There's no consensus among editors here for that or almost anything else. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering he originally agreed to this wording in order to remove something else he didn't like and is now challenging it, the assumption of good faith is long gone. Not to mention Dailycare repeatedly argued that no consensus for a change means the STATUSQUO stays in place when something he liked was challenged. See for example here or [9] (there are several more such examples in that discussion) and now he's invented some sort of "consensus by default". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, if my comment on consensus is unclear to you, you can simply ask for clarification. There is no need to speculate on lack of good faith, in fact there is a need to abstain from such speculation (NMMNG, this point applies to you too). In this case the point comes across from a plain reading of WP:CONSENSUS as repeatedly discussed above (1, 2, 3). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I don't need to ask for clarification of a plainly bad-faith point. I doubt any outsider could read this discussion and say there's consensus for that or anything else. The conclusion you made in the preceding comment can only be made if one assumes that everything you've said in these discussions is correct, a position which, obviously, not everyone holds. The fact that the evidence of your good faith is just three other comments made by you speaks volumes. It's almost impossible to believe that you actually think it's OK to defend the veracity of a remark with three other remarks made by you. Please tell me you're not considering practicing law. -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, you really need to read WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:AGF which is emphasized in WP:ARBPIA2. If your argument is that you want to understand consensus according to how outsiders would see the concept, and not according to WP:CONSENSUS, I'm sure you agree that isn't a persuasive argument. --Dailycare (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've long ago read both. WP:CONSENSUS is just text on a page; it is not a Magic 8 Ball. Your interpretation of that page is just that, just as mine is just an interpretation. There is no such thing as a "plain reading" of anything, unless you're directly quoting. Your interpretation relies on the idea that no policy-based objections have been provided, when those who support the current wording would quickly cite WP:UNDUE and WP:V. And, guess what? There are people who disagree with our interpretations. It is not anyone's place to say our reading is the "plain reading" and others' readings are not, but that's what you've attempted to do.

That being said, your interpretation, I'm sure, of the facts that lead to the conclusion that there's consensus for your preference is very unorthodox and simply self-serving. We have at least one editor, the one who closed the discussion in which all three of your evidentiary remarks were made, who agrees that it's not the correct interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS, and I'm sure that if we had 100 people come to close the discussion, at least 98 would have come to the same conclusion. As for assuming good faith, I did do just that. I could have believed that you really are so ridiculous that you think providing three comments made by you vindicates a fourth, but I don't. In the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people say, write, and believe positions that they wouldn't hold in other arenas simply because it backs up their point. I believe you're doing the same thing here. While I'm sure for convenience's sake you'll say it isn't what you're doing, I remain confident that in a less charged sphere, you'd understand the absurdity of the approach you've presented here. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, of course I agree that if editors were to present substantial arguments based on WP:UNDUE or WP:V, those would be policy-based objections that would affect consensus. However, has that happened? Editors who only show up to say "IDONTLIKEIT" deserve to be ignored and their inputs shouldn't delay anything, this is my point which is entirely consistent with the section of WP:CONSENSUS that I've repeatedly referred to. If you disagree with this point with reasons there can be a discussion, if you disagree without providing reasons you'll be ignored. I'm not going to comment on your allegations that my actions here are self-serving or in bad faith since that's not what this page is for. I'll just refer you to WP:AGF, you said you've read it a long time ago, maybe a new read would be in order. --Dailycare (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I suggest you read about moving the goalposts. This is exactly what you're doing. Everything your opponents say is merely emotional appeal, not meeting your impossibly high standards for being suitable for consideration. As a result, you have consensus, and always will, because you will never be satisfied that an opposing position is based on policy. As I said at the beginning, going into mediation with that mindset is bad faith, no matter how you try to spin it. Good luck trying to pass that off if the mediation is accepted. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at that, although I don't see how I'd be moving goalposts any more than WP:CONSENSUS which says that "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view", and "The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." I suggest that instead of trying to predict my future behaviour, we should concentrate on making the mediation a success, provided it goes forward to begin with. --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. Well, let it be known that if you repeat the statement during mediation that your position has consensus because your opponents have never brought policy-based arguments, I am immediately withdrawing from mediation. I have no interest in dealing with anyone with such arrogance and stubbornness, and there is no hope of "success" if I must. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Assassin, just for the record, your statement is not completely accurate. While all but a few foreign nations do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, they also do not recognize, nor are they "inclined to recognize", as you put it, Tel Aviv as the capital. No one has suggested that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For reasons of practicality (and also as a statement regarding the disputed status of Jerusalem), most countries have their main embassies in Tel Aviv. Am I not incorrect to say that this is a an indication that they view Tel Aviv as Israel's capital, given that all foreign embassies usually have their headquarters located in a nation's capital? Or are we viewing Israel in a different light here? Assassin3577 (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

But, believe it or not, we have sources that do say that that is what other countries believe. Sarahj2107 provided two examples of that under #Edit request on 18 November 2012. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

What do you think if we rewrite as following or refer French wiki's introduction fr:Jérusalem. (Note: The article Israel clearly mention Jerusalem as its capital.)

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It is a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. --Anton017 (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions. This suggestion has been made and rejected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A question

I noticed the flag, coat of arms, and mayor of Jerusalem in this article are all Israeli which makes me wonder, has Palestine given the city a flag or coat of arms? And should not the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem be stated as such as the current article gives the impression he is the mayor of all of Jerusalem, even the half located in Palestine. Any information would be appreciated.

And I do feel it necessary to voice my opinion that the lead is currently highly biased towards the Israeli perspective, though that seems to be par for the course on wikipedia. Sepsis II (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All of Jerusalem is not part of the Palestinian territories, only East Jerusalem is. If there is a Palestinian flag or CoA, it's the flag/CoA of East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so if the Palestinian flag or CoA is just for East Jerusalem, that would mean the Israeli flag and CoA is just for West Jerusalem, as East Jerusalem is not in Israel. We should change this in the article than clarify those flags are Israeli and look at adding the Palestinians symbols, with parentheses to state for Palestinian Jerusalem. Sepsis II (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Proclaimed capital

Just hoping this is a compromise that satisfies both sides. Alertboatbanking (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but it has already been shown not to do so. Please familiarize yourself with the lengthy and intensive discussions above on this Talk page (which also extend into the archives). The existing wording itself is the result of a compromise. There has been no consensus for further changes in the wording. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What was the compromise? When did it occur? How have you been measuring consensus?     ←   ZScarpia   17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A link to a conversation on Hertz1888's talkpage where he defends the current wording. Paraphrasing, the wording is as it is because, despite opposing viewpoints, a group of editors believes that, factually, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Ignoring what other laws and principles may apply and what other parties may say, as proclaimed by the Israeli government, countries, including Israel, have the right to declare any place they want as their capital. A particular dictionary definition definitively prescribes how the term "capital city" is used. The implication is, somehow, that the "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" neutrality rule has not been breached or that it does not apply.     ←   ZScarpia   17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing leaves much to be desired as an accurate representation of what was actually said in the discussion cited. Rather than get into particulars here, however, I prefer to defer further discussion to the pending mediation, with one exception. You asked (above), about the compromise and when it occurred, and in the Sept. 2011 discussion you stated, "The current wording isn't the result of agreement, but of stonewalling." A compromise was indeed struck, here, that apparently was a further compromise on an earlier compromise. The resulting wording, agreed upon in Oct. 2010, has been in the lead ever since, more than two years' time. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

From that discussion, let me quote Dailycare:

This compromise would align the text with what we agreed on Israel after a long discussion and I'd be OK with that. It's not perfect, but much better than the current wording. For my part, I'd be OK with removing the tag and can promise to not raise the issue again or push another version for a long time if it's adopted.

I'm increasingly under the impression that there is no point of mediation, considering Dailycare's obvious inability to keep a promise or shortsighted definition of "a long time". And that's just assuming this is the first time he's raised the issue since then, which I doubt is even true. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I made this exact same point weeks ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement under discussion is the one which asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. However, the conversation here pointed to by Hertz1888, and quoted from by Tariqabjotu, offers no compromise on the wording of the part of the first sentence where that statement is made. True? As to whether mediation will be worthwhile or not, that'll depend on whether the editors who have been pushing the Israeli point of view as a fact decide to desist, I think.     ←   ZScarpia   23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The compromise involved diluting the impact of the first part by adding the second part, and rejecting modification of the first part (specifically by the addition of "proclaimed"). The wording of the first part had stood for three years previously, and two more to date makes five. And yet, here we are again. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Diluting the impact! The article is asserting that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, isn't it? Tell me, is that assertion agreed on, or disputed, by sources?     ←   ZScarpia   00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What did I just say? "I prefer to defer further discussion to the pending mediation". Hertz1888 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it is not a foregone conclusion that the mediation request will be accepted. There are understandable reasons that it may not be, namely that certain people have not agreed to participate. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A Yes, No or Maybe is too much to ask for?     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no point repeating the "Is it supported by the sources?" question. I know you say no, and you know I say yes. We've been through that. The question was about the compromise, and that has been answered. Presumably you were not part of that discussion, so you aren't really under any obligation to agree with what came out of it. However, there comes a point where those who were involved, and those who acceded to its results (and that includes Dailycare), have an obligation to defend it, even if that's not ideally what they want. There's no point in agreeing to a compromise if they'll continue to push for more as soon as the next Tom, Dick, or Jane comes in questioning it. -- tariqabjotu 00:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

But, the question being asked is, "Do sources dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," not, "Do sources say that Jerusalem is Israel's capital?" Looks to me as though Dailycare said that "the compromise" was a step in the right direction, not that it was an acceptable overall solution.     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, in that case I know you say yes, and you know I say no. The positions of everyone who has commented on this matter are well-known. I don't know why you keep asking the same thing over and over. And, no, please do not respond by telling me I'm wrong. I know you think I'm wrong, and you should know that I think you are as well. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not even close to true. here is the version of the article with the tag included. Notice where it is? After the discussion linked to above, conveniently titled "Compromise on the first sentence" (emphasis mine), the first sentence was amended. That was the consensus Dailycare ostensibly agreed to. Pretending that doesn't include the whole first sentence is so dishonest I'm surprised even you would do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Some compromise! That was magnanimous. I had forgotten, I admit, that the first sentence, prior to 2010, didn't even mention the international community's view. However, the wording added after "the compromise" made no difference to whether or not the article was asserting that Jerusalem is, no matter what, Israel's capital, which is the point under discussion, isn't it? I don't think that Dailycare is under any obligation to attempt to block further changes to what he regarded as a partial solution.     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Total nonsense. He explicitly agreed to the compromise twice -- once here and once on the Israel article. Yes, he said he didn't think it was perfect -- but that's the point of a compromise. Notice that there were some (e.g. NMMNG) who said they preferred the previous wording, without the clause about international recognition. But, do you see NMMNG suggesting we remove it, two years later? No, because he agreed to the compromise and he now has an obligation to defend it over his ideal solution. If you think it's okay to come back a couple years later and ask for more, you don't know what a compromise is. If Dailycare didn't think the wording was acceptable (and I said acceptable, not perfect or ideal), he shouldn't have said so back in 2010. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hertz188:

Well, users can decide for themselves how accurately I've paraphrased, can't they? The central issue is that you've avoided facing the fact that on Wikipedia you cannot state as facts things which are seriously disputed such as whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. You said: "To you it's an opinion and a viewpoint, to others a fact." As pointed out, it doesn't matter an iota's dangleberries what editors think about Jerusalem's status. What matters is that it is disputed in sources. Therefore, stating as a fact in Wikipedia that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is pushing the Israeli point of view as a fact.

In a conversation about whether the article should state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, if you point to a conversation where you say a compromise was made, the conversation should actually discuss the wording of the bit of the article which currently asserts that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

Editors can judge for themselves whether stonewalling was employed by looking at conversations such as the one which started round about Archive 13, continued through Archive 14 and came to an inconclusive halt in Archive 15 (1, 2).

Apart from very quickly performed reverts, the article has been pushing the Israeli view for over nine years now. I think that if the editors responsible don't quickly mend their ways, they're due for a spell in the Wikipedia naughty spot.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting really tired of these threats. The complete inability of some in favor of a change to see anything valid in their opponents' arguments is undeniably aggravating, and -- again -- I have no intention of entering any sort of mediation with someone who holds such positions. So if you plan to bring with you the stance that your opponents should be sanctioned rather than heard, please let that be known sooner rather than later. Agreement to mediation is an agreement to mediate in good faith, and I'm seeing concrete evidence that you and Dailycare did not understand that when you signed on to participate. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the threats. He makes them so often while never actually following through that it has become a running joke around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So you say. And, as pointed out before, you seem to have a habit of making comments about other editors which you can't or won't justify. So, where are all these "threats" which I've failed to follow through? Coming from someone who I think is more given to making threats which are actually threats than me, your comment is pretty cheeky. As you'd expect, I'm not really going to get even a tiny bit het up over the idea that editors who I regard as point-of-view-pushing scumsters are having a snigger at my expense. If anyone whose opinion I respect tells me that I'm making an arse of myself, though, I'll make a reformed character out of myself.     ←   ZScarpia   13:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For editors so dedicated to dictionary definitions, you and NoMoreMrNiceGuy seem to take a pretty broad interpretation of what a threat is. As far as inabilities to see merits in opponents' arguments go, perhaps the fault doesn't lie on the side you think it does? The situation here is very simple. The article can assert statements about points of view, when something is disputed, or statements of simple fact, when something is not disputed. Editors are refusing here to either present Jerusalem's status in terms of points of view or in terms of undisputed fact, such as that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/declared capital of Israel or the capital under Israeli law. Despite talk of compromises having been made, that does seem fairly uncompromising.

My agreeing to go to mediation, is an indication that I accept that editors are given another chance to explain their position. However, pending what comes out of mediation, I do think that heavy-duty POV-pushing has been going on here for years and that, rather than let it carry on indefinitely, the behaviour of the editors responsible should be brought up at one of the appropriate venues. I do hope that editors participate in mediation in good faith.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're the one who's unaware of what a threat is. The mediation is likely not going to be accepted, so make your move rather than repeating these allegations of misconduct in the hope that your opponents will change their opinions. If you think the actions of anyone here are unacceptable or if you think some of your opponents are "point-of-view-pushing scumsters", bring it up at that "appropriate venue". That "appropriate venue" is not this talk page, and unless you proceed to do anything other than obliquely refer to misconduct in response to simple statements, your threats are just that -- threats. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, what I wrote in 2010 was that I found the new wording better than the previous one, and agreed to not challenge the compromise wording for a long time even though it's obviously still not compliant with WP:NPOV. Two years is a long time, and this whole time the hatikvah brigade has had the wording in the article, the wording which is, again, against a core principle of Wikipedia. I referred you to WP:AGF only very recently but it seems that yet again you're having difficulty maintaining appropriate behaviour. You should try harder or find another hobby. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, I didn't ask for your defense or opinion, as I see no value in them. Speak to someone who cares. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bring it up at the "appropriate venue" already. We can do that and the mediation at the same time. Put up or shut up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the mediation rules. I think they say that, mediation cannot proceed alongside arbitration. But, in any case, the mediation request has just been rejected.     ←   ZScarpia  

Palestine is not any more an entity

One of the argument put forward not to treat Israel and Palestine the same way regarding their chosen capital Jerusalem was that Israel was a state whereas Palestine was an entity.

Palestine has been recognised officialy has a State on 29 November and its chosen capital is Jerusalem. We could even say that the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is recognized by more States in the world than the choice of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As a consequence, there is no more reason to treat both information totally the same way per wp:npov :

Jerusalem has been chosen as capital both by Israel and Palestine. Nevertheless, Israel's choice is not recognized by the international community and Palestine has no adminstrative control on the city. The final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the State of Palestine claim East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem, as it's capital? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, both parties say Jerusalem is their capital in their Basic Law. Article 3 of Palestinian Basic Law says "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine." (see 2003 Amended Basic Law) And that fact is absent from the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw this in the recent UN vote[10], "the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". It is highly bias to continue to only state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital while disregarding that Palestine also states its capital to be Jerusalem, especially when practically no nations regard it as Israel's capital or even regard the city to even be in Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop the presses. Did the UN just explicitly state, in a resolution supported by the vast majority of countries, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (and Palestine)? This really supports what a lot of the supporters of the current wording have said all along -- that the non-recognition does not change the understanding that Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel. At the same time though, I'm still uncomfortable stating that Jerusalem is the capital of both equally alongside each other, when you consider that Palestine has no government buildings in the city. Pluto's wording gets close to an accurate description about the issue, but something seems off about it. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's that in the sentence "the final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states" the words "by no-one" were missed out. Formerip (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu. No they stated that a it Should become the capital for both Israel and Palestine at some point in the future: "...emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". That is not even close to recognizing it as a capital for either country. PerDaniel (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The words "should become" are not in the portion you quoted, a portion I read earlier. Your interpretation is conceivably correct, but not necessarily so. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to "translate" the diplomatic language used in the document to standard english. I am not able to see any other way to interpret: "Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,". If you think that it means something else, please share it. PerDaniel (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, it's kind of a strange wording. It doesn't say "the status of Jerusalem is the capital of two States", it says "emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States". I read that as "a negotiated two-state capital is the optimal resolution", as in "it isn't the capital of either now, but hopefully will be someday if the parties can agree". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel"...I guess actually doesn't mean a lot here. I did suggest a few weeks/months ago saying that it functions as Israel's capital but that was rejected. I forget the details.Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggested wording above. It makes an equivalence between the country that actually controls the territory and runs its government from there, with someone, who, well, doesn't do any of those things. One is only a proclamation and should not get the same weight.

What's going on with the mediation, btw? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't understand what you say.

In any case, the equivalence is total. Both Israel and Palestine are states, both have been recognised as such by UNO and by a great majority of states. Both have a capital. It is Jerusalem. For both this choice is discussable. For Israel because nobody in the world recognises this (which is not anecdotical). For Palestine because they don't have contorl of the country (which is not anecodtical). Numerous States and UNO explained their recultance to support more openly one or the other claim because all the conflictual issues between Israel and Palestine must be solved throught negociations. All this is clear and I don't see which of the affirmation here above is false (even if nuance is always welcome).

I don't think there is the need of any mediation. There is no conflict. More, since Palestine is now a State and no more an entity, most of the arguments of the opponents of the perfect parallelism have been thrown away.

Some modifications or rephrasing can be done but blocking the movement is not acceptable.

What is to be modified to improve the proposal ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes an equivalence between the country that actually controls the territory and runs its government from there, with someone, who, well, doesn't do any of those things.

It's simple. One clan had land, and it was indwelt by their members. Another took it after clan warfare broke out, and exercised full control over it, while both sides made a claim to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn't decided anything for donkey's ages, but the respective petitions were given due and equal weight in the appeal process because both claims to title in law, by use or prior occupation, cannot be prejudiced before a final determination is made. It would be sheer nonsense in a court of law to allow the victorious clan to present itself as owning the land, and the dispossessed clan as only 'claiming' to own the land.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a court. Please stop blogging. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

? You state your opinions here, but if I reply, it is blogging? What's your problem?Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. One party has de facto sovereignty over the city and runs its government from there. The other has only a proclamation. The two are not equivalent. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Make an argument, not a personal deduction. And ps. to make an analogy from law, is not to argue a law case in court. Try to focus on the technical issue of NPOV and avoid personal dislikes.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG : like Germany from 1945 to 1949. It didn't prevent at the time Germany to be a State.

The last argument is to refer to the 'de facto' occupation and control of Jerusalem but this 'de facto' occupation is illegal and the occupation and annexation of Jerusalem by Israel have been recognised as illegal. It is totally wp:undue weight for an encyclopaedia to give weight to a point of view that is consiered as illegal and in parallel denying the other one. Parallelism is total and the point of view of the international community is now that the final status will result of peace discussions between parties. My proposal is perfectly neutral and in total accordance will all wikipedia principles. The only point to discuss is on potential nuances in order to improve this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't address the issue of whether it's a state or not (but Germany was a state after WWII because it was a state before WWII. The situation here is not the same). The issue I was talking about is that they don't control it or run their government from there. It's their capital in proclamation only. It is Israel's capital, assuming we want to use the normal definition of "capital".

I didn't know wikipedia considers whether something is legal when deciding how much weight it should get. Could you give a link to the relevant policy/guideline? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you write above that "One party has de facto sovereignty over the city and runs its government from there". If this is your argument, are you OK with saying Israel's government operates from Jerusalem, instead of the current wording? Along the lines we've discussed above, "using a definition" inherently amounts to violating WP:SYN: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C". In this case A would be "Israel's government is in Jerusalem", B would be "The location of a government is a capital" and C would be "Jerusalem is Israel's capital". Of course, we have several examples of cities that are seats of government but not capitals, so B isn't a comprehensive definition to begin with. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the usual dishonest argumentation. You forgot to announce again that you have consensus because everyone who disagrees with you is not making valid arguments. I'm not interested in discussing this issue with you outside of mediation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi NMMNG,

Where is the wikipedia policy that explains that a State must control a territory to establish its capital there ? Because that is your only point. I add that when it was pointed out that East-Jerusalem was not in Israel and that nobody recognized it as a capital, it was argued that a State is the only one to decide where it establishes its capital.

You ask me what is the policy considering whether something is legal when deciding how much weight it should get. It is wp:npov. Because all countries of the world have laws and majority of people are expected to follow them. When a point of view is majoritary, per wp:due weight, we consider this one in wikipedia.

Once more, how can we improve what is proposed ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How can the current proposal be improved? Well.. "Jerusalem has been chosen as capital both by Israel and Palestine." is totally unacceptable, giving clear undue weight to a non sovereign state that does not control the territory and wants the city as its future capital, compared with a sovereign state in full control of the city and which has it already acting as its dejure and defacto capital. "Nevertheless, Israel's choice is not recognized by the international community and Palestine has no adminstrative control on the city. - Thats totally unacceptable because says Israels choice is not recognised but does not say the same about Palestinians.. this blatantly plays perfectly into the viewpoint that Jerusalem is Palestines capital but Palestinians dont control it. That is TOTALLY biased and unacceptable. " The final status of the city is expected to be determined by a peace agreement between both states." - WP:CRYSTALBALL much? And a general point about the whole proposal, it is absolutely terrible for what would be in such a prominent position of a city article. Wikipedia would be a joke if every article with some element of dispute started with such weasel sentences. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, if you don't explain yourself properly then the editors here have every right to ignore your posts. You can't keep filibustering this forever with cryptic comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this threads original proposal and all attempts to muddy the waters of this article. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. until those demanding change produce evidence that international recognition is required for it to be called its capital, there is no case for a change to the wording. We give a balanced point of view by explaining it is not internationally recognised. We are not going to change this article to Jerusalem might be israels capital. If a change is made, everything else on this article needs changing too. You cannot pretend this article is not about Israels capital without also removing other elements that reflect Jerusalem is a city in Israel.. such as the city flag, emblem and mayor. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposal that is made still state that Jesuralem is Israel's capital. It remind that Jerusalem is also Palestine's capital and the rationale for this is given.

So, "I strongly oppose to your strong oppostion".

Unless you or NMMNG start a fair discussion about how to improve the proposal, I will introduce this and after you revert me, I will go to the ArbCom because the refusal to work a constructive way is obvious.

By the way, if you want that we write that "Jesuralem is the capital of Israel and Palestine" instead of "have been chosen", it is ok for me and I think for most people. In fact, it is exactly the same for those who consider the "choice" is predominant on the international recognition of the choice. It would be wp:npov to keep "choice" for those who consider that the "choice" is not predominant on the internationl recognitation. But never mind. It will be less pov'ed.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you plan to take unilateral action by trying to introduce this wording that lacks consensus, go ahead. it will be reverted. This proposed wording is one of the worst that has been discussed in the past couple of months and i have given very specific reasons why it is inappropriate. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also you seem to imply that to be constructive we must agree with your proposed wording or suggest alterations to it. Well im sorry but i dont agree with any of your proposed wording and i support the current version. To suggest that it is unacceptable to support the articles very long standing wording would if right have massive implications on wikipedia. It is simply not the case though. Some support change, others oppose change. It is for those who want change to justify a change and propose wording that gets consensus (as the current wording had some time ago when it was agreed). BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, I'm going to repeat what I said to ZScarpia: Don't make threats. If you want to bring this matter to ArbCom, bring this matter to ArbCom. Issuing ultimatums and proposing conditions, especially ones that you know will be met, that will lead to a request for arbitration accomplish nothing toward resolving this issue and instead raise the temperature.

Moving on, I'm not entirely sure your proposal does say it is the capital of Israel. It's still hedging. And, more importantly, it seems to, for someone without background information, present the two claims to Jerusalem's status as capital as nearly equal. While it rightly states that Israel's claim is not universally recognized and Palestine has no control over the city, it omits two points. First, it doesn't say that Palestine's claim does not have universal recognition either. The final status of Jerusalem is subject to negotiations, and the current status does not fit the concept of a capital for Palestine beyond a simple desire. One way you could fix this is by simply stating that both capital statuses see limited recognition and that their final statuses are subject to negotiations. Second, it omits the point that Palestine has no governmental institutions in the city. By using the phrase "chosen as capital" (or "is capital", as you've proposed as an alternative) for both Israel's claim and Palestine's claim without highlighting this second point, you give the misleading impression that their claims have similar manifestations. We know that's not the case. These two points, especially the latter, are particularly important. Your wording seems like a step in the right direction for a more detailed discussion, but that's already done in the appropriate section in the body anyway.

But I don't know how much can and should be said in the lead. I think some reordering could be done in the first paragraph; unlike with many other capital cities, when people think of Jerusalem, its status as capital of Israel is not the first thing they think of. The first sentence could, at the very least, be more interesting. Nevertheless, as I've said many times before, I think the current wording, regardless of where it's placed in the lead, is fine for a brief summary of this capital issue:

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.
• Palestinians claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, but they have no governmental institutions in the city.

These are all statements supported by sources. The desires to dilute the first point with the word "disputed" or "proclaimed" are just oversimplified introductions of the second point, and do nothing to educate the reader about the situation. Calling Jerusalem a "disputed capital" or "proclaimed capital" leaves the wording open to interpretation (by design, I'm sure), in an unnecessary state given we can just describe what the dispute is -- something that's already done by noting that the capital status is not recognized and providing a lengthy footnote with even more detail. At the same time, if we take the stance that it is not correct or accurate to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, we leave ourselves with some important questions. Namely, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is? Is it Tel Aviv? Few or no one in these threads have suggested that -- it's really indefensible -- so that leads us to the question, can a state be without a capital? I believe the answer is no. If it has a government, it has at least one capital. But, if the issue here is with the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" -- and we all know it is -- you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe -- sorry, what the sources say -- Israel's actual capital is, or whether it has one at all. -- tariqabjotu 10:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat the three points, and offer a lead sentence.

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.
• Palestinians claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, but they have no governmental institutions in the city.

I.e.

Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as the capital of their respective states. The former, unlike the latter, has its seat of government there, but its status as Israel's capital is widely challenged.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be equivalent in meaning, but it's unnecessary evasion. I'm speaking mostly about my first point. I can't imagine any other capital city article including the sentence "X claims Y as its capital, and its primary governmental institutions are in the city". That would just be written as "X is the capital of Y". -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand why we need to look at other capital city article[s]. What other state has declared its capital to be outside of its territory? These comparisons all fail because the circumstances are not sufficiently similar. nableezy - 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sufficiently similar... according to you. I doubt anyone outside of this conflict would hear that a country has proclaimed a city as its capital and placed all of its major governmental institutions there, and then, when asked if that city is the country's capital, ask if that country is legally governing the city according to international law before answering. Because that point is totally irrelevant. -- tariqabjotu 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anybody unfamiliar with the conflict would think to ask what country this supposed capital city is located in, because nobody unfamiliar with the conflict would think that a country would, or could, declare a capital in a place outside of its territory. And, to begin the parrot act, the point is totally irrelevant... according to you. Is there another country on the planet that has declared its capital to be outside of its territory? Because if so then you may have a point in your opening rejoinder. If not, well, then it was just an example of why there isnt a point in "discussing" this. nableezy - 20:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, duly noted. You don't have to participate then, just as you felt disinclined to participate in mediation due to your supposed trivial hand in this dispute. So, don't. But I have explained why I think the comparison is apt, and I will continue to use it, without your input at every corner. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My supposed trivial hand in this dispute??? My hand in this dispute has been raising that the arguments in favor of your preferred wording are based on asinine comparisons that have no basis in the sources. I may well continue to do that. I recognize there isnt a point to doing so, as this article is controlled by a group of people with either the inability or the disinclination to engage in a reasoned and rational discussion. To that point, I have duly noted that you have neglected to answer the question posed to you, that being is there another country on the planet that has declared its capital to be outside of its territory. I understand why you dont want to answer the question, namely because it makes a mockery of the claim that the comparison is apt. nableezy - 21:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "if we take the stance that it is not correct or accurate to say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, we leave ourselves with some important questions. Namely, if Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is?", I disagree. That isn't relevant at all. Also "you're going to have to elaborate on what you believe -- sorry, what the sources say -- Israel's actual capital is, or whether it has one at all." No, no one has to do that, nor should they. If anyone is stupid enough to do that, they probably need to be article banned or at least have a nap. No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, so the question simply doesn't arise. The sources say all sorts of things ranging from statements of fact to statements that use words like claim, proclaimed, declared etc and the objective is to reflect them. If intelligent people are genuinely incapable of finding some compromise that reflects the diversity present in the sources then we may as well change it to something like "Just like many other undisputed facts, God is Great, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, God created the Earth in six days, Jesus Saves, and such like, it is a simple matter of fact that the city of Jerusalem, complete and united, including parts that are across the Green Line, is the capital of Israel, and only Israel, although it is not internationally recognized as such." Call me cynical but this seems about the same as the current wording to me, only much clearer. If we are going to present dogma that people value highly and accept as fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice despite the mess in the sources then we might as well be honest and really go for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? Oh really? Then what's wrong with saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that statement but for the fact that they believe there are some sources or some people or whatever who believe it isn't. This has been explicitly stated by some opponents to the current wording. For example, Zscarpia stated "The view of what we term for convenience the international community is that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" (13:33, October 29). Right. So what do they believe it is, if that's the case? Do they believe Israel has no capital? The issue is and always has been the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". How much is said in an accompanying clause or in the following sentences has always been negotiable, but it has rarely been the focus of the discussion because there has been an implied or expressly stated concern that the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not necessarily correct and, by extension, the sentence "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not necessarily incorrect, at least according to some sources. Please don't play semantics. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed things like saying, instead of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", e.g. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law", "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government" or "Israel's government is based in Jerusalem". These are amply sourced in reliable sources. I vaguely recall that some editors have used "Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital" as a kind of strawman to argue against, but no-one has AFAIK suggested using that language in the article. Saying it is the capital, or that it isn't, aren't the only options. --Dailycare (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I probably didn't make myself clear in my earlier response to you, if you noticed that, so let me say it in a simpler fashion: you have proven your input to be of no value, and so I have no interest in it. If you perceive me as directing any questions toward you or soliciting your opinion or acknowledging a comment of yours, you are wrong. I'm just not interested, and will make zero effort to respond to your comments or positions, here or anywhere else, regardless of their nature, from now on. Consider it a self-imposed interaction ban, and I'd prefer if you'd respect it. -- tariqabjotu 00:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully support the current wording and I do not see any reasonable argument beyond POV to change the lead. Those who refused mediation should in my opinion avoid this discussion.--Tritomex (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has proposed that this article say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? Oh really? Then what's wrong with saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"?

Plainly, there's a difference between what I would myself say and what I think WP should say. Personally, I happen to think that Roger Moore was the best James Bond and that Chomskyan linguistic theory is fundamentally mistaken. But I appreciate that reasonable people have different views on these questions, so I don't force mine on the leads of the relevant articles in Wikipedia's voice.

I think Dailycare's point is that only one side of the debate is trying to impose their view on the article - the other is just trying to present the issue as one that not everyone agrees about.

That's the beginning and end of the whole thing, really. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I never said there has been an explicit suggestion to include the phrase "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" in the article. That would be absurd, obviously, less so because of its factual inaccuracy, but because of its uselessness. I'm also against "Sydney is not the capital of Australia" being in the lead of Sydney. But the objection to the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" on the basis that there are "different views" implies that there are sources that believe it is not the capital of Israel. Zscarpia plainly stated that he believes "the international community" believes it's not the capital of Israel. At least he was clear. But it is silly to suggest there are "different views" on the issue and state that no one believes Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. One can believe it is or it isn't. There's no in between. This goes back to why simply stating there is limited or no international recognition (which does not necessitate the belief that Jerusalem is not actually the capital) is the most accurate way to describe the issue. If we're all in agreement -- as some of you seem to conveniently suggest now -- that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not supported by any sources, what exactly is the problem here? -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not complex. If Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it is also the capital of Palestine given the parallelism is perfect. And if Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel it is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine. Both are recognized States by many other States. Both have been recognized the status of State by the UNGA. Both chose to establish their capital there. One sees this choice rejected by the entire world and one chose a city it doesn't control. Again : parallelism is total. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The parallelism is far from perfect. It is the de facto capital of one side, which runs most of its government from there, while the other side doesn't even have a token government presence there since they don't control any of it. The Palestinians can't use it as a capital because they don't control it. All they can do is say that it is their capital. That's not even close to being parallel with the Israeli situation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This was answered.

Why would a 'de facto' occupation be more relevant than an international recognition ?

You didn't answer to main point of only block the process. Regarding what you say and what is the current version, you are a pov-pusher. I will remind this as an a-priori for all future interactions with you. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Those are also points I made several times in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the foolishness involved in going from Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" is not supported by any sources to arguing that it therefore follows that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" can be stated as a fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Regarding "One can believe it is or it isn't. There's no in between.", setting aside the irrelevance of "belief", that is an either-or fallacy that is contradicted by the actual data in the sources that editors are required by policy to deal with in a way that complies NPOV. The simple fact that many reliable sources, the data we are required to use for content decisions, present something as a claim rather than a fact is enough to render all arguments that it is okay for us to present it as a fact null and void. This is obvious and no amount of arguing will change the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Once more this discussion is blocked. There are sources that state Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. It was claimed it could not be placed in parallel because Palestine was not a State (despite not from reliable sources) Now it is a State. So there is no reason to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. So, there is no wp:rs sources to state the contrary.
Another option is to keep the current wording but just after this add next to the current wording : "Jerusalem is also the capital of Palestine whereas the Palestinians do not control the city."
The discussion proves to be impossible. I personnally consider it is not a content issue but a behaviour issue. What is next step to solve this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are an experienced Wikipedia editor. You know the tools at your disposal. You are free to use them if you see them as appropriate, but again please don't make threats, even ones disguised as rhetorical questions. Given the increasing number of editors who seem unwilling to treat this as a content dispute, I'm not going to continue commenting on the substance of the current wording (or alternative wordings). This thread, like most others before, is clearly going nowhere anyway, and I refuse to allow my reasonable disagreement to be twisted into "blocking" or "pushing the Israeli view" or "refusing to work in a constructive way". Good luck. -- tariqabjotu 08:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I will simultaneously make a proposal and withdraw my support for it given the atmosphere. -- tariqabjotu 09:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well the proposal is a good improvement on the proposals here which are awful, but i cant support such a change. I believe it is totally reasonable to state in the first sentence Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but not internationally recognised. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what we currently have, of course. This is more about me being on the record, addressing some of the issues I felt the other proposals had. But I'm not currently supporting it; at this stage, there is no point. -- tariqabjotu 12:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but u have to propose something that builds consensus, the fact those demanding that cant because some of the proposals have been so outrageously biased is not the fault of those opposed to change. You say everything has changed.. no everything has not changed. In the eyes of the UN it may be a non member observer state, but it is not a sovereign state and it is not in control of the territory. By the way does the UN recognise Jerusalem as the capital of this "new state"? As for you violation of WP:AGF, suggesting we are somehow misbehaving because we support current wording and reject biased wording is offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are totally bad faith and you should be blocked from editing wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: "First, I'm going to repeat what I said to ZScarpia: Don't make threats." Exactly what are these "threats" you keep on claiming that I have made? To me, the first sentence here is what a threat looks like. It says, unless I do something, something unpleasant will be done to me. To me, the first sentence here is what a warning looks like. I suspect some editors may perceive it as containing a threat, though. As a point of principle, I try to avoid writing threats. That is, normally, I don't tell people that I will respond in certain ways unless they do something I want or refrain from doing something I don't want. I'm pretty sure that I didn't mean to convey threats or warnings in anything I have written on this page. If you've perceived threats in anything I have written here, perhaps those threats are products of your own imagination?     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think Pluto makes a valid point above. IMO, this seems a rather simple issue of presenting as a claim something described in sources as a claim. Or not describing an unrecognized claim as a neutral fact, which is a less ambitious but equally worthy goal. We discussed earlier how to proceed and decided above to have a go at mediation. Sadly the mediation wasn't accepted since a few of the 19 parties didn't agree to go along with it. Concerning speculating about bringing the case to AE or Arbcom, I think we should decide what to do and then do it, even if it is then AE/Arbcom. Maybe we could write to Jimbo Wales and ask him to make a ruling that would settle the question? At least, until the two-state or one-state solution finally fixes the real-life dispute. Should we choose instead to continue content discussion here, we might adopt some kind of more formal approach to suppress noise and promote signal. --Dailycare (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree and am happy to go along with whatever way forward has majority support amongst those who don't think the current wording is neutral (short of just throwing in the towel). By suggesting that it might be time to go to AE, I was flying a kite to start a discussion. At the end of the day, what is needed is for somebody or somebodies authoritative to make a judgement about consensus (that is, which arguments are most valid, not just a head count).     ←   ZScarpia   23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"I agree and am happy to go along with whatever way forward has majority support amongst those who don't think the current wording is neutral " - Your attempts to merely bypass the significant number of editors on this page who support the current wording is offensive and not the approach followed on wikipedia. You cannot simply dismiss the fact the current wording (Which was agreed by consensus and has been in the article for a long time) is supported by a lot of editors and we have given our reasons for supporting the current wording. Again.. it is for those who demand change to propose specific change. So far no proposal has in any way got the level of support required for the article to be altered. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that sentence was in reference to how to handle the alleged misconduct by those who support the current wording. ZScarpia is saying, at least how I read it, that he wants input from those who don't find the wording neutral as to how to proceed with addressing the misconduct he perceives, or at least trying to get the wording changed. Obviously, those who support the current wording will not have anything to say about that (although perhaps we have in saying their allegations are misguided). -- tariqabjotu 22:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My imagination? No, your words. I read your words and respond to them, as written, not as you choose to retroactively describe them. Sorry. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, exactly what are these "threats" you keep on claiming that I have made?     ←   ZScarpia   13:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you haven´t volunteered an explanation, don´t repeat your slur.     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat the obvious to someone who refuses to hear. Multiple people have pointed out your threats, but you reduce these remarks to "slurs". No explanation I could give would satisfy someone who has an answer for anything, so I won't even try. -- tariqabjotu 23:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's simple: I've given a definition of what anything that might be construed as a threat here is and pointed you to an example of a threat made by NoMoreMrNiceGuy. If you can't either point to a fault in my definition or explain how anything I've written conforms to it then keep your insulting personal comments to yourself. Note that the rules specify that you should be able to justify any personal remarks you make. No explanation you could give would satisfy me? Well, that doesn´t excuse you from trying, now, does it? Multiple people? Just because you and NoMoreMrNiceGuy choose to make accusations doesn´t make them true. Who here is refusing to listen? Perhaps it´s the one who has been, and is, pushing the Israeli point of view on the status of Jerusalem as a fact in the article despite what other editors have been writing for years.     ←   ZScarpia   18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Tariqabjotu presented the following two points:

• Israelis claim Jerusalem is the capital of their state, and they have their primary governmental institutions in the city (i.e. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel).
• Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not widely recognized.

I'd say that the following present the situation more neutrally:

• Israelis claim that Jerusalem is the capital of their state. It has been annexed to Israel and declared its capital under Israeli law. The primary Israeli government institutions have been moved to the city.
• The international community does not view Jerusalem as either Israeli territory or as the capital of Israel. Israel's unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are viewed as illegal and of no standing. Legally, Jerusalem is seen as having the status of an international city.

    ←   ZScarpia   22:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

ZScarpia "The international community does not view Jerusalem as either Israeli territory or as the capital of Israel" this is a prime example of WP:OR. I have no knowledge that "international community" although such thing hardly exist as defined entity, dispute that West Jerusalem is part of internationally recognized State of Israel. --Tritomex (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you don't believe something is the case because you have no knowledge of it. Can you provide a source that says the international community recognize West Jerusalem as part of the State of Israel ? I don't think that is the case, at least in terms of sovereignty. This, for example, is what Ruth Lapidoth says in Jerusalem: A City and Its Future ISBN 978-0815629139, "Most foreign nations have not adopted a clear-cut policy on the status of west Jerusalem...Foreign states were not prepared to recognize the legality of Jordanian or Israeli rule over zones of Jerusalem under the latters' control. One manifestation of this attitude has been that foreign consuls stationed in the city have refused to apply to Jordan or Israel for permission to carry out their functions in the city."(p.72). And also, "To date, foreign states have not recognized any sovereignty over Jerusalem, but they have acquiesced in de facto Israeli control over west Jerusalem, while claiming that east Jerusalem is occupied territory" (p.89). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an Information Clearing House article which gives a convenient summary of UN resolutions concerning Jerusalem. You can see that the resolutions tend to refer to the whole of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem. For example, Resolution 252 "declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem 'invalid' and called upon Israel 'to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.' "     ←   ZScarpia   00:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I provide a source that says the international community recognize West Jerusalem as part of the State of Israel?-I can provide hundreds of sources that Israel is intentionally recognized state within 1967 borders and West Jerusalem is within 1967 borders of the State of israel. Even so I can provide numerous reliable sources which simply states that Jerusalem is capital of Israel, without mentioning the international dispute.

Responding to the unsigned comment immediately above, it's true there are sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. These sources represent Israel's side of the argument and don't change in any way how we should write this article. In detail, they don't change the fact that the issue of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital is a significant controversy, as we've established from reliable, international, sources, and should (per WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy) be described as such, without taking sides. The same applies to sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital, or that Tel Aviv is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Sources you don't agree with "don't change in any way how we should write this article"? Funny how that works. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources that say Jerusalem is the capital, like those that say Jerusalem isn't the capital, or that Tel Aviv is the capital, don't change the fact that the issue of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital is a significant controversy, as we've established from reliable, international, sources, and should (per WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy) be described as such, without taking sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, A little correction to the common misconception regarding the section title, which refers to the UN vote of 29 November. First in the UN 'Palestine' is the designation for PLO and second the vote only upgraded the PLO observer status in the UN(which it held from 1974). It gives PLO more power in the UN and symbolic but doesn't recognize the state, or more importantly give them sovereignty. Furthermore, recognition is an interesting thing, all the international recognition of Palestinian rights(including the last UN vote) is tied to PLO and its institutions, which leaves negotiations the only way to achieve a change in status, per the international agreements they signed.--Mor2 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the self-declared capital of Israel, unrecognized by the rest of the world and the UN

It is important, as a statement of fact, to mention in the first sentence of this article that "Jerusalem is the self-declared capital of Israel". By stating that it is the "capital of Israel" the article is not making a factual statement as capitals, like states, need to be recognized in order for them to be so. The annexation of Jerusalem by Israel is illegal under international law and its self-declaration that it is the capital remains unrecognized globally and in the United Nations. The annexation was declared null and void by UNSC Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 476 and UNSC res 478. More than thirty years after the self-declared annexation, almost all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv in recognition of this fact.

Suggest to reword the first sentence to make it an objective statement of fact and explicitly state that it is the "self-declared capital of Israel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.42.128 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You may want to add your declarative theories to the Capitals article.--Mor2 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Other option

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, Jerusalem is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included, with a population of 801,000 residents over an area of 125.1 km² (48.3 sq mi). Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.^[ii]

That is another way to solve the issue. As was pointed out before, the fact it is one of the oldest city of the world and the fact it is sacralized in the 3 monotheisth religions is much more relevant than the current political struggle.

Concerning your proposal :

• Jerusalem is one's largest Israeli city but there is not reason to "include" East Jerusalem as if it could be reasonnable to do so. East-Jerusalem is not an Israeli city except in the eyes of Israel. That would be wp:undue.
• the fact the city is 'cut' with a part in Israel and a part in the West Bank/Palestine should be stated as well as the fact Israel is opposed to this division and annexed East Jerusalem in 1980.

That could be solved as follows :

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea with a total population of around 800,000 people. Due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the city was divided in 1948 in West and East-Jerusalem. In 1967 Israeli took the control of the East side and annexed it in 1980. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital but the international community requires that the question is settle by peace talks between both parties.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Or a combination of the two:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea with a total population of around 800,000 people. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.^[ii]

I like how this wording conveys the "asymmetry" of the two claims in a non-wordy way by fleshing out that Israel has institutions there, and Palestinians have an aspiration to it. The Palestinian claim has more recognition but that isn't lead material IMO. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This proposals are fully unacceptable POV pushing. Palestine is not recognized as a state by EU, USA, Canada, Australia etc and Palestine is not member of UN. Western Jerusalem is internationally recognized part of the State of Israel, and Jerusalem function as de facto capital of Israel. So this two claims are not equal, and due to WP:UNDUE can not go hand in hand.--Tritomex (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There are the usual problems here, but out of curiosity, what's the source for "the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In 1988, PLO chose Jerusalem as capital. So at worse it can be stated it is what they aspire for given don't control the territory. But why to discuss...Pluto2012 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

i Strongly oppose all of these proposals. However i would be prepared to support a sentence along the lines of "Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally" , but not in the opening sentences of the introduction. The final paragraph of the introduction could go into that sort of detail, whilst the current opening sentence remains the same, stating simple basic fact. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but this is not recognised by the international community. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose your strong opposition. LOL Pluto2012 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, you can't just say you strongly oppose since no individual editor WP:OWNs this article. If you have an objection to a proposed edit, it should be based on a wikipedia policy. Otherwise, your opposition will come across as simply telling another editor to not do an edit because you say so. --Dailycare (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So im not even allowed to oppose proposals? The fascist nature of some of the commentary on this page by those who are demanding the article be changed to reflect their views continues to disturb me. People propose a change, other editors are allowed to express their opinion on those proposals. Something i have just done and i even said id be prepared to support an element of the proposal, yet it gets thrown back in my face. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't say you aren't allowed to oppose proposals. What I said can be read immediately above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The fascist nautre of some commentar[ies] on this page ? Which ones ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

well attempts to imply that editors are not free to support the status quo and that those who do are being disruptive and breaking the rules and might be reported to admins simply for backing the current long standing wording. The suggestion that those who favour some sort of change should simply collaborate and ignore the views of those opposed to change.

It has been made very clear the problems with the proposals in question based on wikipedia policy. These proposals continue to give clear undue weight to Palestinian POV, ignoring the fact the circumstances between the Palestinian/Israel "claim" are very different. Jerusalem is the defacto and de jure capital of the state of Israel, that is not the case in regards to the Palestinian "state". No evidence has been produced showing a capital is only a capital if it has international recognition or that a country cannot decide its own capital city. To pretend that there is equal weight in saying "Jerusalem is Israels capital / Jerusalem is Palestines capital" is factually inaccurate and blatantly biased. My opposition to the proposals have been made clear, these latest ones have the same problem, which is why i merely stated i opposed the wording, in doing so i got accused of trying to "own" the article despite the fact my comment was even seeking to compromise, by backing some of the proposed wording, just not for the first sentence of an article. Yet that was just totally ignored. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that WP:UNDUE is part of a policy (WP:NPOV). I think this latest proposal has been designed specifically to present the differences between the Palestinian and Israeli claims. Concerning the evidence you mention, once again, no-one is proposing to edit the article to say Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital. We can try this another way: since you're unhappy with the proposals put on the table so far, can you think of a proposal of your own? I realize you described one proposal immediately above, but I'm now referring to a proposal that would address the prime concern that editors have here, which is the "is the capital of Israel" point. In other words, can you think of a way to change this wording in a way that you find correctly weighted, verifiable and also that we would find agreeable? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe a change is necessary, however i would be prepared to support some change if it resulted in consensus so we can remove the dispute tags and those involved in the agreement would commit to the wording for the foreseeable future, rather than in a months time the same editors seeking additional changes, and the removal of the dispute tags. Im not convinced that those who favour the status quo would go along with this suggestion, and im not sure if it would be enough for those demanding change either, but if it was able to resolve this matter, i would support wording like..

"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognised as such, and it's future status remains one of the core issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is one of the oldest cities in the world and located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea"

Id be prepared to back wording of that sort, but i cannot support attempts to suggest Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine in the opening sentences of this article. It absolutely gives undue weight to Palestinian POV, the situation is not "equal" as some would like. Israel, rightly or wrongly is in complete control of Jerusalem and treats it as its dejure and defacto capital, those 3 things cannot be said about the "State of Palestine". BritishWatcher (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Israel controls the city is not enough because this control is illegal as reminded in different UN resolution and as reminded by the fact the international community didn't recognize the choice of Jerusalem as capital.

There is no "attempt' to suggest that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. It is the capital of Palestine. A few months ago, it was argued it was not because Palestine was not a state but an entity. It is now a State with international recognition.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the numerous reliable sources stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine, like there are numerous sources saying Jerusalem is Israel's capital, despite some saying it lacks international recognition. Show me links to the UN documents following the recent upgrade at the UN which specifically state Jerusalem is Palestines capital? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you show "links to UN documents ... which specifically state Jerusalem is [Israel's] capital"? nableezy - 16:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No i dont have documents showing the UN says Jerusalem is Israel's capital, although i think someone may ave posted one article from one of their agencies that says it but that is not my basis for saying this article should say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I accept Jerusalem isnot internationally recognised officially as Israels capital, that is why the article specifically states that is the case in the first sentence. But people here are using the recent UN upgrade to claim it justifies a change to this article.. yet clearly it does not as so little evidence is produced saying Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If I do so, will you accept the parallelism ?

In other words : you will be convinved if, for each source that state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, a source of equivalent quality can be found that state that East-Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine; AND if, for each source that states that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/expected capital of Israel, a source of equivalent quality stating the equivalent for Palestine can be found.

Is this ok ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide numerous reliable sources saying Jerusalem is the capital of a Palestinian state today (and not merely East Jerusalem or a "future" capital for their state), then yes i would see a far stronger case for a change, because after all this debate ive yet to see such evidence. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No. It will be for East-Jerusalem of course. And it will be "equivalent to those regarding" Jerusalem for Israel. Confirm now. If not, we will just consider you are just here to block the process. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And there we have it. "No. It will be for East-Jerusalem of course" So please explain why we are being asked to state in this article that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There may be sources that say just that (although on my quick glance, few state this outright; it's mostly attributed to Arafat or Abbas, etc). However, the issue still remains: Israel has its government there, while Palestine does not. Israel has control of the city, while Palestine does not. Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital has nothing to show for it, except the international belief that there is some possibility it'll eventually become a reality. But we are not a crystal ball. While it is not unacceptable to mention the Palestinian claim, it is ridiculous to do so without qualifying it in a way that notes that Israel's claim, as it stands now, is substantially stronger than Palestine's, without noting that the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as its capital has as much grounding in present-day reality as a claim to Istanbul as its capital would. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is it is ridiculous to do so without qualifying it in a way that notes that Israel's claim, as it stands now, is substantially stronger than Palestine's? Since when did a random person on the internet become the sole adjudicator on international law? The Israeli claim to Jerusalem, united forever and ever, as its capital has been rejected by every competent party on the planet. This idea that because a state illegally annexes occupied territory and establishes colonies and government buildings in that territory that they somehow have a stronger claim to it than the people who nearly the entire world says is legally their territory is asinine. nableezy - 16:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading proposed POV pushing I am more than sure that the only change in the lead that needs to be done is the removal of neutrality tag-artificially kept there by this marathon discussion which leads nowhere.--Tritomex (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tritomex,

Considering your attitude and your obvious lack of understand of WP:NPOV, I ask that you discuss your proposals of modificaitons in the article before performing any.

Thank you for your understanding. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal, BritishWatcher. This proposal is moving in the right direction, although it still contains the problem, namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Could you think of a proposal that doesn't contain this phrase? WP:NPOV states at the top, in bold-face: "describe disputes, but not engage in them" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". This document seems to describe the BBC's editorial policy, it states: "Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital (...) That claim is not recognised internationally" --Dailycare (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As a sanity check, look how easy it is for another tertiary source, the Children's World Atlas (ISBN 978-0756675844, p. 81), to deal with this.

• "The old city of Jerusalem is sacred to three of the world's major religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - each with their own holy sites and separate districts. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. As a result, the city is a frequent source of conflict."

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Tariqabjotu

copied/pasted from above : However, the issue still remains: Israel has its government there, while Palestine does not. Israel has control of the city, while Palestine does not. Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital has nothing to show for it, except the international belief that there is some possibility it'll eventually become a reality. But we are not a crystal ball. While it is not unacceptable to mention the Palestinian claim, it is ridiculous to do so without qualifying it in a way that notes that Israel's claim, as it stands now, is substantially stronger than Palestine's, without noting that the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as its capital has as much grounding in present-day reality as a claim to Istanbul as its capital would. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That has already been answered.

You are right that the situation on the ground is that one but :

1. Israel's occupation is illegal. East-Jerusalem is an occupied territories. Israel has been condemned for this occupation, the establishment of civils in occupied territories and the annexion of East-Jerusalem. On the other side the Palestinians claims are supported by a majority of nations. If somebody steals your car, it doesn't become his own because he admmnister and control this.

2. You claim that the Israel's claim is stronger than the Palestinian's claim. Stronger by what ? There is not a single state all over the world that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The ratio is 1:1000. The representatives of 7,000,000 people against those of 7,000,000,000. The claim of Israel is only stronger in the sense of the resort to force and this has been condemned by UNO.

All in all, let's gather sources that state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and compare them with sources that state East-Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. NPOV requires both point of views are given and WP:DUE WEIGHT requires we give these their right relative ratio.

That will be easy to conlude.

Let's see what official organisations say, political scientists, historians specialist on the topic, ...

Is this ok ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. At no point did I ever say Jerusalem (East or West) rightfully belonged to Israel. I merely stated, as I've said before, that has nothing to do with the fact that Israel's government is located there and -- rightfully or not -- Israel has control over the land. I should mention that that was the case for thirteen years prior to UN Resolution 478, and that the city has been home to Israel's government for thirty years prior to it. It's not as if something magically happened on August 20, 1980, when the UN stated an annexation not coincident with Israel's placement of its government was illegal.

2. Stronger in what sense? In the sense that it actually functions as such. The Palestinian claim is just an aspiration. They have no governmental institutions there. They have no control over the city. They have no sovereignty, really, over anything. According to your logic above (absurd, in my opinion, but let's run with it) that even West Jerusalem is occupied territory, East Jerusalem does not rightfully belong to the Palestinians. Palestinians have never had control over any of the city, and it is far from certain that the Palestinians will ever gain control over a significant portion of Jerusalem. And yet you believe their claim is equal to Israel's? A country whose government has been located in the city (and existed at all!) for over sixty years and a country who currently has control over the entire city and will almost certainly maintain control over at least the western half of it following a resolution of this conflict? Unbelievable. We don't need historians, political scientists, or other experts to say this.

At this moment, Israel's statement that Jerusalem is its capital means much more than Palestine's statement that it's its capital, as this article should be written based on reality, not on some ideal vision of the world. You should consider yourself lucky that I, or anyone else, would even entertain the idea of putting the Israeli and Palestinian claims in the same sentence, and you should drop any hope of the article doing so without clear qualification. -- tariqabjotu 20:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You fail to answer the point.

In synthesis, you say that the facts are that Jerusalem is controled by Israel and is the capital and that that it is not the case for Palestine. You say "this article should be written based on reality, not on some ideal vision of the world". Indeed. But reality is that the city is occupied and that this has been condemned. I add that what you write here is arrogant : "You should consider yourself lucky that I, or anyone else, would even entertain the idea of putting the Israeli and Palestinian claims in the same sentence, and you should drop any hope of the article doing so without clear qualification". I add that this is racist given the arguments are given and the only point behing this is that you would be your superiority or the Israeli one.

For what concerns the topic :

I explained that sources remind this is an occupation and is illegal.

I understand that your have a important misunderstanding of reality and that it will be impossible to make you understand that the "resort to force" in "real life" [sic] or on wikipedia is not acceptable.

But whatever.

You didn't answer to the other point : why are you afraid to compare what sources say and let them decide. You arguments about the "reality" are, from my point of views, the ones of a minority of fanatics. Let's dig the sources, let's find what the reliable sources say and let's see WHO STATES WHAT among reliable sources regarding the status of Jerusalem as capital of Palestine and/or Israel.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Don't state opinions as facts, at best Israel legal situation in Jerusalem is disputed or rather its situation in East Jerusalem. As far as I seen Israel has a legal case for both, but politics is rarely about the letter of the law, which doesn't cover complicated situation and doesn't always provide solutions that everyone can live with. For example 478 that Tariqabjotu mentioned that came after the PLO claim accepted in 1974 was silver lined with "its implications for peace".

2. I am not certain how many recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital after 1948, but I know that it has been the capital of sovereign state for a good part of a century.(p.s only following 478 punitive action in 1980, after Israel changed the status of East Jerusalem, the UN called upon its members to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city) While the Palestinians barely have administrative power over their own territory, not to speak of sovereignty and certainly not over East Jerusalem. As to your claim that the 'Palestinians claims that are supported by a majority of the nations' you should really take a look at the wording of those documents, they always vague about the actual rights and always come with pending final negotiations silver lining(so far they have never been determined in any legal document or agreement to be sovereign Palestinian). Also your claim that 'Palestine has been recognised officialy as a State on 29 November" is false, that not what the UN bid was about.--Mor2 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

1. At best the "Israel legal situation in Jerusalem is disputed"... The famous "disputed" : read book instead of listening to Israeli propaganda and blogs.

2. No country in the world recognize Jesurasalem as Israel's capital. If you don't agree, tell me which ones ? Nauru maybe ?

2. Palestine is a non-member state of the UNO. The status of State was recognized before as a State by hundreds of other states.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Inlight of various legal arguments and views, disputed is the operative word regarding WP:NPOV. Furthermore, I suggest books without car illustrations.

2. We all want recognition, but surely you realize that Capitals are not sovereign states. Besides regardless of recognition the fact is the same, Jerusalem has been the official capital and seat of government of Israel(Sovereign state), for the good part of century. The way I see it your issues of recognition comes to play in 1980 when Israel decided to annex the eastern neighborhoods(which were outside of 1967 armistice line) a move that was indeed not recognized by the UN, as seen in resolution 478 and their status is pending negotiations.

2. I agree that PLO delegation status in the UN was upgraded, but it doesn't make your claim that "Palestine has been recognised officialy as a State on 29 November' more true, due to the fact that the UN doesn't recognize states.--Mor2 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, the fact that no countries has their embassies in Jerusalem:http://www.science.co.il/embassies.asp shows that it is not recognized as a capital. PerDaniel (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Or simply that UN members comply with UN resolution 478, which I have mentioned.--Mor2 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, else, which countries do recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel ?

If none, that means that the POV of the representatives of 7,000,000 people is given more weight in wikipedia than the ones of the representatives of 7,000,000,000. That's ~WP:UNDUE.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No? Care to back that up and show how the lack embassies in Jerusalem, show that it is not recognized as a Israeli capital, rather than compliance with UN resolution 478, which called for withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city.--Mor2 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, would you mind explaining to me the history of your appointment as arbiter of what this article will say? People should consider themselves lucky that the Emperor of a Wikipedia article has deigned to allow material in, but they must not dare to upset him in pushing their luck? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you dont run things here. As far as the idea that this article should be written according to reality, I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, your manifestation of reality being that Israel's "claim" to Jerusalem as its capital is stronger than the Palestinian's is one based not on any sources, which generally scoff at the idea that Israel has any legally valid claim to East Jerusalem, but on your own imagination. Please dont confuse yourself with the owner of this article, or as someone with the sole authority to determine title to Jerusalem. nableezy - 20:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussing with you (to say nothing of some of the others against this wording) is exceedingly difficult, as you insist on arguing points that are never made. Even if you don't agree with the position that the legal status of Israel's control of the city has no bearing on its status as its capital, you should at least be able to acknowledge that that's the point your opponents are making. So, I have no idea why you find it necessary to explain again and again that you and the whole world believes East Jerusalem is illegally occupied. Okay. Great. Thanks. I never disagreed with that statement. I said this much in the comment you're supposedly responding to.

And you have some gall to respond in the jerkish manner you did. A compromise means you need to find some sort of middle ground, and some of those who support the current wording (a middle ground, as it is, as noted by many in previous threads) are willing to cave a bit further -- you know, compromise further. I guarantee you that no one who supports the current wording would accept a change that removes any sort of clarification between the Israeli and Palestinian claims to the city as capital. No one. So if you reject the notion that such a wording is out of the question, you are suggesting that you are not compelled to seek a middle ground and that you are the arbiter of what should and should not be in the article. Don't you dare deflect your arrogant, uncompromising position onto me.

But, it's not like this was unknown before. You were invited to participate in mediation, to have a mediator, or -- if you will -- arbiter, help settle this issue. And you didn't agree to participate. When asked to clarify your position, you responded with your traditional holier-than-thou attitude, saying that Cptnono "[doesn't] run shit here" and that you would "appreciate being left out of this". But all you've done since the mediation's rejection, all you've done since you helped catapult some attempt to get this matter resolved, is get involved (as if you weren't before). All you've done is butt in with your meaningless analogies, pontificate on your political views, and accuse others of doing what you publicly did by rejecting mediation -- blocking a resolution to this issue. So I just have one question for you, as you've done nothing productive so far: why the hell are you still here? -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to share my political views on this page. Why am I here? Mostly to explain to others that due to the obstinate attitude of you and a few others that there is no point in trying to rationally argue what the lead should say. That because you have appointed yourself God-king of this article, making the determination of what Jerusalem's status is as capital of Israel and/or Palestine and what weight or qualifications should be given to those statuses, and the never-ending reverting due to "no consensus" by those who have a somewhat selective understanding of when consensus applies, that everybody expecting any reasonable discussion on this topic to end with a policy compliant introduction to this article is wasting their time. Don't you dare deflect your arrogant, uncompromising position onto me?!?!?!?!?!?!? Are you out of your mind? Am I the one that has said that others should consider themselves lucky that you would entertain the notion that this article should include in its lead that a state recognized by over 100 other states has declared Jerusalem its capital? Am I the one that has said others need to drop any hope of adding material to a Wikipedia article? Do you see what you are typing, or is there some malfunction in the tubes that causes words to be attributed to your username that you never typed? If not, you may want to dial back your oh so misplaced outrage.

I asked to be left out of mediation because a. I havent really been dealing with this issue for several years, and b. there is no point in discussing this with most of the people involved. Entering mediation would require me to suspend common sense and assume that many of the people involved are operating in good faith, that they have valid policy based positions, and that they are willing to compromise. They arent, they dont, and they wont. And as far the exceedingly silly line that I catapult some attempt to get this matter resolved, no Sherlock, that was the people that were listed as parties that didnt accept mediation. You know, three users not named Nableezy. I did not reject mediation, kindly stop distorting what happened. I removed myself from the list of involved parties, if the users listed had accepted yall would have been on your merry way to a pointless discussion on a different page.

Finally, for somebody that has whined that others have misrepresented their position, you really should try to pay a bit more attention to the lowly people who should be basking in appreciation of your good will. I dont believe I have ever once said that East Jerusalem is illegally occupied. But such trivial matters need not concern the gods running this article of course. nableezy - 07:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Population growth

Contrary to a recent edit summary, the lead is not the only place that consensus applies. An attempt to push in material without so much as a token attempt at justifying it here should be the sort of thing that leads to sanctions. The other thing that should lead to sanctions is making things up. The recent edit says: After the Six-Day War, the population of Jerusalem increased by 196% The Jewish population grew by 155%, while the Arab population grew by 314%. The proportion of the Jewish population fell from 74% in 1967 to 72% in 1980, to 68% in 2000, and to 64% in 2010 manly as a result of Palestinian migration from West Bank to Jerusalem and high fertility rate among Palestinians sourced to this publication of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. As far as I can tell, the words West Bank never appear in that paper, though even if looking for Judea and Samaria, Judea, or Samaria does not lead me to find one sentence in that paper that mentions Palestinian migration from the West Bank to Jerusalem, much less giving it as a cause for the growth rate. The section of the paper on immigration as a cause for growth discusses Jewish immigration exclusively. The internal migration section doesn't break it down, but based on the places mentioned, mostly settlements in the West Bank, I think its safe to assume that it is mainly Jewish "internal migration" to the West Bank, but even without that assumption the article doesnt say anything about specifically Arab "internal migration". I can find nothing in the cited source that supports that sentence. Accordingly, Ive reverted the edit. Yall have been, for years now, removing anything that resembles an accurate representation of the city's political status for lack of consensus, you cant ignore that same requirement now that it doesnt suit your interests. nableezy - 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact you are right regarding one of two issue nableezy I red two sources in the same time. Considering my edit After the Six-Day War, the population of Jerusalem increased by 196% The Jewish population grew by 155%, while the Arab population grew by 314%. The proportion of the Jewish population fell from 74% in 1967 to 72% in 1980, to 68% in 2000, and to 64%" is directly taken from the source provided. The source of Palestinian population growth from internal migration from West Bank to Jerusalem comes from The Politics of Planting: Israeli-Palestinian Competition for Issue 236

By Shaul Ephraim Cohen page 90 [11] to be specific estimates are that between 10 000-80 000 Palestinians migrated from West Bank to Jerusalem since 1967 not including illegal immigration (about what I did not wish to edit and which was estimated at 50 000 by third source)--Tritomex (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The change in the Palestinian population in Jerusalem, according to the first source, from 1967 to 2010 was 68.6k to 283.9k. That is a difference of 215.3k. You think 10-80k "migrants" are a major portion. Especially when the source that you bring here for the inclusion specifically also says There are no firm numbers for the size of this migration and later there is a range of estimates for the number of legal Palestinian Jerusalemites who have had to leave the city for the surrounding area in order to find adequate housing.? nableezy - 06:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A problem with these numbers is that the growth of Arab population certainly takes into account "reunification of tbe city" and the absorption of the Arab population of East-Jeursalem. This should be clarified what they refer to exactly. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Mor2 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, you seemed to have missed Pluto's objection. The sentence as written is incredibly ambiguous. Does it mean that immediately following the 67 war the number of Arabs in the same place tripled? No, it doesnt. The definition of Jerusalem as used by the Israeli government, and unfortunately this article as well, changed, not the number of Arab residents. Please self-revert your edit. You and some others have been quite liberal in reverting material due to some mythical consensus being lacking, ignoring that requirement for material that you want in the article doesnt look all that good. nableezy - 20:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No of course I did not mean, nor I have edited that "immediately following the 67 war the number of Arabs in the same place tripled" nor the current edition imply such context. Although we all know that the only section which requires consensus is the lead, I really do not understand why we should go in detailed explanation for the reasons of population growth. In the RS article used as reference, there are no references for the claim that the "definition of Jerusalem" influenced demographic trends. So the inclusion of such claim would be original research. More so if we are going in to the reasons of population growth, regarding Palestinians I found humerus sources which points to high fertility rate, immigration from West Bank, family reunification (until recently) and illegal immigration. As this sources of population growth are mentioned by many sources, if we would go in to explaining the reasons of population growth, this have to be included in the article as well. However, due to my intention to avoid any misunderstanding regarding this issue, I proposed as per source to avoid detailing the reasons of population growth. Otherwise all the reasons have to be included WP:NPOV.--Tritomex (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"why make an edit when you know you don't have consensus for it?"

Curiosity mostly. Alertboatbanking (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was expecting the rapid response team to be well... more rapid. Ya'll need to organize yourselves better. Anyway its good to see people caring so much.Alertboatbanking (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity as a motive in this situation amounts to disruptive editing to make a point. It should be obvious any such changes are far from having a consensus here. Your changes have now been reverted twice. You have made your point; now please comply with WP:BRD, and note this article's WP:1RR restriction. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Should BRD be complied with outside of the lead? nableezy - 21:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't know: per WP:BRD, "BRD is not a policy", but can be a useful method, and "making bold edits is encouraged". Every edit to this long article does not require prior discussion, but once reverted, discussion is preferable to edit warring. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I was aware, thank you very much. However, here you are saying that another user should comply with WP:BRD, and right now you say but once reverted, discussion is preferable to edit warring. Your actions dont exactly coincide with your words, given that you reverted an edit that had already been reverted, and still havent said one word about it on this page. Silly me, discussion is preferred to edit-warring for others. I got it now, thanks. nableezy - 02:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? Surely you're not supporting Alertboatbanking's edit warring? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

nableezy is probably talking about this sequence of edits as an example of selective enforcement.

17:13, 11 December 2012‎ Hertz1888 (talk | contribs)‎(Reverted 1 edit by Pluto2012 (talk): Consensus applies primarily to lead section, not to entire article. (TW))

17:05, 11 December 2012‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎(Undid revision 527422598 by Tritomex (talk) - This article is the result of a long consensus. Any modification should go by the to talk page.)

22:13, 10 December 2012‎ Tritomex (talk | contribs)‎(→‎Division and reunification 1948–1967)

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner! nableezy - 07:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you choose to take the following (I wouldn't recommend it) please add a grain of salt:

To be honest hertz's statement is completely valid. I was making a point... actually not really a point I wanted to see what would happen, in fact I can totally live with the lede enforced by the pro-israeli (Hertz nomoremrniceguy Tritomex tariqabjotu# etc) hasbarists, I mean editors:

1. Because it is now and will always be a more accurate description of reality regardless of whether its a good thing for humanity or not.

2. Because it not only mentions the discord among silly humans on the ground, it also weakens trust in the wikipedia article right off the bat. There is a highly dedicated group of editors who politely and systematically manipulate wikipedia's rules and content to conform to an israeli nationalist world view, there is no way the fickle reasonable passersby and the fanatically pro-arab/islam, (usually terrible editors *shiver*) could bring any sort of balance against such a determined force. I am not the first nor the last to state this.

The only avenue open is to draw attention to their efforts via prominent npov tags which thankfully though they wish they dare not remove. attempting to bring balance to controversial issues is hard enough but against such a group it is impossible which is kind of poetic as it is a reflection of the real world situation.

anyway for the reasonable playing at home I hope you keep watching and keep those npov tags there till these silly people forget their silly hatreds. FYI I'm an atheist scientist living in Australia who abhors all religions and nations and is very disappointed in homo-sapiens generally and should stop wasting time here.

1. I don't know if tariqabjotu is a pro-Israeli nationalist, he probably isn't... though on the other hand why would someone whose original name was JO TUrner suddenly change his name to tariqabJOTU profess devotion to islam, focus on islamic articles get elected administrator then change again and spend so much time here arguing over such a little thing as how much of a capital Jerusalem is to whom and react in this way:

QUOTE

And who "deserve" to participate? Those who agree with you? PerDaniel (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

People who aren't going to respond to simple statements by being an ass, like you just did. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

UNQUOTE

I'm sure he wouldn't have used language like that when he was trying to get administratorship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tariqabjotu_2

The reasons for his mysterious behaviour is probably far less interesting and far more geeky than a hired mosad agent trying to infiltrate wikipedia! :D

Alertboatbanking (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Making points, Ad hominem reasoning, personal attacks etc aren't you the life of the party.--Mor2 (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow... really?

You know it is bad when I think you are being foolish. Mediation failed to have the parties involved involved. Some of you should take another swing at it. Narrow the invite list down to those who both want and deserve to participate. Someone mentioned above that this is all a behavioral issue now. I agree and am guilty myself. However, I would like to think there are a few editors discussing here who could have an actual discussions among themselves. Plenty of tags on the article, a hindered reader experience, and surely ARBPIA3 are the alternatives.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance - what is ARBPIA3? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I filed the original mediation request and was quite inclusive in selecting the editors who would be "involved". I don't know how many parties mediations usually have and how involved someone needs to be to be "involved" in the sense of mediation. If someone knows that we could re-file the request with a shorter list, I encourage that person to do so. On the other hand, would excluding someone from the request who is later considered "involved" be seen as abuse of the procedure? --Dailycare (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA2 are the two ArbCom cases that have occurred regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the former being in January 2008 and the latter being in March 2009 (and not being as broad as the first ARBPIA). So, WP:ARBPIA3 is the potential third ArbCom case. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the set of people who would be considered significantly involved and the set of people who don't deserve to participate overlap. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And who "deserve" to participate? Those who agree with you? PerDaniel (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

People who aren't going to respond to simple statements by being an ass, like you just did. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that people who are able to comply with WP:CIVIL would "deserve" to participate. PerDaniel (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What is "Jerusalem"?

Could the people who insist on the current lead wording please explain to me what "Jerusalem" means? Is it a place in Israel? Does it include East Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount)? nableezy - 07:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I already pointed out that such question may rise if the lead is changed. The current definition of Jerusalem used in this article includes municipality borders defined by Israeli Jerusalem law, while Jerusalem borders from 1948 legal status, would include about 3 time smaller city, without 80% of all of Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem which are currently considered part of Jerusalem, based on Israeli law, Legally in 1948 they were considered villages outside of Jerusalem. So Jerusalem from its 1948 status, would have today about 400 000 inhabitants of whom roughly 70 000 Palestinians.--Tritomex (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem in the sense of this article is everything that reliable sources choose to say in connection with "Jerusalem". That includes things like the Caananite history and also various disputes about borders. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The operative word here is history and various disputes, but this article is still about the Israeli capital city. Yes its eastern part is outside of the 1967 armistice line and its annexation in 1980 was deemed illegal by the UN, and it is claimed as capital by the state of Palestine aswell since 1988, and currently the PNA exercise some authority within the Eastern parts etc etc but those are details. When the Israelis and Palestinians will unlock their horns and reach agreement, we will be able to write about Jerusalem as the capital of both sovereign states, but not yet.--Mor2 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as references to the city in the later UN resolutions are concerned, the Jerusalem borders defined in the '48 Partition Resolution are still significant.     ←   ZScarpia   17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

<- "Jerusalem" in the lead must refer to the same spatial object as "Jerusalem" in the title of the article. If the same word is being used to refer to 2 different objects then that needs to be made clear in the lead. Since this isn't the West Jerusalem article or the East Jerusalem article, and the article content covers the entire city, it follows that "Jerusalem" in the lead refers to the entire city. There is nothing to indicate that it refers to something else. So the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" clearly means that it is a fact, according to Wikipedia, that the subject of this article, the entire city of Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel. If that statement is true here in this article, it must also be true in every Wikipedia article that refers to Jerusalem, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. Many other "facts" follow from this that are obvious policy violations. For example, if it is a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, then it is also a fact that the Rockefeller Museum is in the capital of Israel, and we should be able to say that using Wikipedia's voice. But we can't say that without violating policy anymore than we can say El Aaiún is in the Southern Provinces of Morocco or the South Pars field is in Qatar. The "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" statement of fact has all sorts of problematic consequences that are conveniently ignored and not cascaded down to articles about places inside this "capital of Israel". The statement has to be changed and it is easy to fix it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Id like to avoid having the entire argument in each comment. Tritomex gave an answer that Id like to delve deeper into, but Id like further participation from others on the "pro-capital side" before doing so. So, to ask directly, Tariq, BW, Hertz, NMMNG, could you please tell me what "Jerusalem" means and if it includes East Jerusalem, which would include the Temple Mount. nableezy - 18:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is entrapment. No matter what I say, you'll twist that into something that supposedly supports your side. No, sorry; see you at arbitration. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you. You wont answer a straightforward question. Does "Jerusalem" include "East Jerusalem" is an entrapment question? Really? I could twist a yes or no into something that supposedly supports my side? And you think I am the one with an arrogant, uncompromising position? Thanks for that. Is East Jerusalem a part of the "Jerusalem" that is the topic of this article? Can you give a simple answer to a simple question? nableezy - 21:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not obligated to answer your questions, just as you weren't obligated to participate in mediation. There is no other reason for you to ask this banal question, especially directed at people who support the current wording, unless you wanted to use a response here as ammo for holding your position. Sorry, not interested. As I told you awhile ago, I'd be perfectly happy if you didn't keep butting in. And, yet you persist in doing so and using my lack of response to your directed questions as evidence of stubbornness. No, it's recognition of the futility of doing so. A third party is needed here, and you rejected that offer when it was made available. That's fine, but for you to then feel it incumbent upon me to answer you directly in a less controlled setting is absurd. -- tariqabjotu 23:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that you have no defense for supporting the blatant violation of WP:NPOV in the lead? PerDaniel (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise if the source denying Israels right to define its capital would be found, (based on 1980 Jerusalem law) than we cant just selectively pick up what we like and dislike from that law. As the Palestinian definition of East Jerusalem lacks equally international validation and there are no international (UN-security council) recognition of Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem,If we go fully in denial of 1980 Jerusalem law implications , we will have to redefine East Jerusalem (Israel was accepted as full UN member based on 1949 borders including West Jerusalem) based on its 1948 municipal borders.--Tritomex (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some sources for your claim that "Israel was accepted as full UN member based on 1949 borders including West Jerusalem." Israel was admitted to UN membership under Resolution 273. That resolution recalls Resolutions 181 of November 29, 1947 and 194 of December 11, 1948. Resolution 181 calls for the creation of a Corpus Separatum containing Jerusalem. Resolution 194 calls for areas including Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns to be placed under effective United Nations control, for the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem and for detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the Jerusalem area to be presented.     ←   ZScarpia   00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as far as I know Israel admittance into the UN did't validate its borders and/or the status of Jerusalem, infact the Israel rejected that Jerusalem had been proclaimed as part of the State of Israel at that time. As for the rest, is your lack of other objection means you agree with it?--Mor2 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, your beef in the mediation is with the users that actually rejected it, those being the ones listed as parties and not accepting it. Ive asked you above to stop saying the patently untrue statement that I rejected mediation. No, I rejected being involved in mediation. And yes, you do need to address concerns on the talk page of an article that you edit. That you wont answer the simple, straightforward question posed to you is an example of an, oh what was it, arrogant, uncompromising position. nableezy - 05:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And as far as your wish that I stop butting in, sorry, but I cant oblige. Youve invigorated me, given me a reason to edit. I thank you for that. So, if you wouldnt mind justifying your position, could you please tell me if East Jerusalem is a part of the "Jerusalem" that this article discusses? And, just so you cant accuse me of entrapment, Ill even give the follow up questions. Is East Jerusalem in Israel? Is East Jerusalem in the Palestinian territories? Is Jerusalem a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 05:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take your offtopic mediation beef to your talk pages and if you feel so invigorated that you must troll for a response, at least try to butting in after his post or start a new section, not dump it in the middle of the discussion.--Mor2 (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but start a new section? I opened this section for these questions. You and others have gone off on unrelated tangents, and now accuse me of being off topic. If you need have the same argument in multiple sections of this talk page, do it in a different one. This section was opened to establish if the people who support the current wording agree or disagree with the statements that East Jerusalem is in Jerusalem, and following that if they agree or disagree with the statements listed. nableezy - 06:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Im going to ask again. Tariq, on my talk page you accuse me of not understanding what AGF means. Please demonstrate that you do by answering the questions, asked in good faith. You question why I only direct the questions at those holding a specific position; easy, the others already agree that there is a problem with the first sentence. The point of these questions are simple. I want to know why the first sentence of this article should be Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such instead of Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Which could then be followed by Since 1967, Israel has occupied East Jerusalem and has included it as part of its capital city. Which could then be followed by Palestine has designated Jerusalem as its capital, though neither the Israeli or Palestinian claim have garnered international recognition. Then it could say something like Among the oldest cities in the world, it is holy to the three Abrahamic religion ... And go on from there. The entire fourth paragraph could be whacked, the next sentence incorporated along with the largest city bit elsewhere. You get a relatively straightforward sentence saying that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, I get an actual explanation of the issue, the lead actually begins to resemble the beginning of an encyclopedia article, who isnt happy here? But all of that is predicated on the agreement that Jerusalem, if it includes East Jerusalem, is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. So do you agree to that statement? Do the others who support the current wording in which Jerusalem is, before anything else, Israel's? nableezy - 06:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not answering your questions without a third-party observer or mediator, and your statement demonstrates exactly why. You have been involved in this discussion to varying degrees for years, and the position of those who support the current wording has remained fairly consistent throughout. And, yet, somehow, you still think you've found a counter-argument through this series of questions. You still go off track with these grand questions as if they have anything to do with the capital statement. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to participate I cant make you, but without a valid rationale against the edit I will make it. You cannot both ignore a discussion and force the article to abide by a certain position. This is not your playground and you do not make the rules. nableezy - 18:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And it will be reverted. See title of section two sections up. -- tariqabjotu 18:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ive made the edit, if you want to revert it you need to explain why. You cannot claim "no consensus" and refuse to participate on the talk page. nableezy - 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I love this fundamental question

I am a middle-aged white man. This is something which nearly everyone who meets me will identify and fundamentally agree with, even if they are blind. My politics will quickly become evident not long after I open my mouth; I am not one to shy from controversy. In between the time it takes for me to establish my presence and state my position, the tone of my voice, body language and chosen words will give some clue about where it is I have been. In this spirit, and in my best understanding of policy, I offer the following: "Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, a place revered by the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and since 1948 it has been the subject of a geopolitical controversy: whereas Israel claims the city including East Jerusalem as its capital, the majority of the world's nations do not recognize it as such; and whereas Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their nation's capital, many nations defer to the United Nations position that the city should be placed under international rule, eventually becoming the capital of both Israel and the State of Palestine." Feel free to throw stones at the middle-aged white man. ;) ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is a good compromise. PerDaniel (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add a slight correction to what you have written. Both parties claim "Jerusalem", using that word, as their capital in their basic laws. People often say here that the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem but their basic law says otherwise. See comment at 12:46, 1 December 2012 above for the source. The Children's World Atlas (ISBN 978-0756675844, p. 81) gets it right with the very simple "Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital."Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Sean.hoyland, so amended. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Add to that Yasser Arafat as a primary source interpreted through a secondary. Unless we see a definitive shift per Abbas. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! for the middle aged white man's suggestion!Alertboatbanking (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

At my ears, that sounds exactly the same as what I proposed. These are just facts and reflecting WP:NPoV. Those who disagree with this version say both Palestinian and Israeli claims cannot be considered equal but that the Israeli one has more due:weight because they occupy the city and they established the facts on the grounds. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've phrased this in such a way as to treat both as minority views considered separately and each one contrasted with the majority. The continuation of the article, which could be prefaced "The political reality..." further balances the Israeli claim vs. the Palestinian claim without WP:BATTLE by virtue of just talking more about Israel's actual governance thereof. It is also inherent in naming Israel first and naming Judaism first, which should please people who support the "we were here first" appeal. East Jerusalem is intentional to give WP:DUE to a predominant worldwide view about sharing it. This is an article which will be talking predominantly about Israel and displaying their actual authority. Any fatwas yet? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.. then what happens to the rest of the article? If this is not an article on Jerusalem which is currently the capital city of Israel, does the Israeli city flag, emblem and mayor have to be removed from the infobox? Someone has now taken this matter to arbcom so i guess we will wait and see the outcome of that. At present there is no consensus to change the long standing wording of this article introduction. Your proposal would be slightly better if it actually included the fact Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital, rather than just the entirely open to interpretation "claims" which could mean pretty much anything, ignoring the situation on the ground. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC) "whereas Israel claims the city including East Jerusalem as its capital, the majority of the world's nations do not recognize it as such; and whereas Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their nation's capital," - this is one sided, and gives undue weight to the Palestinian POV. It treats the claims as though they are equal, ignoring the defacto/dejure situation as mentioned above. And worse it goes out of its way to dispute the israeli "claim", but not the Palestinian one. I do have to agree with Pluto2012 though, this is pretty much what he proposed. Which many opposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion! I really like your suggestion, and I don't mean at all that Israel should have equal weight to the State of Palestine in this sentence. Please just keep in mind that the aim of the sentence is to describe the controversy framed from a worldwide view of Jerusalem's political status, something that I think will likely happen, since Wikipedia is not censored. The point of ignoring the defacto/dejure situation is that in the very next breath, we're going to break that down. If we use "proclaims" then the weightiest proclamation of note is that "Israel proclaims the city including East Jerusalem is forever under its sovereignty as its capital..." per Bibi. That gives tons more weight to the Israeli side of things. Would that be fair to you and the many who opposed Pluto2012's draft? ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to issue an unqualified statement about infoboxes in QPQ if I see that there is a clear atmosphere of cooperation going on. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I object for the same reasons I objected to Pluto's proposal (which this is pretty much a copy of). It's nice to see 2 out of 4 people who support it are socks. If only we had people who really really care about socks around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As you clearly have no intention to follow WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV I really don't understand why you are here.PerDaniel (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How did you know I was talking about you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but i believe the current wording in the article is far more neutral and covers the issue the fairest and clearest way. It is a compromise position that was introduced a couple of years ago, before that the article did not even mention the international recognition in the first sentence, and there are still some editors who object to that being there.. especially as it is repeated in the introduction in another paragraph too. Your proposal even with modest changes is unlikely to reach consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No More Mister Nice Guy. your statement of sockpuppetry is unsourced and unverifiable. Normally in this context, I would consider it to be a violation of WP:NPA. I only ask that you please use WP:V and WP:RS to back your assertion. Is that okay? As for your statement as to the likelihood of consensus, BritishWatcher, I must believe that you are correct, as you have already spoken for the other editors once before. I am a realist. I only ask that you and your friends try to work out some kind of a counteroffer before any ArbComm case decision. I really do prefer it if you continue to speak for them, rather than letting civility break down in here. Thank you very much for engaging me. Is there anything else I can help you with? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of RS that back up my assertions have been brought up in the previous discussions. Please check the archives. Is there anything else I can help you with? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. The archives are quite large. Since it's your statement, would you mind terribly backing it up yourself? I hate digging when I don't know what I'm looking for. Thanks :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to do your homework for you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Repetition in lead

Why are all these various sentences needed?

"...is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such"

"The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies."

"The international community has rejected the latter annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation" Ankh.Morpork 11:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two sentences which describe Israel's POV regarding its claim over Jerusalem as its capital:

• "....is the capital of Israel,[neutrality is disputed]"
• "Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital""

Each explanation of the Israeli minority viewpoint obviously needs to be balanced with the overwhelming majority of global opinion per WP:NPOV.

The third sentence you quote is a related, though distinct concept that needs to be discussed in the lead. Note the difference between the capital city issue, and the issue of sovereignty over the territory and the illegality of Israel's annexation. Dlv999 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with AnkhMorpork. I do not know for any Wikipedia article where one negation is repeated in every 10 sentence.--Tritomex (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon

Which pages in Sharon: The Life of a Leader support the section pertaining to Sharon in the Division and reunification 1948–1967 section? Ankh.Morpork 11:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that, and if no one else does, an alternative source is the article "settled", an excerpt from the book. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Last revert

Has to be justified. What exactly was wrong with that edit. You cannot say "you dont have consensus" and "I refuse to participate to stop their from being any consensus". NMMNG, justify your revert on policy based grounds. nableezy - 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And PerDaniel, that last revert doesnt help either. nableezy - 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't it?PerDaniel (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasnt trying to solve this through edit-warring. nableezy - 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of refusing to participate? Diffs please. Also, do I need to dig up a diff of you explaining that something that's been in the article for years has consensus and you need to show consensus to change it before doing so? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am saying that you have not justified the revert. You have only claimed "no consensus" without giving a reason for your lack of agreement. I dont honestly see what fault people could find in the edit. And because Tariq, and others, have steadfastly refused to answer my questions I do not know how I can find what fault they see in the edit. I have, as best I could, addressed each argument. You want the article to say as a fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", check. You do not want the Palestinian "claim" given equal weight to the Israeli "claim". The article says that it is Israel's capital, and that it has been designated Palestine's, so check there too. Others have a problem with the repetition of the political issues, gone. On the opposing side, there is a clear explanation that a. the status as capital of Israel is disputed internationally, and b. that portions of "the capital of Israel" as defined by Israel are not in Israel. What exactly is wrong with the edit? That it doesnt have consensus? Thats it? nableezy - 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And now Hertz. You have to justify the revert. This game of saying I dont agree so there is no consensus and because there is no consensus no change can be made is getting more and more tiresome. Please cite policy justifying the last revert. Im done playing the game, you need to rationally back up your position, not fall back on these wikipediaisms about consensus, especially given your rather elastic interpretation of when consensus is needed. nableezy - 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change. If you've read the policy, you guys know what is suggested next. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A refusal to back up the revert is in my view disruptive behavior covered by the existing discretionary sanctions. Both Hertz and NMMNG have made a revert without giving any explanation why they did so. Ill wait a day or so for them to do so. nableezy - 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

When there is a contentious issue that has been discussed for more than nine years, you can't just make a proposal and then immediately institute it. My refusal to discuss this without a third party is neither agreement nor disagreement with your proposal. It has some good points, it has some bad points, and I'd honestly say more good than bad. But either way, you can't just put it in like that. It will get reverted, as it did. In a situation like this, there need not be any reason provided for reversion other than the fact that it was never the subject of discussion. Requesting such or requesting that there be some sort of observed process, which doesn't look too far away if you'd just let the RfArb run its course, is not stonewalling. -- tariqabjotu 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I will no longer reply directly to those who twist the meanings and intentions of my words, whose civility is questionable, and whose patience with the discussion process is sadly lacking. My revert was, as stated, on account of the edit's aggressive violation of the consensus-building process. No consensus for any such changes has emerged from the discussions at hand. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)