Talk:Jerusalem

Better wording

Wouldn't it be better if the lede sentence read, "Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of Israel, though is not internationally recognized as such"? Since Israel is claiming it as its capital, but the rest of the world doesn't recognize it as that. Silverseren^C 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better if is said that. --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All you're missing, as usual, is a reliable source that says that non-recognition means it's not the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

...what? Wouldn't that mean that, with such a source, it shouldn't be called the capital at all? I'm not following your logic. Israel is claiming it as its capital. That's obviously true. But, since its disputed (and that's affirmed by the international community), then it's POV to just say straight out that it is the capital. Silverseren^C 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we're not using the same definition of "capital". I'm using the one in the dictionary, which doesn't include the words "claim" or "recognition". How about you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably not using the same definition of "Jerusalem" or "is" either. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear NMMNG, You are right that dictionaries define capital as "seat of government". Why, then, do almost all countries of the world think that Jerusalem is not the capital? Don't they read the dictionary? Ravpapa (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ravpapa, why do you think most countries of the world think that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? Allow me to remind you of the facts. Israel made Jerusalem its capital in the early 1950s. Nobody said anything. Then in 1980, Israel made "unified Jerusalem" its capital. Most countries said that law is null and void and that they don't recognize unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital. They still happily carry out their diplomatic business vis a vis their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, including sending their heads of state there. So I don't think saying they don't think it's the capital is correct. They just don't recognize it, for whatever that's worth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, using a dictionary meaning and applying it here is SYNTH. We're constrained to write what sources say, and they say more or less what Silver seren writes above. The claim that "nobody said anything" in the 1950s isn't true, since e.g. the United States actively sought to prevent countries from establishing embassies in Jerusalem. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DC, the only "SYNTH" I see here is your wishful thinking that we are allowed to redefine the meanings of words. A capital city is where the major government institutions are (the seat of government), whether "the world" likes it or not. It follows that the only reliable source is the country that put those institutions there and designated that city as its capital. That is not a "POV" (theirs or mine) or a "claim". RP, you are asking for speculation about motivation, something that may be off base for an article talk page. An editor was recently kicked off the talk page who made allegations that people or peoples were biased. Even if the countries give reasons, there may be unspoken underlying reasons involved. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if everytime someone said "A capital city is..." on this talk page they had to make a $1000 donation to the ICRC. This issue has nothing to do with opinions about the meaning of the word "capital". It will never be resolved by treating the meaning of the word "capital" as a proposition and drawing conclusions from that. The only thing that matters is that we faithfully reflect reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, the reason I think that most countries don't think that Jerusalem is the capital is because that is what they say. I need not refer you to Positions on Jerusalem, where country after country is quoted as saying that Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel. The fact that countries conduct some of their diplomatic business in Jerusalem is, as you well know, because the seat of government is in Jerusalem. Which suggests to me that, differing from the rather one-dimensional definition in dictionaries, foreign ministries seem to think that "capital" and "seat of government" are not quite synonymous.

But if you really believe that the two terms are synonymous, then why do you object so strenuously to replacing the word "capital" with "seat of government" in the lead? Perhaps you, too, think there is some subtle difference between the two terms, that you haven't divulged to us for reasons known only to yourself? --Ravpapa (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Capital" is the common, basic, everyday word. "Seat of government" helps to define it, and vice versa, and may be synonymous. Not that you asked me, but are you prepared to change "capital" to "seat of government" in the hundreds of other articles about countries (not to mention the thousands about subdivisions of countries)? Perhaps there is "some subtle difference between the two terms". Hertz1888 (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, your comment "the only reliable source is the country that put those institutions there" surprises me, since WP:IRS doesn't work that way and I know that you, as an experienced editor, are aware of that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also aware of WP:5P, #5, sentence #2, in regard to improving Wikipedia. I'm not surprised that you are surprised. It seems to me that it follows logically that if countries alone choose their own capitals, all the published sources in the world cannot alter that status, though they may contradict it. If, moreover, the chosen capital is also the seat of government, it becomes even more difficult to deny, but isn't it curious how many words have been spent in trying to do so. "Reliable" as used here is in the original and most basic sense of the word, but of course that depends on a dictionary definition. Cheers. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading that using a dictionary to define words is SYNTH really makes spending my very precious time here worthwhile. If I was the sort of person who keeps a list of favorite talk page comments, I would certainly put that comment there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, every time you write something, you confuse me more. "If, moreover, the chosen capital is also the seat of government..." Then you do believe there is a difference between the two? And if Israel is, as you say, the sole determiner of where its capital is, how is it possible that all these other countries disagree? Maybe they don't think, as you do, that it is the sole prerogative of a country to say where its capital is? That there has to be some sort of general international agreement before a place can be called a capital?

Moreover, I don't see why, if we change "capital" to "seat of government" in this lead, we have to do it everywhere throughout the encyclopedia. Do we also have to change "biggest" to "largest" everywhere it appears? Do we have to change "Eskimo" to "Inouit" and "Indian" to "Native American"? In the case of London, there is no dispute that it is both the capital and the seat of government of Britain. In the case of Israel, that is not so - there is a dispute. And there is a simple way to accurately depict that dispute in the lead without resorting to Middle German syntax - to call Jerusalem the seat of government, and push all the other claptrap out of the lead.

In short, your whole argument, and your unswerving dedication to obfuscation of this issue, are mystifying to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Following your logic, the article about Taiwan should say that Taiwan claims to be a state in East Asia but most of the international community doesn't recognize it or perhaps Taiwan is a politically organized body of people, occupying a definite territory in East Asia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not better wording, this is blatantly biased wording which has been discussed and rejected above. Israel is the capital of Jerusalem, but it is not internationally recognised as such. Please provide sources aaying that a country needs permission to decide its own capital city and that it is not a capital city without such recognition. Strongly oppose this proposal. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, do you accuse others of obfuscation whenever you miss the point? That is not WP:AGF, but never mind. You are missing the point (or points) here, so I'll try to clarify further. There is no compelling reason to change capital to a less commonplace, less straightforward term, here or in those other articles. Why do you favor such a change only for Israel? As for your "sole determiner" questions, we don't know that those other countries disagree, or what they "think", only that they withhold formal recognition, for whatever that's worth, and for whatever reasons. I won't speculate on why they do what they do. Clear enough? Hertz1888 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that all countries but one (or is it three?) refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel seems to me reason compelling enough to make the change. And as for speculating why they do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, you don't have to speculate. They all say it pretty clearly: they do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital because they do not consider Jerusalem part of Israeli sovereign territory, at least not until there is a final resolution of the conflict. They think it improper for a country to declare its capital on land not its own. Frankly, while I personally disagree with them, I can see their point.

In response to NMMNG's comment: I am not much of an expert on Taiwan, but, yes, I think it would be proper to include mention of its disputed political status in the lead. But Taiwan's political status, dubious though it might be, is still far more secure than Jerusalem's: 22 countries still maintain full diplomatic relations with Taiwan, One country, as far as I know (Micronesia) formally recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Anyway, as enjoyable as I find this rather bizarre exchange of views, I find the fruitlessness of it overcoming my urge to continue. On this matter, see my post Zugzwang above. So I will not be posting on this again for a while. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, using dictionary definitions we might also come up with (just mentioning this as an example) "Israel is a terrorist organization". Do you support including that in the lead of Israel? I don't, because I think we should simply follow the normal process and say what high-quality sources say about the subject. What Taiwan says turns on what reliable sources have to say about Taiwan. If reliable sources say Taiwan is inhabited exclusively by fluffy pink rabbits, that absolutely goes in the article. Hertz, are you suggesting that we, as an exception, don't follow policy here? WP:NPOV states quite clearly that "This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it", so we do have to follow it if we want to have an article on Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We go by policy, we state the facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but it is not internationally recognised as such. That is balanced and fair. Adding additional qualifiers here would not be in line with how numerous other articles are treated. Due weight is given, to the international communities lack of recognition of Israel's capital whilst no evidence by those demanding change has been produced to demonstrate that international recognition or embassies are a requirement for something to qualify as a nations capital. We should go with the reasonable compromise which was discussed in the section above or make no change at all. There is a blatant attempt here to bias this article in favour of the Palestinians. Its very unreasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if we go by policy, we state what reliable sources say. Not what we think are facts. --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources say the international community do not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Thats what the introduction says. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source, which says "Israel controls Jerusalem, and claims it as its (...) capital". Here is another, which says "The policy of most governments, including Britain's, is that they will recognise West Jerusalem as Israel's capital when East Jerusalem is the agreed capital of a Palestinian state". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You just added a POV tag to a sentence that was the result of a long discussion and eventual consensus, which you have been fighting against for what, years now? Please explain why you decided to add it now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DC, in years of discussions, no one has been able to show that non-recognition of a country's capital means that it is not the capital. You have been asked to source such a principle (one which is contrary to the standard definition of a capital), and have not done so. Is the POV tag your response? If so, it looks very much like an attempt to game the system. There is no consensus to change the lead, and the tag itself is a change to the lead. It introduces doubt that goes against the previous decision to make a clear, positive statement (but also mention non-recognition, as balance, though some have deemed such mention as giving undue weight). You are upsetting that balance. I am going to be bold and remove the tag.

Perhaps you will tell us exactly what city is the capital of Israel. Some "reliable" sources have said that since Jerusalem is not recognized as such, Tel Aviv must be the capital. Do we put that into the article? No, because we don't do fringe theories. As you yourself have said, we go by policy. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've always quite liked the "no one has been able to show that non-recognition of a country's capital means that it is not the capital" argument. It seems reasonable at first glance, but I think it's based on the premise that the thing described as the country's capital is, in fact, in the country. No one has been able to show that that is the case, probably because much of the "capital", a spatial object, or maybe all of it, isn't, as a matter of uncontested fact, in the country that is describing it the "capital". So, the premise is problematic. At the moment the situation seems a bit like us finding sources that say "the North dome field is Qatar's largest gas field" (not wrong) and then adding "the South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field is Qatar's largest gas field" to an article. The statement is true, sort of, but the error contained in that statement, the way it ignores the spatial relations, ownership, an entire country, is more obvious than a "Jerusalem / Jerusalem" (omitting the West+East) case only because Iran happened to call their part of the field "South Pars" rather than using the same field name as Qatar, "North Dome". I've never really seen this endless discussion of the phrasing of the opening lines as a political issue. It's seems more about the lack of clarity that comes from sources and us using the same word to describe different spatial objects. Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, West+East Jerusalem are all Jerusalem. If Jerusalem were called West Jerusalem / East Jerusalem, the problem with the statement "West Jerusalem / East Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is very clear, and the answer to the question "Perhaps you will tell us exactly what city is the capital of Israel" would be something like "not West Jerusalem / East Jerusalem but maybe West Jerusalem and maybe not". Still, this is all a load of nonsense because we have to work with the sources we have. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, this is a NPOV discussion concerning the statement in question, and the template is used to indicate that just such a discussion is ongoing, in order to attract fresh editors to the subject. While it's true that a consensus was eventually forged after the long discussions, consensus as we know can change. Hertz, these thoughts on "true capitalness" are beyond our pay grade and shouldn't be a subject of discussion on this talkpage, which is devoted to discussing article content. We should just stick to policy and edit accordingly. Sources say that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is a claim and it should be presented as such. And Hertz, see Template:POV-statement, there is no need for consensus to add the template, you should now revert your removal of the template since this discussion is ongoing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What you're doing here is teaching us that compromising with you on text in order to reach a consensus is not a good idea since you'll come back again and again to try to get it to the wording you like. I will take this lesson to heart. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

On Oct. 3rd, 2010, when agreeing to the current text I agreed to "not raise the issue again or push another version for a long time". Two years is a long time, and you've now had the benefit of having the rather policy-noncompliant version in the article all that time. It was never agreed, nor could it be validly agreed (since consensus can change), to never change the article again. In the meantime, for example, several countries have recognized East Jerusalem as territory of the Palestinian state. Also in the meantime, the source mentioned above was published which says "The policy of most governments, including Britain's, is that they will recognise West Jerusalem as Israel's capital when East Jerusalem is the agreed capital of a Palestinian state". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for validating my point. Lesson learned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are no remaining objections to Silver seren's proposal, we can go ahead with the edit in a few days. --Dailycare (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation declined. As you well know, there are strong objections, and they have not been resolved. Where the institutions of national government are located is the capital, whether internationally recognized or not. That's the way a capital is defined. The existing wording nevertheless compromises by mentioning the non-recognition, which is also covered in generous detail elsewhere on the page. I strongly oppose the proposed change. As for your addition and re-addition of the tag, anyone can add a tag—and anyone can comment that it unilaterally changes the tone of the lead, in violation of the existing agreement. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

He was just trying to get someone to respond, otherwise his bad faith tag on text he agreed to can be removed. He's well aware there are objections and he has nothing even close to a consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Herz, I believe we discussed that issue above: we have to edit according to what reliable sources specifically have to say on the subject. Reasoning on our own, which is of course very useful on many occasions, can lead us astray here as the "terrorist organization" example shows. (In more formal language, this is from the lead of WP:V: "content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". WP:NPOV says right at the top "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides".) Here is a reliable source (Reuters) which says: "While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status." If the article then says that Jerusalem is the capital, that's taking a side, not merely describing the sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to address your bad faith representation of the facts, as if we don't have sources that state unequivocally that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I'll note, just because you said it twice, that your example with the "terrorist organization" was pretty stupid. No need to respond since it's pointless to have a discussion with someone you might reach an agreement with and they'll just come back later and break it, as you have done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

These ad hominem claims ("bad faith", "pretty stupid", "broken" agreement) don't relate to article content and are therefore not persuasive. Concerning the sources, it's true (as has been discussed) that there exist sources, especially Israeli and American ones, 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 particular, 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) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The premise of this argument is irrelevant.
The Israeli government operates out of Jerusalem (there are plenty of reliable sources to attest this), thus it is the seat of government, thus it is the 'capital' of Israel. The International Community disagrees with Israel's actions (there are ample sources for this too). Those are the facts. All we can do is report them. Nothing more; nothing less.
We do not take side. We do not redefine words to make it easier to say a capital is not a capital (whether it should be or not). We chronicle facts.
—Sowlos (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, see Ravpapa's comments above concerning "seat of government". If you feel they're the same thing, would you support saying "seat of government" instead of "capital"? "The Israeli government operates out of Jerusalem" would, by the way, also sound neutral to me. The BBC has taken the seat-of-government line and I recall seeing some others too. Concerning your comment that "we chronicle facts", it'd be more accurate to say we chronicle what reliable sources say. They say there are two sides to this issue, and we should present the sides without taking sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Qouting: "A capital city (or simply capital) is the municipality enjoying primary status in a state, country, province, or other region as its seat of government. A capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of its respective government and is normally fixed by its law or constitution." So Jerusalem plainly and matter factly is the capital city of Israel, regardless of whether this or that country "recognizes" whatever. the current wording is quite good and objective. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's original research. A similar case is terrorism: according to dictionary.com it's the "use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes". The Bush administration invaded Iraq to implement a regime change plan, so adopting your line of argument, we could conclude that the Bush administration was a terrorist organization. The substantive intent behind the OR policy is to prevent that kind of editing. However, saying that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital, the seat of government or that Israel's government functions from it would be non-objectionable as far as I can see. --Dailycare (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend your analogy Dailycare. In any case, this is not only the dictionary definition, but also the way the word is commonly used. No one checks whether Venezuela or Mauritania "recognize" this or that before, in common day language, saying a city is the capital. It seems this (in my eyes and with all due respect- just silly objection) is very far from holding any semantic merits nor consensus here. If consensus is not reached in a reasonable amount of time, the tags should be removed. --MeUser42 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you regard the statements "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" and "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be a true statements in the sense that 1=1 ? Can we for example write "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and its capital" as a true statement of fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice ? I don't think the statement "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" is true in a 1=1 sense according to RS, so even using the OR approach of the meanings of words, I don't think it is possible for the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be true in a 1=1 sense. Neither of the 2 statements are facts. The appeal to common day language doesn't work well because in common day language a capital city is in the country that designates it as the capital city and that is not the case here in an undisputed factual sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You can see that it is not only compliant with the common day meaning, but with the dictionary meaning as well. I noted that in response to DailyCare, and did not "appeal to it" as an argument, as you claimed. This is starting to get bogged down with logical fallacies, and I feel it is quit apparent there is no case for such a change. To your question I see "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" as a plain matter of fact. This is not a political statement. Israel exists and Jerusalem currently serves as it's capital. --MeUser42 (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you see "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" as a plain matter of fact then you are misinformed. This is not the kind of error an encyclopedia with a mandatory WP:NPOV policy can make. It's not a plain matter of fact that anything outside of the Green Line is "in Israel". Much of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, is outside of the Green Line, and it is of course a policy violation for us to write or imply that anything outside of the Green Line is in Israel using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice. That is not to say that I advocate trying to change the current wording. I don't think it is always possible to deal with dogma given the way Wikipedia currently works, but I do think the neutrality disputed tag should stay while the article presents an opinion as a fact. There is a neutrality dispute which is based on perfectly reasonable policy compliance concerns. I'm sure there are many simple solutions based on slight changes in wording but it is just not possible to implement them at the moment. C'est la vie. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the way in which the tags are to be used. I'll quote: "In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time." Since there is no consensus for the change, you do not seem to currently advocate a change in wording, and it seems the discussion has ground to a halt, the tag should be removed. I recommend we wait for one more week and not remove immediately, in case the discussion will start again. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoting an essay to editors here won't help. I wish the presence of the tag would trigger a smart bot to implement an policy compliant solution using the policy ruleset and automated sampling of RS to bypass the human factor that has caused this impasse, but sadly we're not quite there yet. Back to reality. The dispute is about compliance with a mandatory policy and the inline tag precisely indicates the location of the dispute. It has been going on for years, since 2003 at least, and it will probably continue for years. All of the very experienced editors who have been involved in this ongoing dispute know about it, whether or not the tag is there, whether or not the last comment about it on the talk page was 1 minute ago or 1 month ago, but readers/new editors who might have questions or be able to help resolve the dispute won't know that there is an ongoing dispute unless we tag it. The objective should be to resolve the dispute, not hide it. The NPOV policy (a policy not an essay) is quite explicit about our obligations with respect to neutrality, going as far as to say "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." And yet, here we are with an apparently unresolvable neutrality dispute. Since a mandatory core policy, NPOV, has been ineffective in terms of resolving the dispute over the wording, I don't expect a non-binding essay to be effective in resolving the dispute over the tag. There is a neutrality dispute and it has not been resolved. Having a tag to indicate that there is an unresolved dispute seems entirely reasonable. Removing the tag suggests that there is no ongoing dispute, which is certainly not the case. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not assumed that all editors will agree. There should be a discussion on the basis of the stable version and if consensus is formed around a different suggestion, it should be changed. The tag per WP policy is to indicate an ongoing discussion, not an ongoing dispute, as it is perfectly reasonable some will not be persuaded. If the current discussion regarding this specific tag has shown no clear consensus for a change, per WP policy (as quoted in my previous message) it is to be removed. If the discussion has indeed now ground to halt and no consensus for change was reached, it is good practice to wait another week and then remove the tag. If the discussion will not be active, next week I will remove the tag per WP. If it will be reverted, we will take it to arbitration. --MeUser42 (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on resolving the content issue, not discuss the tag. This thread is a discussion about an NPOV dispute, and the purpose of the tag is to indicate that, and invite uninvolved editors to participate. In other words, the presence of the tag improves the chances that a solution will be found as more brains concentrate on the issue. Incidentally I agree that leaving the tag in is one way forward, as Herz suggested earlier we can make exceptions to some Wikipedia rules, and the template doc sounds to me like something we can make an exception on (i.e. by leaving the tag in until a solution surfaces), even if we can't make exceptions on WP:NPOV which is a mandatory policy. But back to the actual meat of the discussion, the same applies to the "common meaning" you mention as to the dictionary meaning, namely that using such an indirect deduction on our own part amounts to forbidden original research, see my comment above with timestamp 10:25. Using a deductive step, which is OR, to sidestep what reliable sources directly say on the matter is doubly wrong since the result violates WP:NPOV. Further, the deductive step isn't even correct as the Dutch example shows, see the first sentence in Capital of the Netherlands: "The capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam, even though the States-General and the government have been both situated in The Hague since 1588." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Once this discussion ends with no consensus, as we all know it will, the tag will be removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that we should break the WP regarding the tag. For the rest, applying dictionary and common day definitions of words to the world is not original research, it's called speaking. --MeUser42 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you see as the advantages of removing the tag ? I can see the advantages of it remaining but I can't see the advantages of removing it. Does anyone know whether the wording issue ever been taken to WP:DRN by the way ? I think that needs to happen before an issue goes to arbitration. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and its something that is baselines to argue. The neutrality of this sentence is enforced by addition that international community do not consider it as such. POV templates can not be inserted in the middle of sentence, only at its end.Tritomex (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"baselines to argue" isn't a legitimate English sentence. It's not quite clear what you mean. The statement "though not internationally recognized as such" has no effect on the neutrality of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". One is about recognition, the other is a statement of fact. A fact is a fact whether it's recognized or not. The problem is that many RS do not present this as a fact, whereas we do. That is why the template is there. I have moved the template back where it belongs "after a fact or posit to signify that just that statement may not be entirely without bias". This is consistent with the template documentation. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, how can you "know" that this discussion won't reach consensus? After all, who can say which editors will participate, which arguments will be used and what proposals will be put forward? FWIW, we've already made progress in realizing that the "seat of government = capital" argument doesn't hold water, per the Dutch example. In fact as there seem to be few credible arguments against Silver seren's proposal remaining on the table, consensus seems to be close. --Dailycare (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The only person you have convinced that the "seat of government = capital" argument doesn't hold water is yourself. Why would the Amsterdam article need to specifically explain it's the capital but not the seat of government if that wasn't the normal usage of the word?

This has been open for two weeks. Doesn't look like you're gaining consensus for your change, does it? Eventually you'll grow tired of artificially keeping it open and then I'll remove the tag. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No consensus about denying facts. Wikipedia should not be used as political or propaganda tool. Jerusalem is de facto and de jure capital of Israel, POV templates can not be inserted in the middle of sentences. This is interruptive editing.This debate is kept artificially and its beyond any rational ground.--Tritomex (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

From an international perspective that is a minority opinion. The majority opinion holds that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. For instance, the US, Israel's strongest ally does not even accept any sovereignty claims over Jerusalem outside a negotiated settlement. Dlv999 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

From an international perspective only East Jerusalem is not considered part of Israel and by the latter of international law. Israel is internationally recognized country with all of its institutions including its capital. The fact that most countries do not have embassies in Jerusalem dose not mean that they do not recognize West Jerusalem as part of Israel or as its capital, but they dispute Israeli position on East Jerusalem. There are no encyclopedic books, as far as I know, which dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. However even if international community would dispute Jerusalem as its capital, it would not change the factual situation, namely that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel --Tritomex (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israel's territory either and Israel's claim to Jerusalem as capital was opposed already in the 1950s. NMMNG, there are at least four countries where the seat of government and capital are different cities (the Netherlands, Benin, Bolivia and the Ivory Coast). During WWII, the Belgian government was in London. London, however, wasn't Belgium's capital city, or even Belgian territory for that matter. Therefore, the argument that Jerusalem would be the capital since the government is there fails since it doesn't necessarily follow that a seat of government is a capital. Of course, this argument fails also for the reasons that 1) there is a specific major disagreement internationally as to the notion that Jerusalem would be Israel's capital, or even in Israel, and 2) looking up a definition and drawing your own conclusion is inherently original research, as discussed above. In this thread, two major theories have been advanced in opposition to the proposal, the first one being the above, and the second one being the claim that lack of recognition doesn't mean that something "isn't so". This latter theory fails since the proposed text doesn't say that Jerusalem isn't the capital. The text says that it is claimed, and that the claim isn't recognized. The current text endorses the unrecognized claim. That's not how thing work. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with DC. See for instance the official UK position[1]: "Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognized by the UK and the international community. The U.K. locates its embassy in Tel Aviv.". Israel's position is a minority opinion viewed as no more than "a claim" which is rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including Israel's allies. The current formulation gives undue weight by asserting the minority opinion as fact in the wikipedia voice and not giving enough weight to the one held by the majority. It is not neutral per WP:NPOV.Dlv999 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not "official UK position" as it is not based on any official UK document, this is a newspaper article with certain assumptions. As I have said all countries that recognize Israel and there are 166 or so countries, recognize all of its institution, including its capital, by the latter of international law. Regarding facts you don't have majority or minority opinion. The international community dispute that Jerusalem is Israeli capital. However, this is the claim which is changeable, as not the whole international community dispute it( for example see US Congress and House of representatives resolution on Jerusalem) Also, as I said above all countries that recognized Israel, recognized Jerusalem as its capital. Again, the current form of sentence is claiming that whole international community is disputing Jerusalem as its capital which could be seen only as POV against Israel. While the current form "Jerusalem is a capital of Israel, although not recognized by international community as such" can be POV only in the section of sentence regarding recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital.(The first half is factual situation, if you agree with it or not, the second part is opinion which is not based on any official document from "international community" as a whole, and as this arterial debate lead nowhere, I strongly think to changeling as POV all the consumptions in the text that whole international community is "disputing Jerusalem as Israeli capital" --Tritomex (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just silly. No where does it say a capital is defined by whether it is recognized as such by the government of Finland. There is a practical, factual interpretation of the word - the city where the government operates from and designates "capital" for administrative purposes, according to which, Jerusalem is factually the capital. Due to political intrigue and conflict some are not happy with Jerusalem being the capital so the don't "recognize it". It doesn't mean Jerusalem isn't the capital, it just means some are not content with this. Words and terms are not defined by the government of Kenya. The current sentence conveys it perfectly: "Jerusalem...is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii]" Followed by an in-depth explanation when clicking [ii]. This is the most neutral formulation possible. On the other hand, the given proposal introduces bias and confuses the reader. --MeUser42 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not silly. Step 1 to resolving this issue is understanding that concerns about policy compliance are being raised by rational people, using policy based arguments, citing reliable sources. The concerns can't be addressed by saying they are silly, using dictionaries, misunderstanding the nature of the dispute or simply asserting that everything is fine because Jerusalem is the capital. The issue won't go away. Both sides of the argument have merit. There is a way to solve this. One day someone will propose it and it will get consensus but that can't happen unless people do what they are meant to do on talk pages, figure it out. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not a correct description of this dispute. One side wants to weasel word something we have sources describe as fact. They want to change the meaning of words in the English language. They also want to lead the reader to think non recognition means something which they have not provided a single source that supports. Worse of all, they make compromise agreements and then come back and try to change them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As said, I think the current version is very precise and I don't find merit to the argument for a change. I think the discussion is pretty much concluding, so I'll leave with that statement for now. If there are new arguments, please leave me a message on the talk page. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG that is a clear misrepresentation of the situation. Bona fida RS describe Tel aviv being the capital of Israel as a fact. See e.g. The Guardian, whose position was upheld by the Press Complaints Commission.[2] The British government has described Israel's position on Jerusalem as its capital as "a claim" not a fact. A claim that is in fact rejected by the overwhelming majority of the international community. Pretending that this is not the case does nothing for your credibility and will not help moving towards consensus. Dailycare has already refuted your WP:OR assertions that seat of government=capital. Dlv999 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't the reality at all. That argument is tantamount to turning Wikipedia into a platform for political advocacy, which is a far cry from the Foundation's raison d'etre. When removed from the subjective political perspectives of certain nations of the world, Israel's capital is Jerusalem, as plain and straightforward as can be. This is established in crystal clear terms by the foremost objective source of geographic information available to humankind: National Geographic. The National Geographic profile for Israel, which cares for stark reality and not diplomatic political nuances, indicates that Israel's capital is Jerusalem. Editors can try and deny reality or subjugate it to narrow political persuasions – but reality is what it is, regardless of which nation recognizes that reality as a legitimate state of affairs. Our language in its current form does a decent job reflecting reality: Israel's capital is Jerusalem, but it's not internationally recognized as such. To present it any other is to elevate political advocacy above the Project's demand for neutrality both in its articles and on the part of its editors.—Biosketch (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@DLV - You're a bit behind the times. The Guardian has corrected their silly editorial policy [3], and the PCC has withdrawn its ruling [4]. Please try again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@Biosketch, I don't believe representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint per WP:NPOV is political advocacy. I also disagree that a travel guide for Israel is the best source for this information, even one published by the National Geographic.

@NMMNG, thank you for the guardian link. I see the Guardian have changed their policy of describing Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel, but not their policy with respect to Jerusalem, which is the pertinent issue to this discussion. I cannot access the Jpost article at present so I am unable to respond to that part of your comment at present. Dlv999 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

They have changed their policy regarding Jerusalem. They used to explicitly say it's not the capital and now they don't. Other "bona fida RS" state as fact that it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

there current style guide reads, "Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel: it is not recognised as such by the international community. While the Knesset has designated the city as the country's capital, a UN resolution of 1980 declared this status "null and void". Jerusalem is the seat of government and Tel Aviv is the country's diplomatic and financial centre." [5] Dlv999 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering that a few months ago they stated as fact that Tel Aviv is the capital, I don't think they can be considered RS on the matter of what Israel's capital is. And anyway, they quite clearly avoid saying it isn't the capital like they used to, just that they decided not to refer to it as such. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming even more disturbing. How can one newspaper with well known political agenda, which is not considered objective in relation to israel by anyone, how can it be compared with apolitical and well respected institution like The National Geographic? If this baseless discussion is continuing to be kept artificially I will propose to examine the eventual POV regarding the claim that Jerusalem is "not recognized as the capital of Israel by WHOLE international community" wherever I find it in text, with the insertion of POV template.. The UN Resolution 478 does not speak about denying Israel rights to have Jerusalem as its capital, but denying Israel right to annex East Jerusalem. This is what is disputed by many country. BTW the term international community is abstract term, the only valid term which has its meaning is UN.--Tritomex (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion, like so many in the topic area, is that people keep trying to make it about what editors think, what their motivations are etc. What matters from our perspective is that there are RS that present the information as a fact and RS that present it as a claim. I don't think there is a dispute here about the notion that from Israel's perspective, Jerusalem, the whole of Jerusalem, is the capital, and the article should of course make that clear. This is just about how to deal with the undisputed fact vs claim variations present in the sources. There's no avoiding the diversity. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The "diversity" is that some sources state it as fact, some sources present it as a claim without actually saying it's not a fact, and no sources explicitly say it's not a fact. So on the balance, we have some sources that say "yes", some that say "we don't know" and none that say "no". Why do you think the ambiguity should be highlighted ignoring the sources that state it as fact? That's putting aside normal English usage. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Try exchanging the words "fact" and "claim" in your first sentence. I don't think anything should be highlighted or ignored and I didn't say that. People are trying to round up language and ignore the inconvenient messiness that is actually present in the sources. "without actually saying it's not a fact" is a null result fact-wise and of no use. There are an infinite number of things any given source doesn't say. I don't know how to deal with the messiness but it is definitely there. The usual way is via attribution. Why do you think the ambiguity should be ignored and only a statement of fact presented ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Because we have sources that state it as fact and none that say it's not true. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, see my comment above, timestamped 19:29, for these sources. Since it's established beyond doubt that the majority view is that Israel's claim isn't accepted, then it matters little that there are sources, mostly Israeli and American, that nonetheless endorse the claim. The claim that there are no sources disputing Jerusalem is the capital is untrue, see these: Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital, "and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel were null and void" (UN GA resolution 63/30, passed with the support of 163 member states). However, as noted earlier these sources don't change what we must write, namely that there is this claim, that Israel supports it but that it isn't accepted outside Israel. This is really all rather simple.

To make this simpler to wrap one's brain around, consider Cleopatra. Let's say we have sources that say that it's not known which kind of snake she used to kill herself, however historians agree it was probably a cobra or a viper. Then there are sources that say it was a cobra, and some that say viper. Obviously, we'd follow the first set of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The only things that are "established beyond doubt" here are that you don't have consensus to make a change in the text and that any compromise made with you will be subject to you coming back later to try and change it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I just checked CIA factbook regarding Israel, not just Jerusalem is listed as Israeli capital but Eastern Jerusalem is counted within Israel (regarding population and territory) [6] So if we consider US to be part of "international community" the opening sentence in this article can be interpreted only as POV against Israel. This further underline the need to open discussion regarding eventual POV and the insertion of adequate templates at in all places where international community is defined as solid, uniform block denying Jerusalem as Israeli capital- Considering UN General assembly resolution 63/30 it has again nothing in relation of denying Jerusalem as Israeli capital [7] but condemning Israeli actions in occupied eastern part of the city as well as reinsurance that the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is not considered legal by UN GA;

As by the UN charta GA has only non biding advisory role, this issue is even more clear here. Also, newspaper article can not be used here as evidence(for example it is not clear wether this individual was born in West or East Jerusalem) and as it is well known only East Jerusalem is not considered Israeli, by most of UN members.--Tritomex (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which categorically state that the United States does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. See e.g. The Washington Post "The United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital". [8]. Or Haaretz "Most of the world, including the U.S., does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The U.S. and others keep their embassies in Tel Aviv." [9] Dlv999 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what might be needed is a complete change in approach. We seem to have written ourselves into a corner with the whole "Cake is, as a matter of fact, better than pie, though not internationally recognized as such" approach. Perhaps just describing what happened rather than what "is" the case would be a better approach e.g. take the "is the capital of Israel,[neutrality is disputed] though not internationally recognized as such,[ii]" out of the first paragraph and expand the 4th paragraph to say what happened rather than what "is". It already deals with it. It could say that it was declared the capital after the establishment of the State of Israel and cover what has happened since then (much of it already being there). That way, things are attributed i.e. Israel did this, the international community did this etc. Just a thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering the US, you cant compare newspaper article with official documents. Here is US congress resolution regarding Jerusalem [10]

The Congress makes the following findings:Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995

(1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

(3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

(4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

(5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

(8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.

(9) In 1990, the congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress ‘‘strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected’’.

(10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.

(11) The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of ‘‘final status’’ issues, including Jerusalem.

(12) The agreement on the Gaza strip and Jericho Area was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transitional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.

(13) In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging ‘‘planning to begin now’’ for relocation of the United States Embassy to the City of Jerusalem.

(14) In June of 1993, 257 members of The United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United states Embassy to Jerusalem ‘‘should take place no later than . . . 1999’’.

(15) The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

(16) The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.

(17) In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry.

Sec. 3. Timetable. (a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.—

(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and

(3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

So you have claer case now, not just a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel capital by US, but also a further prove that the POV template is at wrong place--Tritomex (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, that is a primary source. You should not be drawing your own conclusions and interpretations from primary sources, we use secondary sources for that such as the Haaretz, and the Washington Post articles I cited. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies (WP:OR). Dlv999 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not a clear case by any means and I can't even be bothered to explain why. Try to figure it out for yourself. This discussion should not, in my view, include people who think the whole of Jerusalem is in Israel as a matter of fact or people who are not aware of the status of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. This issue will never get sorted out if the discussion includes the misinformed. The issues are complicated enough already. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please everyone should adhere to WP:TPNO Personal insults and editions which could be seen as threats should be avoided. For example:

• • Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.

This is a clear example that the point of view can not be standard for inclusion/exclusion of anyone from this or any other talk. Personal point of view should be left aside and no one should search about the "thinking" or "awareness" of other editors. --Tritomex (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I said. Copy/pasting a large portion of text from the Jerusalem Embassy Act here and then drawing the conclusion that it is a clear case of recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by US is both incorrect and unhelpful, in my view, even if well intended. Editors need to have sufficient knowledge of a topic and policy to be able to contribute constructively to a discussion. Being misinformed is not a crime, it's an opportunity, but talk pages are not for educating editors and correcting their misunderstandings (although they have done that for me on many occasions). We're trying to write an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say in a way that is consistent with policy and guidelines and resolve what is probably one of the longest running and bitter disputes in Wikipedia's history. If everyone could focus on the issue with an open mind and try to find RS/policy based solutions (which may be completely different from how we handle things now) it should be possible to resolve this. If we can't resolve it, perhaps dispute resolution should be tried. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, the change we made in 2010 was an improvement from the previous text. I believed it then and I believe it today. Concerning consensus, this is a discussion in process. You write below that you intend to refrain from participating further in this discussion, which is perfectly within your rights but doesn't give you a veto on any changes that may be decided. Moving to the issue at hand, how about this: "Under Israeli law Jerusalem is Israel's capital, although it isn't internationally recognized as such." This would have the benefit of being neutral in the sense that the unrecognized claim isn't endorsed, and it would go some way meet Hertz' viewpoint mentioned earlier. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be misconstruing something I said. I would not support such a wording change. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to this comment of yours: "the only reliable source is the country that put those institutions there and designated that city as its capital". Therefore, if we replace "is" with "is under Israeli law", according to that logic there's no change in the meaning. "I would not support", by the way, isn't a policy-based objection. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed misunderstanding or misusing my statement, as that's not its logic. Putting those institutions there and designating that city as its capital makes it the capital. To reason otherwise is your POV and pure SYNTH. It is well sourced that the institutions of government are located in Jerusalem and Israel is governed from there. It is not reliably sourced that any outside party determines or vetoes one's capital. That inconvenient reality remains after years of editors looking for loopholes around it. Adding "under Israeli law" would be restrictive and a major change in the meaning. The same goes for RP's "seat of government" proposal. The article already gives what contradictory sources have to say. The present wording is accurate and balanced. It really is time to conclude this discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite a specific policy that says we can't change the meaning of text in an article, even in a major way? Not that this is a major change, BTW. Placing the institutions there makes it the seat of government, and the designation makes it the capital under Israeli law. Both proposals, "under Israeli law" and "seat of government" are plain, correct and non-controversial. Unlike the present wording, which is a clear violation of a core policy of the project since it takes a side in a controversy. --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that your response addresses any of my points. We are talking past each other.

There is no controversy as to what makes a capital a capital. Not just "under Israeli law", and without needing a circumlocution (such as "seat of government"). Changing the meaning of words defined in the dictionary is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

To quote you, "We're also entitled to use our common sense." (Dailycare, 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC))[11]

In my opinion, this discussion is becoming more and more futile. I wouldn't count on another response from me. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I gather that you didn't formulate a policy-based objection to the "under Israeli law" proposal as you didn't name a policy. We can wait a few days and take it from there. --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You gather wrongly. For the record, I've given you several such objections over the past few days that seem either to have made no impression or that you don't care for. Please stop coming back here with more demands, accusations or misrepresentations that call for yet another response on my part. This is getting us nowhere. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Basic Law, BBC. --Dailycare (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As there seem to be no policy-based objections, it's time to go ahead with the edit. --Dailycare (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Filibustering

The discussion isn't going anywhere other than no consensus. That much is abundantly clear. But it's now deteriorating to the point where one user's attempting to apply mccarthyistic admission requirements for other editors in good standing wishing to contribute to the discussion, and that's altegother inconsistent with the values of our Project.

The Template:POV-statement, which was supposedly added to attract fresh voices to the Discussion page, may have actually fulfilled that putative objective had the template added the article to a corresponding category that was patrolled by nonpartisans committed to purging Wikipedia of POV content, in which case there would be an uninvolved assessment of the discussion here and most likely a conclusion that no consensus among editors is possible and that the template is useless.

Since no one's inctroducing any new ideas and the discussion's stalled and going in circles, I propose that anyone who wishes to do so log their statement below for the record and that the discussion be concluded. Otherwise, editors'll just continue filibustering to no end as a pretext for preserving their template in the lead.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for making accusations against other editors and it is disruptive to the purpose of the talk page. Your claim that no-one is introducing new ideas is totally false. Sean.Hoyland made new suggestion as to how to approach this issue today (timestamp:08:58). Dlv999 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Dlv999, for agreeing with me that this isn't the place to make accusations against other editors. If you read my comment more closely you'll note that I addressed the appalling suggestion of the user to whom you're referring without referencing the user by name and confining the characterization of his benighted suggestion to the suggestion itself.

Would anyone like to go next?—Biosketch (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My name is Sean. Your concerns are noted. This section won't help resolve the dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sean, I also disagree with your suggestion. The first sentence of the lead should state this is the capital like it does in every other article about capitals, regardless of international recognition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you think that but I assume you would acknowledge that it is not like every other capital in several important respects. I'll acknowledge that the statement is not really wrong enough for me to be particular bothered by it personally but I do think it is a policy violation and there may be better ways of dealing with it.

• What happens if you replace "is" with "functions as" in the first sentence ?
• Or what happens if you replace the "is" statement with something like the "Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital"" from the 4th paragraph ?
• Or what happens if you break the link between the "is" statement and the international recognition statement ? I mean something along the lines of describing what happened in the first sentence rather than what "is"...along the lines of "After the establishment of the State of Israel, Jerusalem was declared its capital" from the article body and cover details including the international recognition in the 4th paragraph ?

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, I will not agree to any watering down of the wording we currently have, for several reasons. First, like I've said before, we have sources that say Jerusalem is the capital. The POV that it is not recognized as such (the meaning of which we are still waiting for an RS to explain) is also in the lead, so as far as I can tell NPOV is satisfied. Second, it is obvious to me that any compromise I may make with you will just be used as a starting point for another discussion on how to water down the statement even further. Probably even by someone who agrees to a compromise now just to come back later and reopen the issue. Color me disillusioned with the wikipedia compromise process.

I think I've explained my position quite clearly several times now and I don't see any point in going around in circles, so I will not be responding further. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with No More Mr Nice Guy-this debate have to be closed.--Tritomex (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and no new input addressing the core rational of the current stable version formulation, namely: a simple use of language, as in the dictionary and other Wikipedia articles, side by side with a clear and very well put explanation of the international politics aspect of the capital status. My points in full can be seen in the above debate. I dropped out of the debate once it was obvious it was going nowhere. I fully agree with the claim that continuing to "grind water" over the proposed change is completely useless. Prelonging this already extremely long debate can indeed be seen as filibustering, as it is clear it is light years from consensus over the change and no consensus will be formed. I support the current version be maintained and the debate to be archived. ==MeUser42 (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The current formulation does not represent all the viewpoints that have been published in RS and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV. There are clearly sources that do not represent the notion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as a fact but rather as a claim not recognized by the international community. You are entitled to withdraw from the debate but you cannot stop other editors moving the article towards NPOV by representing all viewpoints that have been published in RS. NPOV is a core principle of the encyclopedia and cannot be superseded by consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support maintaining the existing wording and structure as-is (minus the tag). I agree that it is useless to expect a consensus for change. Closing and archiving all sections of the discussion is overdue. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the sticking points appears to be the perception of "watering down of the wording". So, how about doing the opposite ? Would anyone who supports the current wording object to changing the wording to "Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), is the capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem, including both West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel" or something like that ? These statements have the same meaning as the current statement but they make it clear to readers that Wikipedia is saying that the entire city of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If there are objections to these by editors who support the current wording, I would like to know what those objections are, specifically, in detail. For me, all of these statements mean the same thing. The degree to which they comply with policy is the same but they differ in clarity. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Try, try again

Even though there is just about nothing new that can be said about this, I am going to take another shot at reaching some kind of agreement about this lead. First, let me summarize what people don't like about the lead:

• The pro-Israel campers don't like the fact that the lead puts the conflict front and center. No other article about a capital city takes this in-your-face approach. Take Pristina, capital of Kosovo, and site of some of the most heinous war crimes of our generation. What does Wikipedia have to say about Pristina? That it is served by the Pristina international airport.

• Conflict takes a front seat not only in the first sentence, but also, more subtly, in the third. Why, ask the pro-I campers, can't we simply say that Jerusalem is the biggest city? Why all this couching in provisos - if this, if that, then, and so on.

• The pro-Palestinian campers, on the other hand, don't like that the lead says "capital" at all. After all, they say, no one besides Israel seems to think it's the capital. Moreover, if we say it is the capital of Israel, we should also say it's the capital of Palestine. One fiction deserves another.

• They also don't like the biggest city business. "If my aunt had a moustache, she'd be my uncle," wrote someone about this sometime back. Moreover, it isn't even the biggest city, or at least, not the biggest metropolis - Tel Aviv and its close satellites (Ramat Gan, Givatayim, Bney Brak, Holon, Bat Yam) is bigger by far.

• I don't like the lead simply because it's awful. It is so convoluted and polemic that the average Wikipedia reader (high school student reading level) simply won't understand it.

Second, let me state some truths about the current version of the lead and about the issues:

• The lead, as it is currently written, is not, as many have claimed, the result of a consensus. On the contrary, the description of Jerusalem as capital of Israel has been a source of contention for at least five years. The addition of the proviso "though not internationally recognized" was added in October 2010, in the course of a bitter argument similar to the one going on now. There was never an attempt to gain consensus for this version, and the only reason it was not edit-warred away during the month of October is that editors feared sanctions. So the claim that consensus is required to change this consensual version is wrong; there is no consensus to change it, but there is and never was any consensus to keep it.

• There is no agreement - not among sources and not among editors on this page - that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But there is universal consensus that it is the seat of Israel's government. The pro-I campers don't like this expression, but they do not dispute its accuracy.

Before you guys scream your knee-jerk opposition to replacing "capital" with "seat of government", consider the advantages: It means we can dump the "not internationally recognized", and we no longer have to argue about its also being the capital of Palestine. And the average reader, untutored as he or she is in the minutiae of this dispute, will never notice the difference.

So, here is my suggestion for the lead:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i], the seat of Israel's government, holy to Jews, Christians and Moslems, is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It is also the largest municipality within Israel's jurisdiction, though not the largest urban area.

This version, my friends, is much closer to the milquetoast leads of other capitals: it eschews all hint of conflict; it emphasizes the history, the beauty, the importance of Jerusalem, with all the bile distilled out. It cleverly disguises Jerusalem as a normal place, and at the cost of a mere word. Can you live with that? --Ravpapa (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The phrase It is also the largest municipality within Israel's current borders is inaccurate. nableezy - 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I made a change. Is it okay now? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Slightly better. I would substitute within Israel's jurisdiction with in Israeli-held territory. I would also specify that this is only true if you include East Jerusalem. nableezy - 15:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about why the sentence was allowed to stand in Oct 2010 is false. Nobody feared sanctions. There wasn't a threat of sanctions or even a very long discussion about the issue. It was presented as putting the sentence here in line with the one in the Israel article and that's the end of it. I naively thought an agreement is an agreement. I won't make that mistake again. That goes for your list of "advantages" as well. If your suggestion was agreed to (which I don't if that wasn't obvious), Dailycare will be here next week or next month or next year to push exactly those statements back into the article even if he says he won't. And if it's not him it'll be someone else. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, I haven't counted how many times you've insinuated that I'd have broken the agreement of October 2010. If you do it again I'll report you to AE, which I'd rather not do, so just quit doing that. Concerning Ravpapa's seat-of-government proposal, I agree that would resolve the NPOV issue. I'm not sure if we need to mention the "largest municipality" bit but I don't mind much either way. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me. I'm curious to see what they think of your behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, there is nothing new about your suggestion. It was already proposed and discussed. I (and others) opposed this change. I strongly suggest the discussions be merged. --MeUser42 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? nableezy - 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I excuse you for needlessly repeating previous suggestions, thus wasting our time, considering this all argument is over the word capital, and not the other things you said. I would also excuse your false characterization of this as a "Pro-Israel" vs "Pro-Palastinian" debate. You don't know what my, or any other of the editors politics is. I can tell you I'm far from pro-Israel. I think the current formulation is more neutral than the proposed change, and I explained my position in length above. Please note that this is not some "give or take" bargain by which one bias is "evened out" by introducing another. Given that, note that you have not raised any new point or argument. I will again drop out of this fruitless debate until all the participators from the side that did not establish consensus will realize that the such a change has no consensus, nor will it have given the arguments I've seen so far, and so the tag should be removed. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This will be much easier if you pay a bit more attention. nableezy - 02:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

MeUser42, what Nableezy is trying to tell you is that it was I, not he, who made this proposal. It is unclear to me which side you are talking about that didn't establish consensus; it seems to me that both sides are equally responsible for the lack of consensus, and the inability to reach an agreement. What is clear, from both your post and those of NMMNG and Dailycare, is that issues of trust and feelings of betrayal have injected an emotional tension into the discussion that clouds objective judgement. Therefore, whatever your personal political views are, I urge you to reread and reconsider the proposal. It is a vast improvement over the current lead in every respect. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Destroyer of good times. I really wanted to see what the next response was going to be. nableezy - 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Than see my post as addressed to you. As for the lack of consensus, it's not my "fault" or any side "fault". Not every proposition for change should conclude in a change. Me and many others think that given the definition of the words involved and the international politics status the current formulation is very neutral. So oppose a change. It's not a "fault". --MeUser42 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is the same as the position the BBC took during the Olympics or thereabouts, no ? It works for me but I can't help thinking that this issue should perhaps be handed over to something like WikiProject China or WikiProject Statistics to resolve. They would probably have it all sorted out pretty quickly on account of not caring... Sean.hoyland - talk 06:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

...and I'll just make a note for the record that the "seat of government" approach is used on the BBC country profile. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Love it.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We are running out of bits

So, after a long time, we should see where we are standing. I kindly ask all participants who took time to contribute to this large discussion, to state their position regarding its future in the mentioned aspects below. Which of the following best describes your position?

1. I support the change, removing the word "capital", but I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.
2. I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.
3. I support the change, removing the word "capital", and I think the argument might reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.
4. I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument might reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.

-- MeUser42, 5 October 2012

---

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months--Tritomex (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months. --MeUser42 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months.
  —Sowlos (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current version sans the lead duplication, keeping the the word capital, and I think the argument will not reach consensus in the coming weeks or months. Ankh.Morpork 23:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• I support the change. --Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Comment It is beyond strange to bolt on a meta discussion about whether editors personally think it is possible to find consensus within an arbitrary time frame to a good faith discussion to actually find a consensus. If people insist on having the the meta discussion it should have been kept to the section that has already been started [12]. It is disruptive of efforts to find consensus here. Dlv999 (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not too late to move this section. Perhaps it could become a sub-section of Talk:Jerusalem#Filibustering, the place you pointed to. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

1. You may think it's beyond strange, but it's how Wikipedia works. We look to establish consensus and avoid protracted periods of uncertainty and debate. We are here to build a factual encyclopaedia, not a collection of political statements that ebb and flow based on an indefinite debate.
2. Look up the definition of meta-discussion. The line of discussion you've started is itself a meta-discussion.
   —Sowlos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not start any line of discussion I simply pointed out that the Meta discussion should have been kept to the section where it has already been started and not brought here where it is disrupting good faith efforts to come to a consensus based on sources and Wikipedia policy. Dlv999 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A meta-discussion is one which the subject is a discussion. You are discussing the discussion; MeUser42 was trying to see where debate stands.
Please keep on topic and don't try to discredit and remove a topic line you disagree with. If you feel people are looking at the issue wrong, bring in up in it's own section.
—Sowlos (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This thread has been derailed from discussing a proposal to reach consensus based on sources and Wikipedia policy to a vote on whether editor's personally believe it is possible to reach consensus within an arbitrary time frame. This discussion about editors belief's on the likely hood of consensus being reached within an arbitrary time frame has been started elsewhere on the talk page (Talk:Jerusalem#Filibustering). Thus bringing it here is disruptive to the efforts to gain consensus, which in my opinion is the only relevant discussion to have here. Dlv999 (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't see the point in voting on beliefs whether a discussion will eventually have a particular outcome. --Dailycare (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I think a question/strawpoll that asks a much simpler question, something like, Does the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" comply with the WP:NPOV policy ?, with answers restricted to yes/no and an optional single sentence explanation, would provide much more valuable information. The objective should be to evaluate whether a policy based WP:CONSENSUS for the current wording actually exists (as opposed to some other form of consensus, like a "we're tired of this issue", or a "this is unresolveable" consensus). If the results suggest that a WP:CONSENSUS doesn't exist, and I think that is already pretty clear (which sort of makes a strawpoll futile), the next step is meant to be some form of dispute resolution, probably WP:DRN. Wikipedia claims to have mechanisms that help editors resolve disputes. No one can know whether it's possible to resolve this so I don't see much value in asking people to provide their personal opinion about whether and when it might be resolved. What is clear is that there is a dispute and the dispute appears to be about compliance with a core mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the existing text as such needs consensus, rather we need consensus to make changes. And, looking at this discussion, it seems to me that we're already quite close to WP:CONSENSUS. My suggestion would be to continue here, and in case we don't reach consensus (which again I consider to be less likely than reaching it), we should proceed to more formal dispute resolution. --Dailycare (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we rephrase the question:

• I support the current version that emphasizes the conflict over Jerusalem's status in the first sentence
• I oppose the emphasis on the dispute over Jerusalem's status in the first sentence.

--Ravpapa (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as an almost entirely different question, not a rephrasing. The capital issue has been the primary bone of contention in these discussions (perennially), and needs closure in its own name. Also, you haven't specified here what opposing "the emphasis on the dispute" would involve. (If you mentioned it previously I may have missed it.) I suggest for now that we not refocus the question. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

But, Hertz, that is my whole point. If you use the word "capital" in the first sentence, you have to say that there is a dispute over calling it the capital. If you say "seat of government" - which you yourself have repeatedly said is almost the same thing - you don't have to mention the dispute. Using the word "capital" means putting the conflict in the first sentence. These are not different questions, they are the same question.

I will put it another way: why do you support saying in the first sentence that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as capital? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that using the word "capital" requires the advancing of international perspectives, lumping together the various disputes and equating them is not an optimal solution. For example, nobody has yet stated why a legality disquisition should be included in the fourth paragraph and also be alluded to in the initial sentence. Not all of the delineated editorial disputes are not as intractable as suggested and while I consider your precis of the standpoints accurate, I don't think it reflects their relative merits. Ankh.Morpork 19:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

|}

Revert by Tritomex

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is no consensus for the change introduced by Dailycare. This discussion is long, convoluted, and has taken place against the backdrop of other ongoing discussions on this page which make arriving and a productive conclusion difficult. However, I have taken all viewpoints into consideration, and when disregarding those which are irrelevant, I can see that there is some weak support for the current status quo.

To start, Dailycare's initial edit was made with the edit summary "after discussion on talk". However, discussion on this page has been far from clear. I feel it is troublesome to unilaterally arrive at a "consensus" viewpoint by method of disregarding comments from other editors which one deems to be invalid. The arguments in opposition can be summarised as:

1. The change introduces unnecessary repetition to an already complicated and difficult-to-read lead, since the controversy over Jerusalem's official status is already amply discussed.
2. The sentence in its original form was already balanced, as it states that Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as the capital.

The arguments in support of Dailycare's change can be summarised as:

1. Dailycare's original justification that his edit was based on the result of talk page discussions (a claim I find hard to ratify).
2. The fact that the edit introduces repetition doesn't matter, as there is already a lot of other repetition in the article and we would need to remove all that too.

I find the first of the arguments in opposition to be valid, if only weakly compelling. I do not find any of the arguments in support to be valid, particularly the second.

The latter half of this discussion derailed into a long-winded discussion about semantics and the morality/legality of Israel's seizure of East Jerusalem. I find this part of the discussion to be irrelevant to the outcome of this discussion, since the sentence in question makes no bold claim about the legal status of East Jerusalem. I find attempts to derail the discussion by speculating what is implied by the sentence to be particularly unhelpful.

For reasons of clarity, I feel it important to declare (to those who do not routinely investigate) that I am not an administrator and as such this is a non-admin close. However, I have no iron in this fire and have never edited in this area before. I have done by utmost to be impartial. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Tritomex reverted an edit of mine here. However the edit summary merely says "no consensus" and "not acceptable" which isn't sufficient, as on the talkpage no substantial policy-based objections to the edit came up in discussion, above. Unless such objections surface here in a couple of days, I'll re-do the edit. Comments along the lines of "I support the current version", "I don't support any change" etc don't carry any weight per WP:CONSENSUS ("The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.") Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You know you had no consensus for that edit. It had exactly nobody supporting it and at least one person objecting to it, and that's putting aside the people who said they think the current version is fine. You do not get to decide if other editors' arguments are valid or not. Luckily for you someone reverted your edit before I saw it but if you do it again I'll be going straight to AE with no further warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for Ankh's removal of though not internationally recognized as such. nableezy - 18:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

where is this consensus?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you dont want to look I wont do the work for you. But the fact that the line has been in the first sentence for two years should help you figure it out. Edits like this should also help you. nableezy - 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're the one making the claim so you have to support your claim. I did notice you tracked down a bunch of diffs from years ago so I see some work was put it. However those diffs don't really support your claim. I'll remove it now pending support for your claim, of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I promise you, AE is the next stop. You know full well you have no consensus to remove material that has been in this article for years, and if you do so knowingly then we can see what happens. nableezy - 20:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My edit was proposed long in advance and nobody has yet explained why the repetition is necessary. What does the phrase I removed add more than that which is already mentioned in the 4th paragraph? Ankh.Morpork 19:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that any neutral editor who just read the section above would even waste a moment of their life to consider taking what you just wrote seriously? I have not seen one objection to your proposed edit on the basis of anything else but the following: [13] [14]. I don't find this amusing and I can guarantee that any more application of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will not be addressed through this forum. -asad (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Isnt it also mentioned in the fourth paragraph that under Israeli law Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Why didn't you remove that bit of repetition from the first sentence? Oh, thats right, it wasnt about removing repetition, it was about removing what you dont like. I get it now. nableezy - 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the personal attack is necessary. Ankkmorport doesn't like it as much as you like it. Everyone has ulterior motives except for you. Disgraceful.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack? Preceding all that? Wow. nableezy - 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand personally why should we have repetition about the status because later the legal matters are thoroughly explained. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So why should the sentence on it being the capital be in the first sentence? The point is that saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a non-neutral statement, it omits a rather important POV on the topic. So if you want to remove the sentence on it being the capital and just have it in the fourth paragraph then fine. What isnt fine is only removing material that The Greatest State would like to disregard. nableezy - 22:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Threatening AE here and on another user's talk page multiple times. Knock it of Nableezy. We all know you aren't going to AE since the edit wasn't bad enough to warrant it and you would just get a boomerang. Stop trying to wield it like a big stick since you have successfully used it a handful of times to knock off editors who deserved it. You are next on the chopping block anyways. The proposal a couple sections above is perfect and everyone should chill out and consider how it could be a benefit to the reader. It would also save a lot of bickering.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, say the same thing to NMMNG and I might take you seriously. Actually, probably not then either. Your belief on who is next on the chopping block is one of those things in this world that do not matter, even a little bit, to anybody besides yourself. nableezy - 13:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I was honored personally in the name of section I feel the need to reflect on few assumptions.

I don't know what entitle anyone to qualify its personal point of view as "substantial" and to disqualify the majority opinion made by six or seven editors as unsubstantial. The evaluation of the "quality of arguments" is beyond any objective measurement and as far as I have noticed no one who opposed changing of current wording seems to be impressed by those arguments. As many editors here I have opposed any change in current wording, especially double negations, based on my assumption that the current wording is already reflecting balanced and neutral position. To in force someones personal view or other motivations on this or any article through force or WP:EW is against Wikipedia guidelines and could constitute WP:VAN --Tritomex (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is a line-up parade. The opinion that this is 'neutral and balance' is predictably identified with one set of editors, whose belief is opposed by another set. There has been, in this tiresome rehearsal, only one editor who has tried to rise above the fray and propose creative solutions, successively modifying his proposals to reflect input. Despite this, they were worn down by absurd filibustering. Thus, everything is stalled. If people will not come to some fair adjustment, the lead should remain as it was, i.e., as satisfying no one. No one is replying to the lockstep proposals and votes because they are meaningless, and even arguing here is a waste of time. The only way to fix this, given the lack of goodwill, would be for admins to tell everyone to fuck off, and put in accomplished article outsider FA writers to fix it.--Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Saying I "knew" there was no consensus for the edit is wrong, since exactly one person commented on the proposal, by opposing it on the basis that, wait for this, it would change the meaning of the sentence. This isn't even remotely a substantial policy-based argument, and therefore doesn't affect the existence or non-existence of consensus in any way. I challenged the user to identify a policy he was referring to, which he failed to do. In this thread, by the way, I currently see exactly zero policy-based objections to the edit. Therefore not only did the edit have consensus to begin with, it still has consensus. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting theory. We'll have an opportunity to test it at AE if you make that change again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You to, huh? Not to appease Nableezy but simply to mention it to you both that threatening AE over and over again is not helping anything. Aren't you guys suppose to be working together to settle the settlement issue? This talk page is a trainwreck. I'm going to enjoy a sandwich and marvel in the calamity. But that one well thought out proposal above is stil better than anything else that has happened here in years. Can we start ARBIA3 yet?Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare What you currently see or do not see is your personal issue. Seven editors here do not see that you have a right or consensus here to make changes which you try to enforce above all of us. I have said and I will not repeat my self every time you come back with threats to report someone, or to force upon everyone your personal believes and impressions. Jerusalem is a capital of Israel (Fact) it is not recognized by most of international community as such (Fact) Those two facts function independently from each other and the neutrality of this sentence can be achieved only by combining them. As the first half of sentence may look problematic to you, the second part has even more bases to be challenged by others. This is why the current form is balanced and neutral. --Tritomex (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, is it a fact that East Jerusalem, the part of the city that is across the green line, is part of Jerusalem ? I think we would all agree that the answer to that question is "yes". If "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a fact, and East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem, it follows that it is a fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel. But it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel because it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is in Israel. It is the opinion of the State of Israel that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel. Can you see the problem ? There is a contradiction. It's shining brightly. Please can you confirm that you can at least see it ? It seems to me that many editors cannot see it or choose to ignore it, whereas many reliable sources recognize this contradiction and deal with accordingly through careful wording. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, Jerusalem was declared capital of Israel in 1950, so this fact has nothing to do with the annexation and extension of Jerusalem city borders in 1980. East Jerusalem had only 6,4 square km in 1967-under Jordanian occupation, which means that if we would fully ignore Israeli Jerusalem law of 1980 we would have an article about a city with 300 000 inhabitants(internationally recognized East+West Jerusalem) and 55 square kilometers. Also we should refer to almost all Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem as villages outside Jerusalem (this is their legal status from 1948 and even from 1967 Jordanian occupation) as they were declared part of Jerusalem unilaterally by Israel, under Jerusalem law. Also such Jerusalem would have only 50 000 Palestinian citizens. However we have article here which use Israeli Jerusalem law referring to the city of more than 800 000 inhabitants and 125 sq.km.

Again, the extension of Jerusalem is as much (Il)legal as the annexation of East Jerusalem, as it is based on same law, which was not recognized by UN or by most of international community. So technically speaking, yes the borders of Jerusalem, its population and neighborhoods, could be as much in dispute as its status. However, the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel predates the 1967 war and this fact is independent from international recognition or negation.--Tritomex (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You're extremely confused. When Jerusalem was declared the capital in 1950 it was not a declaration that Jordanian Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. (b) there was no formal annexation of Jerusalem in 1980 according to authoritative legal opinion (c) you appear to be wholly unfamiliar with WP:NPOV, which obliges editors to respect neutrality, even those editors, as your above screed shows, who can see only one side, Israel's, to a complex question. Whatever Israel determines as its 'facts', is a partial perspective, and per policy, must be balanced by other perspectives, be they of the international community or the Palestinians. The refusal to acknowledge that there are two perspectives here is getting rather blatant. The policy reads:'This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. It's a curiosity that administrators never force compliance with this non-negotiable policy in this area.--Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, don't fall into Sean's trap. His assertion that "But it is not a 'fact that East Jerusalem is part of the capital of Israel because it is not a fact that East Jerusalem is in Israel" is nothing more than his opinion. You may have noticed that some editors like to redefine the word "capital" to include all kinds of limitations and conditions that don't actually appear anywhere the word is defined. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, East Jerusalem is in Israel now? nableezy - 19:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a trap. What you have done there is assume bad faith. There is no reason to do that. I think you have also misrepresented me. Can you point out where I redefined the word "capital" or any other words such as "Jerusalem", "East Jerusalem", "green line", "Israel", "fact" etc ? As far as I'm aware I'm using all of the words in the same way you or anyone else would use them. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani I am very much familiar with WP:NPOV and I do adhere to it. I am also sometimes surprised "that administrators never force compliance with this non-negotiable policy in this area" As for example in the case of your main page, where you are narrating solely the Palestinian perspective in a way that is a clear example what WP:NPOV is not.

Please familiarize yourself with the terminological meaning of annexation. [15] Annexation as occupation is unilateral move and an established fact regardless of authoritative legal opinion or the legality of such act. This mean that annexation can be legal or illegal as well. In its terminological construct annexation do not allude or determine the legality of such action, (although it imply to unilateralism) it simply reflect the action without its repercussion. In this way annexation cant be non existing if it happened. What I have pointed out is that this article is using geographical, population data based on Israeli Jerusalem law regarding seize of Jerusalem and its demographic composition. As we have said already everything in this dialogue and there is evidently no consensus I do not see any reason to artificially prolong it. Although I reserve my right to respond I will not take part anymore in the artificial prolongation of this debate especially as I have already stated my opinion on this subject.--Tritomex (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Assertions count nothing against evidence. You are apparently not familiar with basic editing protocols. You ignore the obligations of WP:NPOV, and now you cite a wiki article Annexation as evidence for a fact, again showing that you are unfamiliar with what all practiced editors know, i.e.,Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You are consistently ignoring policy, and confusing an identifiable political-partisan position with facts. Israel's position is one of several facts, and NPOV requires that in composition, the other "facts" be included in order to avoid passing off one tilted perspective as the only one that counts.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, you rely in your argumentation on what you call facts. This is in fact not in-line with what policy states, since we should rather edit based on what best sources say, than on what we consider to be the facts. However, arguendo, do you think it's not a fact that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law? Applying your fact-based theory, it seems that my edit is in fact better in-line with it than the longstanding wording, since it's a noncontroversial, bland and universally non-contested fact that Jerusalem is, under Israeli law, the capital city of Israel. On the other hand, the General Assembly has recently passed, with overwhelming support, a resolution stating that the proclamation of Jerusalem as capital is "null and void". To the extent that you're advancing your fact-based theory as a policy-based objection to the edit, which policy are you referring to? This source, by the way, describes objections to the notion of Jerusalem as Israel's capital already before 1967. --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

UN GA has no power by its charta to pass biding resolutions, as such power lies only in the domain of UN SC. As in the previous case mentioned, international recognition, do not change facts such as occupation, annexation, declaration of independence, and facts regarding capital of each state. Political opinion has its dynamics [16] and as I will say this for the last time, if the wording that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel (which is in my opinion POV against Israel, due to the abstract meaning of the term "international community" and due to absolutist wording of this claim) is included in leading sentence, the avoidance of further POV could be achieved only by keeping the current form. By inserting double negation, this article would be transformed from good NPOV in to Palestinian political pamphlet. Definition of capital [17] I do not see any connection between the substantial meaning of this term and international recognition of the same. --Tritomex (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, the negation of the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' is the statement "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel'. As far as I'm aware, no one has proposed that a negation of the current statement be used. That is not what the vast majority of reliable sources do so there is no reason to do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare, if you will again make a change to a 1RR article after it has firmly and extensively been established that there is no consensus for it, as you are aware, I will request you will be blocked. --MeUser42 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The level of discussion on this talk page seems to have hit rock bottom. It may be helpful if we all go back to basics: Assume good faith and stick to discussion relevant to improving the article based on policies and evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree DLV999, Dailycare was fully aware there is no consensus and this is a 1RR article. This can't go on. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The change made by DailyCare was totally unacceptable and was rightly reverted. There is no consensus for such a change and it was obvious that would be the case considering the extensive debates that have been taking place on this page. Strongly oppose any change to the current introduction at this stage. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this thread, I still see zero policy-based objections to the edit, so it appears to still have consensus. As noted above, saying "no consenus" or "I object" doesn't affect the presence or absence of consensus in any way. In detail, Tritomex, who reverted the edit, has failed when challenged to name a policy he's referring to. A self-revert on his part to restore the edit would therefore be in order. MeUser42, I'm assuming you're genuinely under the impression that consensus is determined by some kind of vote. This isn't the case, and I invite you to read WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As there haven't been further entries in this thread, I've requested closure by an uninvolved party to determine if there is consensus for the edit. --Dailycare (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DC, as you constantly demand "policy-based objections", I'll give you a few. Attempting to misuse, contradict or reinterpret the meanings of terms defined in the dictionary to serve your own agenda appears to violate the policy against original research, and is POV. It must be said again: Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel is governed from there. That much is well sourced. It is not sourced that recognition or approval by any outside party is relevant to what makes a capital a capital. Therefore, adding a modifier such as "under Israeli law" is restrictive and misleading. Repeatedly ignoring, or branding as invalid, arguments that contradict your position, and falsely claiming consensus for a change (or that none is needed), can be seen as disruptive—another policy violated. You recently (11 Oct.) claimed (with astonishment) that an editor objected to your edit on the basis that ("wait for this", you said) it "would change the meaning of the sentence". Strange, I can't find that phrase anywhere in this discussion. However, controversial edits often do seek to change the meaning of a text, and that is indeed the effect of your proposed change. I hope your "uninvolved party" will readily see that the existing text is a proper representation and that consensus to change it is lacking. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit says "Jerusalem (...)is the capital of Israel under Israeli law". Which dictionary meaning is violated, and which OR conclusion is drawn? Israeli law does state Jerusalem is the capital, something which is also sourced in the edit. The edit doesn't say that recognition is needed for anything, so we don't need sources for that. You objected to this edit in your comment timestamped 20:06, 2 October 2012 by stating "Adding "under Israeli law" would be restrictive and a major change in the meaning". I'm sure you agree, that isn't a policy-based objection and indeed when challenged you were unable to name a policy that says we can't change the meaning of text in articles. To the extent you seem to me making the same argument again, I challenge you once more to name a policy that says we can't change the meaning of text in an article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask the same basic questions over and over, you are likely to get the same basic answers. Once again, you can't change the meaning or usage of words as defined in the dictionary and use them as you please. That would be POV and OR. As Jerusalem is both designated by Israel as its capital and where the government institutions are located, it complies with the commonplace dictionary definition of a capital city and is simply the capital. You keep insisting on altering that simple statement with superfluous, limiting modifiers.

OR and POV-pushing come in when you maintain that embellishment (in this case restrictive language) is called for, rather than the simple, direct statement we have in place now. Israel's capital, not just "under Israeli law". The capital, period, full stop. The recognition question is related because without that factor there is no justification for a restrictive statement and your edit would be pointless. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat my question: which dictionary meaning is violated by saying that according to Israel's laws, Jerusalem is the capital? The Basic Law states plainly that it is, and the edit doesn't say that according to other laws it isn't, so it's not in any way "restrictive" either. (not that using a dictionary like you're proposing is a valid argument to begin with, or that there would be anything wrong in restricting meanings)

Concerning your claim that Jerusalem is "simply" the capital, I'd like to hear how you square it with e.g. this source which says "While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status." Or for that matter this one, which says "Although it's evident that functionally the city is the Jewish state's capital, even close allies such as Britain say that to give formal recognition would be to legitimise the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem when talks with Palestinians are meant to decide its status, even if an agreement looks a distant prospect." According to sources Jerusalem is anything but simply Israel's capital. Which brings me to my next point, namely do you think that sources matter to begin with? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking sources to prove a point is not exactly good faith editing. Have you forgotten there are sources that state as fact that it's the capital and none that say it isn't, or do you think that sources that don't agree with the agenda you're pushing here don't matter to begin with? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I cited some sources, let's see what Herz has to say about them, and I'm of course also curious to see what his dictionary says about Israel's laws. Concerning your question, no, I haven't forgotten but you do seem to have forgotten that I've addressed that point here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One way or another, we've been over basically this same ground before, all too many times. Along the way I have expressed my policy-based objections as requested, and won't repeat them here. What makes a capital a capital is readily ascertainable, and applicable. Anything further added to the statement in question is obfuscation, and irrelevant. It may be technically correct to say "under Israeli law", but unless you intend to add "and in every other way", or the like, you would be "poisoning the well", because saying "under Israeli law" implies "only under Israeli law", as I'm sure you know or ought to know. Such tendentious errors of omission are not "good faith" editing. What Britain (& other outside parties) may have to say is also irrelevant; they can disapprove, but they cannot make it not be the capital. If it could be shown otherwise, I think it would have been by now.

You may be willing to misapply or selectively use sources and disregard elementary logic to make a point; I'm not. That does not mean I disrespect the policies on reliable sourcing, as you repeatedly imply by your questioning. Don't bother asking for details or posting more interrogatories for me; I've said all I care to say, and can't spend all my time on this. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I gather you mean to say that yes, you do believe that sources matter. You don't, however seem to be able to square your claim that Jerusalem would be "simply" the capital with the sources cited that in fact say the whole thing is really rather more complicated than that. In other words, you can't maintain both that sources matter and your "simply the capital" theory. Concerning the "Israeli law" point, the idea there is precisely that the edit doesn't take a side, rather it describes the sides. The edit doesn't say that Jerusalem "really" is or isn't a capital city, it simply states facts that are not in dispute. WP:NPOV states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The notion that Jerusalem would be the capital is rejected by the international community. It is not disputed or rejected that Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. --Dailycare (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What I can or can't do is not appropriate content for this page. Don't make assumptions about my abilities. Per my point that capital is a well-defined term (one that you keep trying to obfuscate and redefine), the existing simple, direct statement is not a point of view.

I ask you again not to keep coming back with further posts directed at me. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, The problem is, your own personal opinion about what constitutes a capital (and the conclusions about Jerusalem you draw from that opinion), are not supported by what scholars say on the matter. See for instance Daum, Andreas (2005). Berlin - Washington, 1800–2000 Capital Cities, Cultural Representation, and National Identities. Cambridge University Press. p. 31. ISBN 0521841178. While a seat of government can evolve into a capital - as the case of Washington demonstrates- the distinction can remain quite clear. The Netherlands' seat of government is the Hague but its capital is bustling, commercial Amsterdam, the national cultural center. (p. 31)

I think it may be useful for you to consider that others that do not share your opinions, or are putting their opinions to one side and simply basing edits (and proposed edits) on what RS have said about the topic of this article are not behaving tendentiously, they are simply following our WP:NPOV policy.

(Sorry for responding to your post, but if you are going to make comments you have to accept that other editors are at liberty to respond to what you have written). Dlv999 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is how the BBC does it.

"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."[18]

Note the use of the word "regard" and the unambiguous description of Jerusalem as "united", "undivided" and including East Jerusalem. This is about perspectives not facts. Regarding "What makes a capital a capital is readily ascertainable, and applicable." No it isn't, but that doesn't matter, because more importantly, an argument/objection based on a dictionary definition of a word like capital isn't a policy based argument, it's a policy violation, so we can forget about that. These dictionary based synthetic arguments have never been and never will be relevant to this dispute. They need to be put aside so that people can focus on how sources deal with Jerusalem. Putting the dictionary based OR aside doesn't change anything in the sources that deal with Jerusalem, so it's no loss to anyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A request for closure has been made here]. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Neutrality tag

It is clear that some still have problems with part of the introduction, so the neutrality tag is going to have to remain in place for some time. I think it should therefore be put in the correct location, it is the whole of the sentence "is the capital of israel, though not internationally recognized as such", that is disputed. Not just the first part of it. So the neutrality tag should be placed to cover the whole part of the sentence that this dispute is over. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there is a specific NPOV issue with the claim that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is presented as fact, when it is only one of several viewpoints that have been published in RS. Some RS refer to this as a "claim" or "designation" by Israel, not as a fact. Until that issue is resolved the tag should remain in place for that specific claim. Dlv999 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with British Watcher and I already pointed this out. The current form represent disruptive editing. Also there is a NPOV issue with the abstract wording of "internationally recognized as such" this should be replaced with UN GA, as international community represents everyone, and as this discussion is going to be prolonged I am preparing to formally challenge the neutrality of this claim --Tritomex (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I would make over 50 edits to this page if I thought a few of them might stick, on issues regarding what I see as its non-neutrality, which applies to the whole article. The tag applies to the whole article. The Jordanian exclusion of Jews from sites and their destruction of Jewish buildings is not balanced by the fact that immediately post 1967 several thousand Jerusalem Arabs had their homes demolished, the Mamilla graveyard is being destroyed, the whole Muslim and Byzantine period is systematically dug through in archeological excavations to showcase the putative capital of the theoretical kingdom of David, the Mughrabi quarter and its medieval mosques were destroyed, and rules disallow Palestinians under 45 from praying on Friday at the Temple Mount, harsh restrictions make West Bank access to Jerusalem (except this summer) extremely difficult. Two sides of the one coin, only one of which is displayed, etc.etc.etc.etc. The UNGA bit is rubbish, again. We write to sources (Sally J. Cummins (ed.) The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state, Digest of United States Practice in International Law. 2006 International Law Institute, Washington ‎2008 p.537, to cite one of hundreds of sources). There are NPOV problems all over the article. --Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani What you are promising here is nothing less than edit warring and more POV, in unbalanced one sided way of editing. Would you for example mention the massacre of Jewws in 1843,1929 or 1936, the fact that 38 000 ancient Jewish tombs were destroyed between 1948-1967 or that 58 out of 59 synagogues in Jordanian occupied part of Jerusalem were destroyed and desecrated while Jews who were close to 70% of Jerusalem population in 1948 were (as the Palestinians from other section) expelled from Old City? Also where are the facts regarding the destruction of Herodian buildings on Solomon Stables section of Temple Mount in 2007 where ancient Israelite, Hasmonean, Ptolemaic and Herodian artifacts were systematically destroyed by Islamic Waqf and dumped as garbage to the Kidron Walley. Would you mention dozens of suicide bombings in Jerusalem which killed or wounded hundreds of innocents, including children. Would you like to include to this article some of the most important archeological places in Jerusalem like Hezzekiah tunnel, the Broad wall, Siloam Inscription, Israelite tower, ancient tombs, Second Temple period tunnels and buildings, or you are interested only to present the Palestinian issue from 1948 and from 1967? I have nothing to do with Israel or with region personally, I live far from it, however I will protect here and elsewhere the neutral and balanced approach toward Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I fell obliged to protect also the right of Israel to be equably treated and presented as the Palestinians are. Considering the source you have mentioned it is fine as much as it is the source regarding Jerusalem as Israels capital.--Tritomex (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to protest one's absolute neutrality while invariably editing or commenting over many pages from an uninformed and identifiable POV angle on one topic. People can read, you know. In fact the problem here is reading, and I don't mean only RS books, whose use in an article like this should account for 99% of the references (make an analysis of sources). By reading I mean stuff like this.

After 1948, since the old walled city in its entirety was to the east of the armistice line, (a) Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, denied Jews access to Jewish holy sites, (b) many of which were desecrated. (c) Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites.[136] (d) Of the 58 synagogues in the Old City, half were either razed or converted to stables and hen-houses over the course of the next 19 years, (e) including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue. (f) The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, with (f) gravestones used to build roads and latrines.[137] (g) Israeli authorities razed many ancient tombs in the ancient Muslim Mamilla Cemetery in West Jerusalem to facilitate (h) the creation of a parking lot and public lavatories in 1964.[138] (i) Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were demolished and replaced by modern structures.[139] (j)During this period, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.[140

If you translate this into 1967, you could write

After 1967, since the old walled city in its entirety was taken by Israel, (a) Israel was able to take control of all the holy places therein, and contrary to international law, expropriated houses and evicted Palestinian residents. Muslims under 45 were denied their right to pray on the Haram on Friday prayer eventually, and were denied access to many areas where they traditionally dwelt in. Two mosques were levelled, in line with a general practice throughout the occupied territories of destroying Muslim religious shrines, which were converted into IDF war memorials, synagogues, yeshivas, in total some 100 mosques where levelled in Palestinian villages, six converted to residential use, sheepo-pens or stables, carpentry shops, storehouses; six serving as museums, bars, and tourist sites,, and two converted in part for Muslims to pray in though banned as places of muslim worship (Benvenisti 2000:289). The Mamilla cemetary was desacrated.etc.

Neither the first nor the second is anything but grievance writing. The first gives several details of mainly Jewish grievance,(a)(b) (c) (d) (e) (f), and 'balances' this with two generic points (h) (corresponding to (f), and a generic (i). Then you get the concluding but sentence (Jordan and Israel destroyed each others sacred sites, but only Israel allowed its enemy's sanctuaries to undergo renovations.

This kind of poor writing, the consequence of POV battling, is all over the page.--Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The introduction is correct, it has nothing to do with point of view and everything to do with facts.--Savakk (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Introductions aren't 'correct'. They either conform to reliable sources, or balance points of view. You are ignoring that as a contested city, this is all about balancing points of view by meshing what reliable sources which refer us to the positions of Israel, the international community, and Palestinians, say.

No need to move the tag. It will be removed once the discussion has died and clearly failed to reach consensus, which is not long from now most probably. This is the WP on the matter. The tag only indicates an ongoing discussion. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are repeating claims thoroughly discussed. In short, the international community is not the definition of the word. It's objections noted, but the language stays the same. Please discuss the matter at the proper thread (after reading it) where it can be in context. --MeUser42 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to write comprehensive English, and avoid vagueness. 'It's' = 'Its', as any kiddie in elementary school learns. Nothing you wrote above says anything, except articulating an opposition.--Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, I don't understand you. Do you want another topic ban for misrepresenting sources, flouting Discussion page guidelines, and insulting other editors? Because it seems like that's what you want.—Biosketch (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

'Seems like' introduces what is known as projective wishful thinking. Your three links are meaningless for the cast of intention you attribute to them. And now to Sunday lunch and good company.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nishdani, I wouldn't want my messages to cause you such distress. Please account for only the last sentence. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani by inserting your comment in Savakk comment, you have altered the meaning of his comment in way that is unacceptable by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Savakk comment was referring to my previous comment and not to yours, as it looks now, after the insertion you have made. Therefore I ask you kindly to revert.--Tritomex (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just the term international community is abstract term but in this case is factually fraud term. All countries that recognized Israel, recognized its institution in accordance with Israeli law. 22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition. Although by the latter of international law there is no specific need to recognize the institutions of the state, if the recognition of the state is already done, this countries have did so. What they objected was 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel capital. See (Mosheh ʻAmirav,Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, Sussex University Press, 2009 p.27) The term international community in this case is POV.--Tritomex (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you cited that admirable book by Amirav, which I'm familiar with. It serves to kill two birds with one stone

Biosketch said earlier I was distorting sources, which was nonsense. My source said Israel declared West Jerusalem its capital (Michael Dumper) the prior source just said Israel in 1948 declared 'Jerusalem' its capital. Dumper is correct. The 1948 declaration did not declare that the capital of Israel was partially in Jordanian territory. It declared that its capital was in that part of Jerusalem held by Israel. Amirav again clarifies:-

'In 1948, Al Quds came under Jordanian rule, while the western part of the city, which was declared the capital of Israel, became known as Jerusalem p.21

'what the Ben-Gurion government did in the 1950s when it declared West Jerusalem to be the country's capital.' (p.26)

In other words, Biosketch accuses me of misrepresenting a source, when the source I added says exactly what I said it did, and a further source, by a Jerusalem policy expert, confirms that when Israel declared Jerusalem its capital, it referred to the western sector. This is what I mean by refusal to look at RS, refusal to compromise when RS clarify terms that are ambiguous. You are all culpable of a stubborn refusal to accept what RS that are not generic, but specific, written by Jerusalemite urban planning experts, or authorities on the city, quite clearly say.

To address your specific point.

• 22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition. Although by the latter (sic?) of international law there is no specific need to recognize the institutions of the state, if the recognition of the state is already done, this (sic?) countries have did (sic) so. What they objected (sic?=to) was (sic =the) 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel(sic=i/'s) capital. See (Mosheh ʻAmirav,Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, Sussex University Press, 2009 p.27)

It's understandable that your English is somewhat awkward. Unfortunately, this means you are a poor reader of what English books say, which, when added to your frequent WP:OR hermeneutic divagations, makes following your argument a laborious task. One can hardly argue with someone who cites a book and twice capsizes its its evidence and argument.

You confuse the past present tense (have) with the past tense. Thus Amirav says 24 countries 'agreed to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transferred their embassies there' (p.26) in the 1950s. He then says 'Twenty-two of the twenty four countries that had previously recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel moved their embassies out of the city' following the passage of the Jerusalem Basic Law of 1980.(p.27) The remaining two, Costa Rica and El Salvador, joined the boycott in 2006. So you have utterly distorted your source, and interpreted a withdrawal of recognition by 24 countries in the source into a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It is a rather monstrous thing to do, this WP:OR interpretation of Amirav, which changes documentation by Amirav that 24 countries reneged on their recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital into 'What they objected was 1980 annexation of EJ, not the proclamation of Jerusalem as Israel capital.'

Your editing, and arguments here, are troublesome because they are poorly explained, distort sources, and press rather vigorously for 'solutions' that strike many other editors as negligent of WP:NPOV. It's very difficult to sustain a dialogue if this pattern of distortion and neglect continues. Most people indeed seem to have dropped out of the discussion, and I can understand why.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of the neutrality of that line is being dealt with partially here, if you are following the details.

Please move this discussion to the proper thread ('Better Wording'). --MeUser42 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I now see what Tritomex is doing. He is, as with his argument about Annexation, also here not looking at sources. He is reading a wiki page, and culling sources from that page without even verifying them independently. In this case, his incomprehensible ref to 22 countries recognizing the country comes from the Jerusalem article before I just now changed it (which used the figures 20-22). He cited Amirav without checking it. This is fundamental to editing. Wikipedia, to repeat what I said earlier, is not a reliable source, and editors should not pretend they have read a source, when all they have done is read the wikipage citing that source.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think now there is a need for administrative intervention regarding the edits of Nishadani. This is going beyond POV, and misinterpretation. Here is the online editions of the book [19] nowhere the wording "withdrawal of recognition" is mentioned. The relocation of embassies was in protest of Israel annexation of East Jerusalem and there was no "withdrawal of recognition" I do not think that Nishadani do not know the difference between relocation of embassies and withdrawal of recognition. His reacting to arguments shown here by directly and immediately making edits in to the article based on his own believes and by misinterpreting different sources without even looking for any consensus. For example he directly translated "relocation of embassies" in to "withdrawal of recognition" I will not engage myself in further dialogue with him.--Tritomex (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Smoke in the eyes. You quoted Amirav for the following statement:'22 countries have specifically recognized Jerusalem as Israel capital and never revoked this recognition.'

Where on p.27 does Amirav say that? Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

To all editors: page 49: "24 countries recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" AND all moved their embassies to Jerusalem. Clear indication that the recognition and relocation of embassies are two different process which do not need to be combined and can not be used as synonyms.--Tritomex (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked you where on p.27 does Amirav say what you quoted him as saying in support of your thesis. Now you refer me to p.49. In any caase, you are ignoring with snippets Amirav's context, which I bolded. Secondly, you are engaging in WP:OR which only underlines you are unfamiliar with the topic. It is WP:OR to make an inference, as you are doing, from two distinct passages and then declare thee inference to be either a fact, or what the author thought. Secondly your inference is wrong, as even a slight familiarity with the diplomatic and legal literature will show. It's original research and bad research at that.--Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also OR to interpret "had previously recognized" to mean they revoked their recognition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Shlomo Slonim, Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy, 1947-1997, Martinus Nijhoff.The US Consul General in Jerusalem in 1958 wrote to the State Department ‘Many other countries mark their respect for the internationalization resolutions by establishing embassies in Tel Aviv thus avoiding recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and, by implication, as Israel’s de jure sovereign territory.’ p.186.

That's an old one I've chosen because it reflects the diplomatic interpretation of those gestuire in the 50s when Tritomex's 24 countries did what they did. There are dozens more that people who make bold to assert inferences should familiarize themselves with before they broach the subject. Everyone in the diplomatic, historical and political world knows exactly what the Security Council of Resolution 478 (1980) on 20 August 1980 asked and how its first and second points led to relocation by states. Not the UN. It was the Security Council by a 14-0 vote. If you don't know the background you can play all the games you like. People are fixated on the lead, and ignore fixing the body of the article. It isn't even true that Costa Rica and San Salvador kept on there till 2006. They originally withdrew, and then reconsidered. There's tons of stuff like that to care for. No one reads articles. They read the leads alone, apparently.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, can you confirm that you understand that that section of the book is talking about West Jerusalem ? When we say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" are we referring to West Jerusalem ? If so, we should change it to say that. This article is about the whole city though, including East Jerusalem, so when we say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", we are referring to the city described by this article, the city "complete and united" that Israel has declared as the capital, which includes both West and East Jerusalem, hence the neutrality dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course I understand that Sean. Can you give me the definition of East Jerusalem borders which is not based on Israeli Jerusalem law? If such definition, regarding seize, population, exists we would know what he have to exclude from the current wording. Do you know that A-Tur, Jabel Mukaber,Ras al-Amud Beit Hanina, Beit Safafa,Shuafat, Sur Baher etc are considered part of Jerusalem only based on the same Jerusalem law? So should we than redefine East Jerusalem borders to the recognized boundaries of 1948 and adjust this article in accordance with this, or should we keep this article in factual situation created by Jerusalem law?--Tritomex (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article is about the entire city of Jerusalem, whatever that means over its long history. There is an article about West Jerusalem and an article about East Jerusalem. For the PNA, East Jerusalem is part of the Jerusalem Governorate and I don't know what criteria they use to distinguish between city and not-city, but it isn't relevant to the disputed issue here. The dispute is caused by ignoring the green line and stating as a fact that the city described by this article is the capital of Israel including the parts of the city of Jerusalem across the green line. That means we are saying they are in Israel. Think about the consequences of that statement if we cascaded the spatial relations that follow from that statement to other articles. It follows that the Western Wall is in Israel, the entire Old City is in Israel etc. Those are not facts according to RS. We have contradictions in spatial relations between articles. It isn't clear why the people who advocate the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as an NPOV compliant statement don't do it properly by adding "complete and united" or "including East Jerusalem". What's the problem ? Why not cascade the spatial relationships that inevitably follow from that statement to other articles ? If it is a fact that the city this article is about is the capital of Israel, many things follow from that simply because of topology. Apparently the only people with the balls to make those kind of changes across article space, to say that the Old City is in Israel for example, to explicitly label places across the green line in East Jerusalem as being in Israel etc are so sure that they are right, so sure that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a fact, that they are willing to be blocked and topic banned for it. They might be wrong according to reliable sources but I admire their commitment, consistency and honesty. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a source that says a capital can only be in territory a country has de jure sovereignty over. Until you do all your assertions are nothing more than your personal opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That is an odd request. That line of argument will take you somewhere you don't want to go. We know that a city can be proclaimed/declared/designated/pick-a-word as the capital (and consequently be described by sources as the capital, the proclaimed capital, the declared capital etc) without there being de jure sovereignty over the city or even de facto control. We know that's possible because that's exactly what both Israel and Palestine have done and reliable sources talk about it. We have a source, Israel's basic law, that explicitly states as a fact that "Jerusalem", the subject of this article, is the capital of Israel, and another source, Palestinian basic law, that explicitly states as a fact that "Jerusalem" is the capital of Palestine. Neither case establishes that it is an undisputed objective fact that Jerusalem is the capital of anything to the extent that we can present it to readers as if it is the same as saying 1+1=2. It's obvious that these are not facts but the positions of the parties to the dispute and need to be presented that way. We already know something is wrong here because we have a source, an important source given that it is from one of the parties to the conflict, that explicitly contradicts, or at the very least, calls into question the factual nature of the statement in the lead, and that is without even looking at the thousands of independent reliable sources that deal with this issue in a whole variety of ways. What normally follows at this point, as soon as sources are mentioned, is the policy violating, time wasting, nonsense of using dictionary definitions of the word capital to "prove" that the entire city described by this article is the capital of Israel and only Israel as a matter of fact. This is of course original research and not allowed. But what is worse for me, setting aside the policy violation, is that it's a method that doesn't even work. A city isn't, as a matter of undisputed objective fact, a capital because it matches one, many or all of the attributes dictionaries use in their definitions such as "city...that is the official seat of government in a country...", "city...that functions as the seat of government and administrative centre of a country...", "the seat of government of a country" or whatever. We know this because the method fails for various cases such as the Netherlands. A method only has to produce an invalid result once to know that there is something wrong with the method. Editors surely know this so it really is very odd for editors to try to use a method that doesn't even work to violate a core policy here of all places.

I think the problem for you and everyone who wants to retain this statement of fact are the policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you want to make an unattributed statement of fact in this article, it's you who has to prove that the city described by this article, the whole city, is the capital of Israel as a matter of undisputed fact. I don't think anyone here has ever done that, or knows how to do it, and given the nature of Wikipedia's rules and the variation in how sources handle this issue, I don't think it is even possible. There has been a failure to demonstrate that the statement of fact complies with policy. It nearly complies but falls short. Reasonable alternatives that could end this dispute once and for all have been suggested.

I'm not sure where you think my opinion comes into this. You have said things like this a couple of times without pointing out precisely what you are referring to. Perhaps you mean my opinion that the statement "X is the capital of Y" where X is a city and Y is a "a country or other political unit" implies the spatial relations Y contains X and X is within Y to the reader in Wikipedia's voice. I think that is a reasonable assumption about how readers will parse that kind of statement because that is how things normally work for capital cities. I suppose an exception might be Kinshasa-Brazzaville if the combined name becomes more widely used, 1 city in effect, 2 capitals, both within different countries.

While you are pondering the next "Please provide a source that says..." question to ask editors, why don't you find a source that says that a city can only be designated as the capital by the country/political unit with de facto control over the city. Perhaps the international community can decide what the capital of Israel is. Perhaps a basket of red herrings can make the decision. Without a source that says they can't, someone could argue endlessly that it's hard to tell and more time would be wasted not just looking at how sources deal with this issue and applying Wikipedia's content rules to it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I gather that the tldr of all that is "no, I can't provide a source". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you gather incorrectly, but you have reminded me why trying to resolve disputes through discussion doesn't work. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not just if the wording "not internationally recognised" is accurate or not, the problem is there is still a dispute on this page if that belongs in the opening sentence like that. The entire sentence has some neutrality concerns by people regarding different parts (some on the capital of Israel and some regarding stating something in the first sentence that is already stated more clearly further down the article intro). For that reason the neutrality tag warrants encompassing both points. At present the tag position suggests the fact Israel is the capital isnt seen as neutral, yet the next part of the sentence is entirely accepted. That is not the case.. Clearly putting the tag at the end of that part of the sentence still encompasses the fact the whole issue arond Jerusalems status has concerns. Its the only reasonable wayto be balanced. Of course ideally as there is no consensus for a change, no tag should be kept there. Most oppose the changes a small number of editors are demanding.BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I briefly glanced at the latest round of "capital" discussions, and I would like to thank you all for reminding me why I took Jerusalem, an article I helped bring up to featured status, off of my watchlist and never came back. You couldn't get consensus among editors here that the sky is blue if the Israelis and Palestinians didn't agree it were so. I seriously hope that you all eventually come to the realization that what happens on this particular webpage truly doesn't matter and that you may find yourself less stressed by finding something else to do, either on Wikipedia or in the real world. -- tariqabjotu 03:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

POV tag on lede

I've added a tag to the lede section. Within the first paragraph, the lede needs to represent both the Palestinian and Israeli view in order to remain neutral, given the fact that the "UN and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital." Here is what was reverted:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]

and is sought by the Palestinian Authority as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. It 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).^[iii]

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The revert was fully justified.

• Only East Jerusalem is "is sought by the Palestinian National Authority" as the capital of a future proposed Palestinian state
• Dead links were used as sources
• Most importantly, intentions of any state or future state do not goes into the lead. Vatican intend to see Jerusalem as international city under UN or similar administration. That does not mean that we should include this intention of Vatican in the first sentence. --Tritomex (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The State of Palestine declared Jerusalem its capital, not East Jerusalem. nableezy - 14:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but is that the city's primary role? Is it really the best idea to start the article by bluntly stating Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel? The opening of the article ought to define the article's subject, and "a major city in the Levant" serves the purpose just fine. Jerusalem's capital status could then follow that opening phrase. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The way it was seems to be the common, standard way of writing articles about capital cities on Wikipedia. Compare with Paris, Cairo etc... EscEscEsc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable. The introduction is balanced at present by saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel though not internationally recognised as such. That balanced, giving both sides views and providing the facts. Attempts to try and add the fact there is a palestinian claim to the first sentence is just unreasonable, as has been debated extensively above. There is NO consensus for certain changes being proposed, and there is no reasonable case for an entire POV section tag when there is already inline neutrality tag for the primary issue people seem concerned about. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable"..no, sorry, but that simply isn't true as far as I can tell. The evidence suggests to me that it's the other way around. Where is the Palestinian POV in the introduction ? The international community isn't Palestinian. The Palestinian POV doesn't appear until the 5th paragraph of the lead despite the Palestinians being the other party to the dispute with an equal claim to the city as their capital as far as RS are concerned. Frankly I think it's lucky the Palestinian POV is mentioned at all given that we have so many contributors here whose ability to deal with this issue neutrally is apparently damaged beyond repair or who are insufficiently informed about the issues and their policy obligations. If editors followed the advice at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors_counseled this would have been sorted out years ago. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Im saying there is clearly an attempt here to insert Palestinian POV, not that the current article is Palestinian POV. Whilst i would prefer to see some changes, i believe the current wording is balanced, making clear Israel is the capital of Jerusalem, but this is not recognised by the international community. That is perfectly balanced and reasonable. What is not reasonable and what is blatant POV pushing is the attempts to try and make out like a claim to the city is somehow worthy of being in the same sentence as the fact it is the capital of ISrael. The proposal above is the latest flawed proposal, yet there has been even worse ones in recent months too. It is simply not appropriate for the first sentence to be vandalised with POV. There are many disputed states and territorial claims, the first sentences do not tend to put a claim in line with the factual realities on the ground. For example.. Northern Ireland says "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It is variously described as a country, province or region of the UK, amongst other term.". It does not say, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and claimed by Irish republicans who want a united Ireland." To do so would give undue weight. Same applies in this case, the palestinian claim is clearly explained in the introduction already.. it does not need to be pushed into the first or second sentence, which will give undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use an entire section POV tag for the introduction. Use inline tagging for the specific claims people have concerns about, the vast majority of the facts and information in the introduction is accurate so people should not be confused about how accurate any of it is. Undermines the entire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a blatant attempt to bias this article in favour of the Palestinian POV and it is totally unacceptable.British Watcher

The international community isn't Palestinian. The Palestinian POV doesn't appear until the 5th paragraph of the lead .Sean Hoyland

Im saying there is clearly an attempt here to insert Palestinian POV, not that the current article is Palestinian POV.' British Watcher

BW. In short, you are not listening, but rehearsing your position. There are 3 POVs. (a) Israel's (b) The international community's (the legal lie of the land based on corpus separatum); (c) the Palestinians'.

The Palestinians are not some discarded pariah element in the equation. Their claim has parity per WP:NPOV, but is textually downplaced, repudiated, or absorbed into that of the second party. If you wish to challenge that, use policy and RS-based arguments. not personal opinions.--Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The palestinian claim to Jerusalem is already mentioned in the introduction. The question is here about preventing [{WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] by biasing the introductions first sentence with Palestinian POV. A claim to want to control the city at some point in the future is very very different to the fact it is the capital of Israel and acts as such. We ensure balance by including very clearly after that this is not recognised by the international community (which includes the palestinian view). The claim by palestinians to jerusalem is better handled in the other parts of the introduction as at present. You will find many articles saying that Israels capital is Jerusalem but that this isnt recognised by the international community/, yet do not go on to say in the same sentence or paragraph about palestinians wanting it as their future capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh come, now. Please try to make a cogently coherent argument. The point made by several editors is that Israel's claim is in the first sentence, the Palestinian claim isn't. So what on earth has WP:Undue to do with the fact that in violation of WP:NPOV, one of the three parties is not represented in the first sentence? You are saying that compliance with WP:NPOV would violate WP:Undue, one of the most extravagantly queer twistings of policy I've encountered in 6 years of editing. --Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do mention the Israeli and Palestinian claims next to each other: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added the section tag. In order to adhere to NPOV, the Palestinian viewpoint needs to be represented in the first paragraph, just as the Israeli and international viewpoint is shown. (BW, inline tagging is not possible because this is a structural dispute.) Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I support Somedifferentstuff's assessment. Israel's viewpoint is given in the first paragraph, as is the viewpoint of the international community. The Palestinian viewpoint should not be relegated to further down the page. As Dailycare has shown Reliable source coverage of this topic present the Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints on this issue consecutively. The current arrangement is not neutral and does not represent how the issue is handled by RS - thus it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A more precise description based on the sources Dailycare provided would be that some RS occasionally also mention that the Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. I don't see how not putting that in the first paragraph of the lead is an NPOV violation, considering it's an aspiration, not something that's actually happened it doesn't deserve the same weight. Just like the article about Taiwan doesn't mention the PRC's claims and aspirations over that territory in the first paragraph of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the already well labored point that significant RS describe Israel's position on Jerusalem, not as a fact, but as a "claim" or a "designation", that has been rejected by the international community (or some similar formulation). Dlv999 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the already well labored point that significant RS describe it as fact, while no significant RS say it's not a fact. That some RS take no position ("claim" or "designation" doesn't mean it's not a fact) is not a reason to water down the language here when we have RS that do take a position. Non-recognition, the significance of which nobody has found a source that explains, is already right next to the statement of fact, which is supported by RS. All the POVs are represented in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A source saying something is a widely rejected claim is not the same viewpoint as a source saying something is a fact. As the article stands only one of those viewpoints is presented in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Non-recognition is mentioned in the lead. I'll remind you again that we don't know if that has any bearing on the factuality of Jerusalem being the capital, since we have yet to see a source that explains it. Apparently neither do the sources using "claim" otherwise they'd just assess whether it's a fact or not rather than take no position. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

2 POV issues, both in the first paragraph. My suggestion to avoid having a permanent POV section tag on the article. First, rewrite the lead -- Jerusalem, located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, is one of the oldest cities in the world.[1] According to the Israeli government, Jerusalem is the nation's capital (although it is not internationally recognized as such.)[ii]

The second POV issue, the Palestinian vacuum in the first paragraph, also needs to be remedied. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite fascinating that you think there will be a "permanent POV section tag on the article" if you don't get your way. Putting that aside, your first suggestion has already been made and has failed to find consensus. To recap, it looks like all articles about capital cities state that in the first section of the lead, so there's really no reason to deviate from that. There's also no reason to introduce "according to the Israeli government" when we have RS that state it as plain fact.

The "Palestinian vacuum" in the first paragraph is also on par with other articles. We don't tend to give aspirations the same weight as facts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There will be a permanent POV section tag as long as the article continues to violate that policy. Israel's claim of capital status is not recognized by most of the world, which is precisely why the term "Israeli government" is essential in creating a neutral lead. Pretending that Jerusalem is "just another capital city" is laughable at best. And ignoring the Palestinian vacuum within the first paragraph will not lead to a consensus, I assure you. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The POV tag will be removed once the discussion is concluded one way or another. If you think you can keep a tag on an article until you are personally satisfied with the text, you are mistaken. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. In order to remove the tag you need to look at the general consensus (all editors present). If the general consensus is not to do so due to a continued violation, then the tag remains. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that if there's consensus to keep the tag, there would be consensus to make the edit and then the tag wouldn't be needed. Tags don't stay on articles indefinitely. There's a discussion and it will be concluded one way or another. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The palestinian viewpoint appears in the first sentence already as they do also not recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Their claim to the city cannot be given equal weight by being placed in the first sentence when there is clearly a massive difference between one entity claiming the capital for a future state, compared to one serving as the capital of a state, despite lacking recognition. There has been no consensus on previous attempts to bias this introduction by giving undue weight to the palestinian claim. I never said that the palestinian claim is never mentioned in article on this matter, i said there are many that do not because the primary two factors are "Jerusalem is Israels capital" and "the international community do not recognise this". The palestinian claim is handled in the introduction still, it is not as though there is no mention of it, but the view has rightly been it does not warrant inclusion in the first sentence.

I fail to see why in line tagging does not solve the issue people claim to be unhappy about. People are saying they just want a change to the first sentence.. the first sentence is tagged with the neutrality. How does that not cover the issue? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

BW, if sources mention the claims consecutively, why can't we? I think the "massive difference" or lack thereof is something that ought to turn on what sources say, not on editors' opinions on the matter. --Dailycare (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It already is mentioned! It is detailed in the introduction, it does not all fit nor can it be stated in a neutral way if its put in the first sentence, it simply does not work. It will be gross bias to try and treat the fact its the capital of Israel in law and in practice, just not recognised by the international community... with the fact the Palestinians claim it for their future state. It just cannot all fit fairly. And every single proposal we have seen in this latest round of the attempts to add palestinian POV have been proposals that are very clearly bias and which is obviously going to be unacceptable to many on this page. There was a vote above.. it showed support for the current wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind of the capital issue is moved out of the first sentence overall, in fact not nearly all sources place Israel's and Palestine's "capital claims" in the first sentence. --Dailycare (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though it is not internationally recognised as such. There is no justification for removing this from the first sentence. We are not hiding facts simply because people are demanding the Palestinian POV be added and given undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

My vote is to move it out of the first sentence. It's a contentious issue and will be better suited with a move. The following first sentence is one of the best, if not the best, first sentences I've seen: "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushalayim; Arabic: القدس al-Quds) is an ancient Middle Eastern city of key importance to the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012

According to a World Bank report, the number of recorded building violations between 1996 and 2000 was four and half times higher in Jewish neighborhoods (17,382 violations in West Jerusalem, compared to 3,846 in East Jerusalem) but four times fewer demolition orders were issued in West Jerusalem than in East Jerusalem (348 administrative demolition orders for buildings in East Jerusalem compared to 86 such orders for buildings in West Jerusalem) ; Arabs in Jerusalem were less likely to receive construction permits than Jews, and "the authorities are much more likely to take action against Palestinian violators" than Jewish violators of the permit process.

Astypalea (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the journal. Does the paper cite the world bank as the source for the quoted figures? Dlv999 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The World Bank report (here) is already cited in the Jerusalem#Urban_planning_issues section. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It would seem pretty uncontroversial then, from what I can make out the only change to the text is the addition of the figures from the World Bank report. Dlv999 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The request is confusing. Please be more clear what you want added/changed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

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."[20] 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)

(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)

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 [21], CIA factbook [22] Country Watch [23] Maps of World, even official US documents (State Department documents) [24] academic papers [25] or [26] 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 [27]....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 Jerusalem? 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)

Spelling error

I believe that there is a spelling error in Section 15 'Notable residents'. 'Mediaeval' should be spelled 'Medieval'.216.165.253.27 (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)