Talk:Israel

Jerusalem stated as capital

I know this has been the subject of some dispute in the past (where did that discussion go?), but wouldn't it be more NPOV to state Jerusalem as proclaimed capital on both this page and the page for the State of Palestine? No country in the world (apart from the US) officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Isreal and the reference is the CIA world fact book, which is reputable, but arguably biased in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.181.207 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It would not be beneficial to state Tel-Aviv as Israel's capital as Israel exercises de facto control over all of Jerusalem. The final status of Jerusalem is subject to final negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian authority. To state that Tel-Aviv is Israel's fallcy would therefore be a fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkangelus333 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Israeli government regards Jerusalem as the undivided eternal capital of Israel and not subject to negotiation. If its status is to be altered, unfortunately it will be in some other way. Trahelliven (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The article currently lists Jerusalem because that is what Israel considers the capital, and the infobox has a note linking to a description of the controversy surrounding Jerusalem's status. I think that's about as NPOV as you can get. Knight of Truth (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be beneficial to include that Tel Aviv is the "unofficial" capital of Israel, while Jerusalem is the "official, but disputed" capital. Silvertrail (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial according to whom? More specifically, who considers it Israel's unofficial capital, or capital at all? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people, including Israel agencies, Tel Avivians, other countries, etc. There's no reason to list an "official" capital that is highly disputed without listing the nation's unofficial capital for reference as well. Silvertrail (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.prima-hotels-israel.com/prima-hotels/tel-aviv-hotels

http://goisrael.about.com/od/JerusalemandTelAviv/Jerusalem-And-Tel-Aviv.htm

http://israel21c.org/news/tel-aviv-among-top-party-cities/

http://www.chiff.com/travel/guides/israel.htm

http://www.go-telaviv.com/tel-aviv-israel.html

This question is raised with some regularity, and the consensus is that the footnote disclaimer in the infobox is sufficient. Please read the Talk page archives instead of re-litigating this matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What footnote do you speak of? I see no mention of Tel Aviv as the unofficial capital of Israel anywhere on the page. Silvertrail (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the footnote next to the word Jerusalem in the infobox. Tel Aviv is not the unofficial capital of Israel, whatever that means, so why would this article say that? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

When I click that superscript I am redirected to the References section, not a specific source that mentions Tel Aviv, many people, organizations, and countries believe Tel Aviv is the unofficial capital of the State of Israel, that is why this article should state that, or at least mention it. Especially since the official capital is a disputed one. Just my two cents. Silvertrail (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What is a state's "unofficial capital"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a capital that is not federally recognized but is socially and culturally recognized as a capital more or less. Silvertrail (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we add New York City to the US's infobox? Rio to Brazil? Unofficial capitals do not belong in the infobox. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

They should be included in countries that have disputed official capitals, such as the unique case of Israel which claims Jerusalem as its capital but countries and people throughout the world do not recognize it as such. Last time I heard, countries and people all around the world all agreed on Washington D.C. as the official capital of the United States and Brasilia in regards to Brazil. Way to bring in completely unrelated countries and compare them to Israel's unique situation as an argument. Silvertrail (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe a country recognizes another state's city as its capital when it places its embassy in that city. Many (most, I think) of the countries that do have diplomatic relations with Israel have placed their embassies in Tel Aviv, so I would say Silvertrail's comment makes sense. Here is a quote from the wiki page for Tel Aviv: "As the United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is home to most foreign embassies." -- Jadhachem (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The footnote is to placate those in the world - including the anti-Israel and Jew haters on Wikipedia - who believe that only the Jews do not have the right to designate the capital city of their own country. They're wrong, of course, though try and correct them the entry and they will start in with the Wikipedia version of an anti-Israel stone throwing or riot. Z554 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No one said anything about Israeli's not having the right to designate a capital city, just because a country has a right to designate a capital does not mean it cannot be disputed, because the people who were there before the establishment of Israel also claim Jerusalem as their capital as well. My concern is not with the footnote, it is with including Tel Aviv listed as the Unofficial capital because of Israel's unique situation in regards to their stated official capital. Silvertrail (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does that warrant something in the infobox? Tel Aviv does not function as Israel's capital. The infobox shouldn't contain unofficial things. It's one thing to have a footnote about the controversy, it is something completely different to then add completely unofficial stuff. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the harm in adding it in? It would only improve the article by also linking to an unofficial capital city that serves as a cultural hub for the Israeli people. Silvertrail (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The harm in adding it is that it is misleading. It is not official and does not act as Israel's capital. The footnote we have is one thing, as it educates regarding real legal controversy. Tel Aviv is not such a case. New York serves as a cultural hub in the United States. We would not add it to the infobox in the US article. Cultural hub does not a capital make. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise? It seems that user:Knight of Truth, user:Malik Sabbazz and user:OuroborosCobra, are beaurocrats who require sticking to hard criteria - well-defined in advance - before adding anything to an infobox whose universal form is used for that many countries, whereas User:Silvertrail is an adhocrat - who is more flexible in filling Wikipedia with unique unofficial information when the case seems to be unique in User:Silvertrail's opinion. So, my suggested compromise, is that we do indicate the unofficial capital of Israel (with sources); provided that we find any other precedent, even one would be sufficient, in which an article in Wikipedia - about a country currently recognized by the world - indicates an "unofficial" capital of that country about which the article is. Without such a precedent, User:Silvertrail's position may seem to be an ad-hoc suggestion - that can't be backed by good criteria well-defined in advance, whereas - once one does find such a precedent in Wikipedia's articles about countries currently recognized by the world - then the opposite position (held by the other editors here) may seem to be unjustified. Is that a fair compromise? HOOTmag (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Without seeing the other country article in question, I can't just agree to the compromise. I understand your reasoning here and it may be a sound compromise, but I don't want to run into a case where we are talking about a small country and therefore possibly a rarely visited article that is not being properly maintained. I also don't want to get caught into special cases, like South Africa, with its three official capitals, or Nauru, which doesn't have any official capital but can be described as having a de facto one as it has a city with the functions of a capital, like the seat of legislature. Tel Aviv does not serve as a de facto capital and does not execute the legal functions of a capital. Jerusalem does. Nauru also has this in absence of anything else, Israel is not that case. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think SA or Nauru have anything to do with my compromise, because their articles indicate no "unofficial" capital. Nauru's article does not indicate an "unofficial" capital but rather a "de facto" capital. Nobody here claims that Tel Aviv is a "de facto" capital, and it's really not, because it's not the seat of legislature, nor anything close to that. I'm specifically talking about what user:Silvertrail has suggested: "unofficial capital" - whatever this expression means. Even one precedent - in Wikipedia's articles about countries currently recognized by the world - may be sufficient for using this expression for Tel Aviv as well, because user:Silvertrail has already presented the sources for such a nickname for Tel Aviv - outside Wikipedia. HOOTmag (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel and it's "official" capital are a unique case, please stop comparing it to other countries that are in no way related, that does not help your case. Adding a note stating the unofficial capital below the official capital will only benefit this article by giving readers more insight into Israel and it's culture/people, it would not be misleading, because many people, groups, organizations that I listed above understand and promote Tel Aviv as the unofficial capital and cultural hub of Israel. Silvertrail (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your admitting that Israel is a "unique case", just proves what I have claimed:

• "User:Silvertrail is an adhocrat - who is more flexible in filling Wikipedia with unique unofficial information when the case seems to be unique in User:Silvertrail's opinion".

As compared to the other editors here, about whom I have claimed:

• "user:Knight of Truth, user:Malik Sabbazz and user:OuroborosCobra are beaurocrats who require sticking to hard criteria - well-defined in advance - before adding anything to an infobox whose universal form is used for that many countries".

That dispute, between the adhocrats and the beaurocrats, has made me suggest the compromise above. HOOTmag (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific about your compromise HOOTmag, I'm not sure I understand it? Silvertrail (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote it, and tell me what exactly you don't understand:

• "my suggested compromise, is that we do indicate the unofficial capital of Israel (with sources); provided that we find any other precedent, even one would be sufficient, in which an article in Wikipedia - about a country currently recognized by the world - indicates an "unofficial" capital of that country about which the article is. Without such a precedent, User:Silvertrail's position may seem to be an ad-hoc suggestion - that can't be backed by good criteria well-defined in advance, whereas - once one does find such a precedent in Wikipedia's articles about countries currently recognized by the world - then the opposite position (held by the other editors here) may seem to be unjustified".

What's not clear? Do you know what the word "precedent" means? HOOTmag (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, why must there be a precedent? Can you specify another country that has the same unique situation as Israel? Prior Palestine, argued Palestinian capital of Palestine, Israel created in Palestine, disputed Capital. I can only think of countries back during the age of imperialism personally, England in Ireland/Scotland, England in India, French Algeria, etc. Silvertrail (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There must be a precedent, because - without it - we will never be able to form a compromise, between you - as an adhocrat who thinks Israel is a unique case, and the other editors - as beaurocrats who don't think any country should be regarded as unique or be treated separately from the other countries; You know, beaurocrats tend to require sticking to hard criteria - well-defined in advance.

As for your claim that Israel is in a "unique situation", eg "Israel was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise): If the other editors here agree that "Israel was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise), and also agree that this fact makes Israel a "unique case" - more than the uniqueness of "Jordan that was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise) - or more than the uniqueness of "Prior Palestine that was created in Prior Judea" (and likewise), and also agree that all of these political arguments are relevant to whether any "unofficial capital" should be indicated in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then the dispute between all of you could be solved immediately. However, I suspect beaurocrats (like the other editors) don't agree with the unique way you (and others) see the whole matter, and that's why I suggested a compromise. HOOTmag (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jordan does not claim the Palestinian Capital of Jerusalem as the capital of their state like Israel does with Palestine, Jordan was created separate from Palestine, not within it, it was within the mandate of the land that the British seized during the world war, that does not mean it was a part of Palestine. And sure, Palestine was created in prior Judea in history, but Judea was created in prior Canaan, and Canaan was in the prior New Kingdom of Egypt. Silvertrail (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks like you don't get my point (unless I don't get yours). I mentioned Jordan and cetera, not in order to open a historical discussion about what the exact limits of the prior and current countries are, or who was here before, or who took another people's land, which is a matter of political and historical dispute between Palestinians and Jews. I just wanted to point out, that if the other editors here agreed about the political and historical way you see the whole matter, and with its relevance to whether any "unofficial capital" should be indicated in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then the dispute between all of you could be solved immediately. However, since I don't think it's going to be solved soon, I suggested a compromise. HOOTmag (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The "unique case" of Israel justifies our footnote in the infobox. It in no way justifies jumping the extra step of listing something that is not functionally the Israeli capital in any sense of the word at all. A cultural center does not a capital make. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

However, if user:Silvertrail - who has apparently good (yet a little bit commercially-promotional) external sources for Tel Aviv being an unofficial capital, finds a precedent inside Wikipedia - for indicating any "unofficial" capital in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then I don't find any reason why we should avoid adopting user:Silvertrail's position in favor of indicating Tel Aviv as well. HOOTmag (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I can source that New York City is the unofficial capital of the US. It does not matter. It's inclusion in the infobox has not been justified. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position, so you don't have to repeat it. I agree with you that if user:Silvertrial has external sources only, then that won't be sufficient. However, what if user:Silvertrial has more than just external sources? e.g. a precedent inside Wikipedia, which indicates an "unofficial" capital - in that infobox - for another country currently recognized by the world? Please note that your reasoning here - does not explain why we should not add Tel Aviv (and New York) as well - if Wikipedia has already any other precedent. Please note also that my compromise tries to take into account both positions: yours and user:Silvertrail's. You don't have to accept user:Silvertrail's position: you are just requested to recognize my suggestion as a fair compromise between two opposite positions - one of which you reject due to the reasons you have already presented here. HOOTmag (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a precedent for a footnote: Myanmar's official capital is given in the infobox as Naypyidaw, with a footnote stating "Some governments recognise Yangon (Rangoon) as the national capital." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touringtest (talk • contribs) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We already have such a footnote in this article. The request for precedent is not for a footnote, but for a declaration of an "unofficial capital" in the infobox. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

Where is it? Regardless of your political affiliation, you must admit that Israel is very controversial for many many reasons, there should be a controversy section.

Steve348 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia now tends to avoid "Controversy" sections: Because the word "controversy" is a loaded term which focuses on trouble or outrage instead of welcome approval, the preferred wp:NPOV treatment in Wikipedia articles is to use a more-neutral term (such as "Reception in world affairs") which also allows writing about low-key reactions, rather than slant a page section to sensational or highly critical responses about Israel in world events. The "Israel" page has contained a section named "Israel#Conflicts and peace treaties" which summarizes some battles and accords; however, to elaborate more about controversies, then perhaps an entire subarticle could be expanded as "Israel in world affairs" with balanced coverage of the upsets as well as the welcome approval of Israel's policies, or suffering over international events. There are many articles of the form "Israel-Lebanon relations" or "Israel-Norway relations" or "Israel-Syria relations" or "Israel-U.S. relations". Using an wp:NPOV-neutral structure, then the controversies can be mixed evenly into the text, along with the major events of contentment and accords in world affairs; however, such an article could contain mainly controversies, as long as it reflects the opinions in the preponderance of wp:RS reliable sources. NPOV does not mean 50-50% treatment, so if 90% of coverage loves all that Israel does, then the subarticle could be 90% as I-heart-Israel topics, to match whatever proportion of many sources have noted as significant. -Wikid77 15:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is news to me. Where did you get this idea that Wikipedia now tends to avoid "Controversy" sections. Does it appear in a guideline or style manual somewhere? Or perhaps in a discussion at Wikistrategy? Sounds pretty fishy to me - I mean, if there is a controversy about something, dressing it up as "Reception" and writing only about low-key reactions seems the opposite of NPOV to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Wikid77 is referring to the essay WP:CSECTION which recommends "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Marokwitz (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Capital in infobox revisited in light of RFC

Hi guys, in light of the result of the ArbCom mandated RFC, there seems to be a need to revise the infobox since it now indicates Jerusalem as the capital, with a link to the footnote. Since stating even that Jerusalem is the capital, although unrecognized, has been rejected in the RFC the wording of the infobox seems out of date. Obvious solutions would be to leave "Capital" blank, or amend to "Seat of Government" (after the BBC), which apparently would require amending the Infobox template, too. Comments? --Dailycare (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Where was this RFC? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Give an inch, take a mile. -- tariqabjotu 19:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A more appropriate "solution", if one is actually needed here (which I don't believe is the case, as the infobox has not been a subject of debate in ages), is to say "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" as capital and also add a Seat of Government field with "Jerusalem" unqualified. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Snarky!     ←   ZScarpia   22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If the template can be changed, I think that changing the text to Seat of Government would be acceptable. Otherwise, I'd suggest putting the text disputed in brackets after Jerusalem or leaving the entry blank.     ←   ZScarpia   22:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, where was this RFC? I never saw anything on this page discussing an RFC in progress. I did not know about it when it was happening to participate, and do not have it now to read the results myself. Where is this RFC? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC they're referencing is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 01:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the RFC conclusively settled whether it is NPOV to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, with or without qualification on the international community's view. So unlike tariq, I do see a need to change it here. I think changing the field to Seat of government is fine. nableezy - 02:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care how this is resolved, but just want to point out that no template change would be required to change the wording from Capital to SoG. All that needs to be done is add "| capital_type=[[Seat of Government]]" to the existing parameters. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC) ETA: Note the current template is an either/or. In order to have both a Capital and a SoG listed – as might be desirable for the Netherlands – a small template change would be needed. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   08:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with some kind of clarification in the infobox for Israel and the Netherlands regarding the city where governmental institutions are located. Although we could also add in the lead that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/designated capital, like in the State of Palestine.--Jurrikarsen (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My point of view may be strange but I think that :

• Claiming Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is pov

but

• Claming Israel's capital is Jerusalem is npov(*).

My reasonning is that Jerusalem was chosen as capital by both Israel and the State of Palestine but the only capital chosen by Israel is Jerusalem.

(*) at the condition to refer in a note to th global political status of the city.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected concerning the infobox. I'm, equally OK with "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" and "Seat of government". --Dailycare (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The other problem with the infobox is it identifies Jerusalem as the largest city in Israel. Thats only true if you include portions of the city that arent in Israel. Otherwise Tel Aviv is larger than Jerusalem. I propose removing the listing of Jerusalem as the largest city, as it certainly is not NPOV to claim for Israel territory and population that the overwhelming majority of scholars and other states say is not part of Israel. nableezy - 16:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that the population of East Jerusalem cannot be counted in the population of the Israeli Jerusalem. If it is the case and if Tel Aviv has a larger population than West Jerusalem then Tel Aviv must be considered as the largest city of Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• We should have this entire sentence in the infobox: "Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, this is not internationally recognized."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Im going to go ahead and set capital_type to seat of government. nableezy - 18:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Im also modifying largest city to specify that its only true if EJ is included. nableezy - 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the capital of Israel ?

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel whether you like it or not, in reality, it isn't even open for debate, and it shouldn't be open for debate on a site which brings information to many people around the world! It would simply mislead them with lies. אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted אשכנזישעיידן given the current consensus on the topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Israel - topic that sparks the most Wikipedia 'edit wars'

Hello,

My name is Harriet and I'm writing from the BBC World Service. The University of Oxford has released the findings of its research into topics on Wikipedia that spark the biggest 'edit wars', and top of the list is Israel.

I was wondering whether we might be able to speak to one of the main editors of the Israel page about how this is managed, do you frequently enter edit wars, how do you resolve them?

I'd be very grateful if you would get in touch here!

Thanks

Harriet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harriet114 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look in my personal talk page for comments. Ykantor (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox parallelism with State of Palestine

I saw modifications to the infobox were made after a brief discussion above, and I must say that, when compared to the State of Palestine article, they don't make sense. The State of Palestine article has a Capital field [albeit with the tag "(proclaimed)"], but this article doesn't? The State of Palestine has "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" as its largest city (with no clarification about what that means), but here it mentions that this is if East Jerusalem is excluded?

Particularly on the capital point, it makes no sense to mention a capital for the State of Palestine and none here. I stand behind the suggestion I made above: include a Capital field here that says "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" and a Seat of government field that says "Jerusalem" [unqualified]. Or you can somehow combine that into one field, as is done at State of Palestine. The Jerusalem RfC does not provide grounds to expunge the wordcapital from the infobox. -- tariqabjotu 20:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I share your mind. The rationale for both infoboxes should be similar.

After an RfC to decide what was Jerusalem, we now have to focus on what are the capitals of the States of Israel and Palestine or better what to write in the infobox regarding this question... I hope this will not lead to complex and endless discussions. ;-)

The RfC stated that 2 sentences are not compliant with NPoV ("Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such".) I suggest that we conclude their counterpart would not be more neutral regarding the State of Palestine.

My mind is that the more accurate and detailed the information, the better.

What about this solution for both articles :

Capital : see Status of Jerusalem.

If discussions prove to be difficult, I suggest we ask for a mediator as soon as possible in the process who will guide the community in how to work on this question. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that too much parallelism is indicated. While West-Jerusalem is a city with seat of a national government, parliament etc. (and was so long before East-Jerusalem became an issue), although not recognised as Israel's capital because it is not recognised as belonging under Israeli sovereignty, East-Jerusalem has nothing of the kind, not in East-Jerusalem anyway. And the legal question is not the same either. So why the parallelism? Ajnem (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)