Talk:Jerusalem

WP:NPOV - status of Jerusalem

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

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

Partial explanation of editing from a neutral point of view:

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

I'd say that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding consensus, a few points to bear in mind:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some more questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do believe that there are user conduct issues here.

Thank-you for your comments on my approach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not what people think is the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong, the UN would not accept it if USA occupied part of another county and declared that it was the its capital, just as the UN has not accepted it when Israel did it. If the claim that Tel Aviv is a capital in Israel is based on nothing, why is Israel on this list of states with multiple capitals: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/multiplecapital.htm ? I am not claiming that Tel Aviv is the sole capital of Israel, but as Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as israels capital, and most countrys have their embassies in Tel Aviv, it is a "co-capital" of Israel. BTW: I have no problem with the article stating that Jerusalem functions as Israels capital or that Israel has declared that it is their capital, what I object to is the statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", because it represents a minority or fringe POV. PerDaniel (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

Palestine is not any more an entity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi NMMNG,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I.e.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) Tariqabjotu presented the following two points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other option

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

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

Concerning your proposal :

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

That could be solved as follows :

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

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

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

Or a combination of the two:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Tritomex,

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Tariqabjotu

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

That has already been answered.

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

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

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

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

That will be easy to conlude.

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

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

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

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

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

You fail to answer the point.

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

For what concerns the topic :

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

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

But whatever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PerDaniel, most embassies in the Netherlands are in The Hague, not Amsterdam, the city the Netherlands calls its capital. I don't think it'd be appropriate to say other nations don't recognize the Dutch choice, and you'll observe that our Amsterdam article calls the city, rightfully so, the capital of the Netherlands. I'm just saying this for the record, of course, because the recognition issue is already mentioned in the article. -- tariqabjotu 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is why the Netherlands is on the list of states with multiple capitals: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/multiplecapital.htm The most obvious difference between Amsterdam and Jerusalem is that Amsterdam is entirely within the internationally accepted borders of the country that it is capital of. PerDaniel (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Pluto2012's wording. This seems to be far more neutral and balanced than the current wording. It focuses first on Jerusalem's religious significance (which is its most notable aspect), and presents the Israeli, Palestinian, and world opinions on the matter of its status as a capital (unlike the current wording which completely excludes mention of Palestine). All of the complaints against Pluto2012's wording seem to boil down to "It doesn't favor my POV". Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  To clarify, you're not referring to the wording in bold at the beginning of this section (just below the "Other option" header), correct? Regardless, you know darn well that's an insulting and inaccurate summary of other people's positions. -- tariqabjotu 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Population growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you saying nonsense like we all know that the only section which requires consensus is the lead? Your source has as part of the "growth" in Arab population the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem that was counted as residents of Jerusalem following the 67 war and not prior to it. Do you not understand that? nableezy - 16:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

UNQUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

Wow... really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In regards to dailycare's response: I did not agree with the wording of the RfM but you should be applauded for the attempt. Everyone was involved to a certain extent. I chose to decline since I did not want to be part of what I assumed would be a mess. Some editors here could pull it off, though. Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What is "Jerusalem"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might think it's cute to keep responding to me with your pithy baiting remarks. But I don't. Find something better to do. -- tariqabjotu 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love this fundamental question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if they don't agree with you, identifying you as much younger/older or as an ugly woman, will this change the fact that you are a middle aged man? Similarly here the controversy doesn't change the fact that this an article about the Israeli city/capital. Your wording ignore a basic fact(and most of the article) and put emphasis on the geopolitical controversy since 1948(part of the history section).--Mor2 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A large portion of this article covers something that is not an Israeli city. nableezy - 23:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting because other than the standard history section, all of the article seem to cover Jerusalem as defined by current Israel municipal borders.--Mor2 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel's position on what is in Israel is not the final say in the matter. East Jerusalem is not in Israel. That is a super-majority viewpoint. nableezy - 05:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No its not, nor is its status as occupied territory change the fact that Eastern Jerusalem is still part of Israel, or more importantly part of Jerusalem municipal borders, which is this article is about.--Mor2 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I cant make out what your first no its not references, and "Eastern Jerusalem", more commonly known as "East Jerusalem" is outside of Israel's territory and it is in the occupied Palestinian territories. That is something that Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention has affirmed, as has the International Court of Justices, and it is something that countless sources can be brought to document. Israel's position in the matter is an extreme minority one, despite the fervor of its supporters on Wikipedia. nableezy - 06:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was meant as "No, Israel's position on what is in Israel is not the final say in the matter and East Jerusalem is occupied territory. However, neither change the fact that..." the rest is the same. The article is still about the city Jerusalem within its municipal borders. Nothing you added change that. --Mor2 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had no idea that your lunatic raving was about me, but as one of my favourite poets wrote: "Du må ikke tåle så inderlig vel den urett som ikke rammer dig selv". PerDaniel (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry or any ideas that might lead to the discovery of evidence by people good at doing things like that, provide it to the "people who really really care about socks", you know who they are. Otherwise you are wasting your time mentioning it unless you know that simply mentioning it is enough for them to abandon the account. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Repetition in lead

Why are all these various sentences needed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since I consider the detailing of the current political stances re Jerusalem in the lead as excessive, and you state that it is the result of balancing Israeli claims that you list, would you consider the removal of Israel's Basic Law and concomitant "balancing" from the lead as satisfactory? Ankh.Morpork 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Can you explain to me what the addition of "though not internationally recognized as such" adds to the lead not already contained in the next couple of paragraphs? Can you make clear whether you think there is any repetition at all, and if yes, what justifies it. Ankh.Morpork 19:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat incredulous of your posing a question here regarding a key phrase to the dispute in a manner such as to ignore the fact that it is a qualifying phrase to the primary focus of the dispute, which is the inadmissible identity statement that precedes it, separated by a comma, and opens the lead. Since a majority of editors would seem to want that statement removed in light of WP: NPOV, maybe I'm not following you.

Why don't you propose an alternative text so that your intentions can be assessed in context? That might serve a purpose during the deliberations to be conducted during the RfC--Ubikwit (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

A qualifying phrase is redundant when a qualifying paragraph is soon to follow. My point was why both were necessary, of course, some form of qualification is required. Ankh.Morpork 20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If the identity statement at the heart of the dispute wasn't present in the lead, there would be no need for any superfluous qualification. That forms part of the reasoning underpining the manner which I have adopted in attempting to present the elements pertaining to the defacto and dejure disposition with respect tot he past, present and future that involves no disputed assertions on the part of of any party, thereby prejudicing no party, and hopefully facilitating the creation of an article that is more approachable for the reader.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ariel Sharon

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

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

Last revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What? Immediately institute it? I instituted it after you refused to discuss it. What am I supposed to do, wait for you to decide when it need be discussed? there need not be any reason provided for reversion other than the fact that it was never the subject of discussion? It was the subject of discussion, you just refused to discuss it. You say now there is some good and some bad with the edit. Great, a comment on the content. What was bad about it? And, for the policy minded among you, read WP:EW, specifically the line When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. nableezy - 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. There are other editors on this page, and none of them, not even those who agree the current wording should be changed, have commented on it. And before you come back with another arrogant retort, no, eleven hours is not enough time to allow objections to a hidden proposal to be lodged. Stupid breaching experiments like this present yet another reason why a third-party observer is necessary, and presumably why you rejected one. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that you stop distorting, and I am being kind by not using the word lying, what happened at mediation. Three users rejected mediation by being listed as parties and not accepting, none of them me. I declined to be a part of it, I did not reject its use. And as far as the rather funny line hidden proposal, cute. You dont pay attention to what people write, but its their fault for not making the text blink. And for a user who claims that others do not understand what AGF means, you seem to have a curious understanding of the topic. Meaning, you dont. Can you please, please, please, please say what you think was wrong with the edit? Thats the only thing that counts, not whether you, of all people, think that I am arrogant, or that I ran a breaching experiment. You said there was good and bad in the edit. What was bad about it? nableezy - 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand what a third-party observer is. Is that the issue? Otherwise, please stop asking me to engage with you on this point directly. With time, one will be provided, and you will not have an opportunity to reject it. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that an excessively arrogant user who thinks that he knows more than anybody else and sees himself as the owner of the article thinks that he can, through just saying NO NO NO, stop any changes being made to a Wikipedia article. This remains the talk page for the article Jerusalem, and if you are incapable of discussing the article Jerusalem then you should find yourself another pissing ground. Can you or can you not identify issues with the change made? Because without people justifying the revert it will be restored, and Im down to let AE deal with anybody who thinks that they are above the standard procedure for resolving disputes (ie you). nableezy - 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

That emphatically is not a justification for the revert. Please explain what fault the edit has. For years now you have reverted changes due to a lack of some mythical consensus. I for one am through playing this game, either explain your opposition to the change or get out the way. Absent actual reasons for the revert I may well restore the change. nableezy - 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So far no policy/evidence based reasons have been given for reverts by Hertz and NMMNG. Hertz, could you please explain what evidence you have that this attempt by Nableezy to move the article forward is "agressive" and in what way it violates consensus building. Per BRD if you have a problem with a bold edit you should state what your policy/evidence based issues are. Simply stating that there is no consensus, but not stating what your policy/evidence based issues are with the edit is disruptive. Unless you state what valid issues you have with the proposed edit, how can we move forward towards consensus? Dlv999 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I resent your calling my behavior disruptive. With very much unresolved discussions in progress and a long-term stable version in place in the article, proper procedure would be to introduce the proposed edit here and allow ample (I stress, ample) time for discussion. Instead, it was aggressively sprung full-blown in the lead. The burden is not on those trying to restore some normalcy to the procedure. Even if the proposed edit were given on this talk page, it is unrealistic and inconsiderate to expect editors (all of whom are volunteers) to drop everything else and engage in instant analysis and discussion. I suggest that it is time for cool heads to prevail. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Its been several years that you have been reverting changes to the lead based on "no consensus". Exactly how much longer do the cooler heads need? And its unreasonable to expect that people immediately discuss material that they have time to immediately revert? Really? nableezy - 21:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean that everybody agrees to a certain wording. A user, or a set of users, even a majority of users, cannot filibuster change by claiming their acquiescence is required for "consensus". Policy-based reasons opposing the edit are required, and there has yet to be a single policy-based reason for either NMMNG's or Hertz's revert. nableezy - 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds familiar. And most likely, no matter what is said, you will never be satisfied that a policy-based reason has been provided. This is such a joke. -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that isnt true. And for a user who has repeatedly faulted others for failing to understand what AGF means, you seem to be incapable of showing that you do. What are the policy-based reasons for reverting the edit? Without one being provided I will reinstate it. nableezy - 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And then you will be reverted and/or reported to WP:AE. See title of section five sections up. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about doing the same thing to you. You cannot refuse to discuss the issue and then say that the article may not be changed because it has not been discussed. If you want to revert you need to justify it. And if somebody else reverts without providing a policy based reason they will be brought to AE. Im calling your bluff, mostly because you have no case, and also because AE should really see a user saying others should consider themselves lucky that he would entertain such a notion as including well sourced material in an article, and then calling others arrogant and stubborn. nableezy - 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The quite obvious policy based reason to reject this change to the lead is that it doesn't summarize the body of the article, and removes proper summarization that's already there. There are others, but let's start with this one, shall we? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can start there. What in the lead as I wrote it is not summarizing what is in the article, and what summarization that's already there was removed that is needed and not covered? nableezy - 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier if you showed me which part it is supposed to be summarizing? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not the one that says it isnt summarizing the article, now am I. There arent exactly that many changes between the current lead and how I wrote it, and if you think it isnt a proper summary say why. I dont know how clear I need to be in saying that I am not playing this game anymore. Justify your revert please, and an attempt at wittiness is not a justification. nableezy - 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for this kind of brinksmanship. An editor proposing an edit doesn't need to guess what your objection is. If you have one, describe it in a calm, respectful manner. If you don't have one, then don't revert the edit to begin with. This isn't rocket science. Likewise, you shouldn't be shy about sharing your objection just because you're afraid others might disagree with it. Be a tiger, discuss the content and don't speculate on others' motives. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit in question

To make this clear, and in the hopes that people can actually address the edit, Im posting the current lead and my rewrite here:

There has been a claim above that the new lead does not summarize the body of the article, and removes proper summarization that's already there, though an explanation of that has yet to be made. Can people please explain why they object to the rewritten lead? nableezy - 21:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Palestinian territory" is an abstract and undefined term (used by different subjects for different meaning) which do not exist in reality and do not have intentional validation, despite having an article in Wikipedia with plenty WP:OR and WP:SYNT.--Tritomex (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Palestinian territories exist and the term is not abstract or undefined. That is an objection entirely without merit. nableezy - 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no single legal document that define the Palestinian territories.(which is one of the reasons why there is no sovereign state of Palestine) --Mor2 (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You mistake a border treaty with a definition. The Palestinian territories, as documented in countless sources, are the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. And, actually, that is not the topic under discussion here. nableezy - 06:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But it is about borders, you need a defined a geographical region and If you refer to the Palestinian territories, they are defined by the 1967 "borders". A better question would be why you put Israel and the 'Palestinian territories' and not Israel and the 'West Bank'.--Mor2 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no. A border would be formed through a formal treaty between Israel and Palestine. The boundary that separates Israel from the Palestinian territories is the Green Line. Why did I not put West Bank? The same reason I did not put Jerusalem District. nableezy - 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My main issue about it is being treated below in a "worldwide view" context. The world, which does not recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel nor Palestine says it should be shared under international rule and eventually capital for both Israel and State of Palestine. This worldwide view has a greater prominence that the view that Israel should rightfully control Jerusalem itself - which in turn is more widely held than the view that the State of Palestine should control it unilaterally. The draft does not solve that problem. Indicate the relative prominence of views in defining geopolitical status in lede, please. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that simplifies a number of views on what the international community thinks should, legally or otherwise, happen to Jerusalem. And I dont think it is necessary to get into what is right in the lead, just what is. I wouldnt be opposed to adding another line about the political status of the city, but, as Ravpapa has reminded us repeatedly, Jerusalem is more than the center of the Palestine-Israel conflict. It shouldnt overwhelm the lead, and that is what I tried to do. But if you have a specific suggestion on what to add, then, please, go at it. nableezy - 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for Nableezy If "Palestinian territory" do exist as defined entity, do Palestinians (proclamation of the State of Palestine) seek their capital only within the boundaries of "Palestinian territory"?--Tritomex (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The actual Declaration of Independence in 1988 made no mention of any borders. The most recent diplomatic endeavor, that being the UN GA resolution, said Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. Abbas has repeatedly said that he wants East Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. So by that measure, yes. But it depends on which Palestinians, some dont recognize any part of Israel as anything other than occupied Palestine. But that isnt the issue here. The term Palestinian territories has a well known, unambiguous meaning. It is the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. That isnt up for debate here. And I dont plan on getting drawn into that discussion. If your objection to the proposed lead is that the Palestinian territories dont exist, then your objection has no merit. nableezy - 02:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nb: the 1988 Alger Declaration refers to Jerusalem as capital of the State of Palestine. The last sentence is "(...) Jerusalem, the capital of our independent Palestinian State. source Pluto2012 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im aware, however it did not define Jerusalem and I am unaware of al-Quds referring to western Jerusalem, but it may. nableezy - 19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG below makes the following comment, which I, for ease of responding in a sane section, have duplicated here:

You've not answered any of the issues raised regarding your massive, not previously discussed, change of a lead that's not only under discussion but is at ArbCom and you'll take anyone who reverts it to AE? It's going to be me, so don't get your hopes too high about Tariq. You can start writing your request right now, and we'll see how that works out for you. In the meanwhile, since you don't seem to understand the question I asked about your change, here it is more explicitly: what's the source for "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories"? What part of the article is this summarizing? Why did you remove the sections you did (do I need to quote each section or is this general hand waving sufficient)? Eagerly awaiting your answers, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The source I provided for Jerusalem partially being in the Palestinian territories is:Imseis, Ardi. "On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Harv. Int'l LJ 44 (2003): 65. The quote from that article is: ... the State of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory. What summary have I removed? I condensed the legal status into the first paragraph, and removed some unimportant trivia. You want to re-add the last paragraph removed? Go right ahead, I dont care. So what else? And yes, if you dont respond to this I will be restoring the edit. nableezy - 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Another source for East Jerusalem being in the Palestinian territories is: Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal M. Gross, and Keren Michaeli, Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 23 Berkeley Journal of International Law. 551 (2005), p. 551:

In August 2005, Israel pulled out its settlements and military forces from the Gaza Strip. The question whether this amounts to the end of the occupation in this area remains open and its determination depends on factual and legal considerations relating to the notion of "effective control," which are beyond the scope of this article. Even if one assumes that Gaza is no longer occupied, our discussion applies to the rest of the Palestinian territory, which Israel continues to occupy, i.e. the West Bank including East Jerusalem, which constitutes a far more substantial area both in terms of territory and the extent of Jewish settlements.

NMMNG, do you challenger the reliability of either the Berkeley Journal of International Law or the Harvard Journal of International Law as reliable sources? nableezy - 19:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In the article, you put "Jerusalem...is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories". How does either of your sources support this without SYNTH? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided directly support that Jerusalem is partially in the Palestinian territories. I admit that they do not support that Jerusalem is partially in Israel. Do you challenge that Jerusalem is partially in Israel? nableezy - 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports what you put in the article? So far it seems the answer is "no". By the way, your source says something about East Jerusalem (seems like a proper noun with all the capitalization there), not about Jerusalem, which may or may not include the part your source is talking about. Unfortunately your source doesn't specify. No SYNTH or OR please. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is such an inordinately silly argument that I fear I do not have it in me to respond as though it were not. So I've brought that issue to WP:OR/N, and you can attempt to make the argument that despite this article including East Jerusalem in Jerusalem that sources that say East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories cannot be used for SYNTH reasons. nableezy - 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is, by far, the worst objection you could possibly come up with in response to the proposed wording, and I have no idea why you've spent time raising it and defending it. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Might as well start at the beginning and move on from there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This isnt a game, please say what other reasons you have for reverting. If it was the OR issue then you have no case. nableezy - 03:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Im still waiting for the next objection. Without one I will be restoring the edit, and blanket reverts without even a nod to policy will not stand. nableezy - 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. You took this to the OR noticeboard, so obviously there was more than a nod to policy (but do continue to obsessively quote me, it's fun). That was yesterday. So far only one person responded there (that would be your "self-blocked" overly dramatic friend), but this is what, the 3rd time you threatened to restore this material in less than 24 hours? Did I miss something obvious, or do I need to dig up a BRD quote for you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats somewhat disingenuous, now isnt it? Two editors have responded to your specious "reasoning", one of them here, and that one cannot by any meaning of the word friend be called one of mine. His view of your objection is that it is the worst objection you could possibly come up with in response to the proposed wording. By all means, dig for the BRD quote, but heres one that I like: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. nableezy - 19:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: instead of "capital city" we say "capitol". Whereas one may argue the social-construct over whether or not a capital must include international recognition by the placement of embassies, it cannot be our fault if our readership cannot see the plain English distinction that we mean something more specific and tangible. This lede would still satisfy my most basic arguments of giving voice to a worldwide view and avoiding placing a POV in footnotes. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't work. Capitol refers to a building, not a city. So, the "capitol" would be the Knesset building. -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This proposal goes toward the "seat of government" idea which is on the table. It's what the BBC uses at least on occasion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think there is any problem with saying that Israel includes EJ within its capital city. nableezy - 22:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the article represent a global view?

Per the tag on the article, I though it would be good if people actually discussed the issue (rather than the reverts and edit warring). Personally, I can see the point that the article doesn't represent a global view, particularly the lead section. Right now, the lead asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel although this is not recognized by most of the world. It then goes on to state that Palestine is not currently a state although most of the world does recognize it as such. I could see an argument that we should present all views in the lead (per NPOV), but the lead isn't doing that either. The lead should either reflect the global POV, or present all 3 POVs equally – global, Israeli, and Palestinian (as per Pluto2012's suggested wording). Relegating the other POVs to notes or qualifying add-ons doesn't adequately address the problem, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A solution which will represent the relative prominence of views will conform to WP:NPOV. Thank you for summarizing and participating! ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to clarify what you think Pluto's wording is, as it's not immediately clear unless you read through it. More clearly. The following is not Pluto's suggestion (it was actually mine):

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

And this was Pluto's:

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea with a total population of around 800,000 people. Due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the city was divided in 1948 in West and East-Jerusalem. In 1967 Israeli took the control of the East side and annexed it in 1980. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital but the international community requires that the question is settle by peace talks between both parties.

I'm fine with the first version (obviously) [as far as it addresses the capital point; I don't care about the population issue], but (speaking only about the capital issue) Pluto's removes a key point -- that Israel has its government in Jerusalem and Palestine does not. This modification specifically was met by objection from several people (myself included), and yet -- assuming you really were talking about Pluto's proposal in your comment above -- you said those objections were just us unhappy our POV isn't in the article. In addition to (once again) expressing great offense at the remark, I don't know how you could argue that when there is nothing disputable about the fact that Israel's government is situated in the city and Palestine's is not. And, perhaps you disagree, but I think that is a major distinction when talking about capitals. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's how policy says we should look at that view. Evidently the point escapes most of the countries of the world. The first two sources are primaries from the U.N. on their position historically and presently that Jerusalem belongs in international rule. I can see that you are saying that there exists a view that placing one's government in a place makes that place a capital when people discuss Jerusalem. I think I have demonstrated that this is a minority view, although it should be supported through prominent adherents per Jimmy Wales so as to be distinguished from a fringe view. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's majority view about defining capitals: they are usually where the seat of government is. The exception to a rule does not disprove the rule nor the exception. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? The point that Israel's government is located in Jerusalem is not a contestable point. The point that Palestine's government is not located in Jerusalem is not contestable either. What the U.N. or any country believes the future of the status of the city should be has nothing to do with the fact that Israel's government is situated in Jerusalem. Note that I did even not say it has nothing to do with the fact that it's its capital; I do believe that to be the case also, but that wasn't what I said above, and not the point of my remark.

The first option above does not explicitly say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because its government is located there. Some people here seem to have the issue with drawing that conclusion ourselves by saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in the first line. Okay, again, I don't know why that's a questionable conclusion, but we can run with that. But then what is wrong with mentioning that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital and that its government is located there and allow readers to draw their own conclusion about whether it can truly be considered its capital? And how is the fact that this city is the seat of government of a country not relevant enough to be in the first paragraph, especially when we're talking about capitals, a concept which in all but one case coincides with the seat government? Also, you realize your "exception to a rule" comment (which is not how the saying goes...) discredits your comment, not mine, right? -- tariqabjotu 01:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What you stated was: "I think that is a major distinction when talking about capitals." Again, the majority view is that it in the case of the concept of Jerusalem-as-capital, it doesn't matter whether Israel has its seat of government in Jerusalem or that Palestine doesn't have its seat of government there. Please establish to whom this has a definite correlative relevance to anyone in this particular situation through WP:RS. Do not engage in WP:OR by making the assumption that one strictly relates to the other. This could be construed as an accidental fallacy. As far as I can tell from any evidence, we should not be discussing Jerusalem-as-capital and Jerusalem-as-seat-of-government in the same breath. Consecutive mention, not concurrent mention, works as a distinction of the weight of predominant views - which is the only way that "distinction" applies per NPOV as far as I can see. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. You can stop throwing around Wikipedia acronyms and the word "fallacy". What is the concept of capital all about to you, if I need to source that where a government is located has any relevance? Not that where a government is located necessitates a city being called a capital; I'm merely talking about that the location of a government has relevance. We do not need to cite that the sky is blue. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

'Concept' is specific-to-general, the opposite of the way you're using it, but precisely the way you intend the conversation to go. I do not need to make any further conversation about the generalities of capitals. I have provided the specifics in regards to the topic. And you have made no effort to use reliable sourcing for your argument. To be practical about rather than rhetorical and perhaps get back on point, I prefer tariq's draft as closer to the sources I was seeing but neglecting a definitive statement on the international stance on Jerusalem, making it less weighty than it deserves as a predominant view. If I'm reading the sources right, the international community wants to facilitate a shared Jerusalem.... ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's kind of useful and I will touch on it. Since the mark of good expository writing is to go from general-to-specific in lede, mention of Jerusalem-as-seat-of-government should be mentioned in the preceding breath to Jerusalem-as-capital so as to correctly use the usual generality to focus the writing further with the exception that the world community makes. See? You made me think. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as the international community wants to facilitate a shared Jerusalem, thats an oversimplification. There are a number of positions within the international community, one of which involves an international regime in the city. nableezy - 03:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is excruciatingly unclear what you are saying. Specifically, what does...

I prefer tariq's draft as closer to the sources I was seeing but neglecting a definitive statement on the international stance on Jerusalem, making it less weighty than it deserves as a predominant view.

...mean? -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I think Nableezy got my point and is giving a good critique of it. In general, the consensus of representatives of a few billion people in not only disputing the claims of Israel and Palestine - but also laying claim to the administration of Jerusalem - should have more representation in lede weight by further representing how they conceive Jerusalem geopolitically. Since Nableezy seems to be able to critique constructively misapprehensions about world consensus, perhaps he could source us something that does demonstrate a common ground, or at least a good general Ban Ki Moon quote. Billions vs. millions. The view, where cohesive, should have more weight. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Ban Ki Moon doesn't represent billions of people. Where do you get this stuff from? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You still didn't clarify the part where you said "I prefer tariq's draft". It sounded like you preferred my version, despite running me in circles about the (ir)relevance of a country's government to its capital city. So, I'll proceed with what I was going to say; even if it's not relevant to you (still not sure), it's relevant to those (e.g. Pluto and Nableezy) who do believe that the seat of government point should not be mentioned in the vicinity of the capital statements:

What the non-recognition means has not been nailed down here. Those who are against the current wording say it nullifies the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, while those who are in support of the current wording believe it doesn't. That is a central issue in this dispute. If you are in the first group, you believe the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a false statement or at least a minority statement. Requests to prove the nullification contention have not been met with any proof, and yet there appears to be some willingness in recent threads by those supporting the current wording to let go of such a straightforward statement. But, in that case, it is equally wrong to swing the pendulum to the other side and suggest that there is no standing whatsoever to the suggestion that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is actually true. I requested sources saying Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel or that some other city is its capital or that it has no capital at all, and I was told these points had no relevance and need not be proven to contest the current wording. Again, despite those assertions, we have been willing -- now, somewhat inexplicably -- to let the current wording go. But, once again, there thus remains no justification to eliminate facts [e.g. that Israel's government is located in Jerusalem] that might (or might not, as is the case for some here) lead one to infer Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel.

And such inference, by the way, is not unprecedented. Japan, for example, has no law explicitly stating its capital city (see Keene 2002, p. 189), and yet I'll be damned if you could find an educated person on this planet who wouldn't call Tokyo the capital of Japan -- because its government is located there. You can proceed to claim, based on not too much, that what's good for the gander here isn't good for the goose, but please don't request that we force that upon all readers by intentionally omitting the crucial fact that Israel's government is in Jerusalem -- and Palestine's is not. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, youve attributed to me a position that I have not taken, that being believe that the seat of government point should not be mentioned in the vicinity of the capital statements. I didnt include it in my draft above because the wording gives, in my view, the balance you are looking for. My draft has Jerusalem as Israel's capital and as Palestine's designated capital, so I did not think it necessary to include that it isnt the seat of Palestine's government or that it is for Israel. If youre going to talk about me, it would be better to talk to me. You may be shocked at how reasonable I can be when actually engaged. nableezy - 04:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to recall a thread in which you repeatedly accused me of owning the article for suggesting that a wording that omitted any distinction between the Palestinian and Israeli capital claims was asking too much. Forgive me for thinking you don't just say things to waste my time. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. I objected to the idea that Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital is stronger than Palestine's because its seat of government is Jerusalem. I said then that you are not the arbiter on title to Jerusalem. I did not say that Israel's seat of government is not Jerusalem, and I did not take any position on whether or not it should be called that in the lead. I accused you of owning the article because you wrote You should consider yourself lucky that I, or anyone else, would even entertain the idea of putting the Israeli and Palestinian claims in the same sentence, and you should drop any hope of the article doing so without clear qualification. The reason for my accusation should be fairly obvious to any disinterested reader. This habit of not reading what I write is causing you to repeatedly misstate the record. I did not include it in my lead because I dont say it is designated, or de facto, or claimed as capital of Israel. I addressed your WEIGHT concern through the wording. So now that I have hopefully disabused you of the notion that I say things to waste your, rather than my, time, could you please actually respond to my request that you say what you think is bad about my proposal above? nableezy - 05:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm not interested in these word games.

No, I didn't reject mediation; I just removed my name from the mediation. No, the people who were listed were to blame; I wasn't listed... because I removed my name from the mediation. I think binding mediation is a great idea, even though I didn't think voluntary mediation was. No, you are required to answer my questions because you edited this article... over two and a half years ago. This was discussed, because I simply brought it up. No, I didn't accuse you of owning the article for saying some are asking too much... I accused you of owning the article for asking people to stop asking for too much. And, this is why we can't get anything done Tariq, because you can't read.

Fine, you win. You're absolutely correct. I can't read. I'm the problem here. You've done nothing wrong, ever. You're doing everything in good faith, while I have just been blocking the whole process. I shouldn't comment on any of your actions or comments, because I'll just misunderstand them. No one should, because you're the keeper of the true meaning and it's ridiculous to make any comments based on what you say the first time. I need to wait for you to repackage your remarks in a way that sounds better to you, but doesn't actually negate what you said the first time.

Are you happy now? Now piss off. -- tariqabjotu 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im going to sotp being polite and ask that instead of misrepresenting the record that you now stop lying about it. What I said the first time is what I said the last, and that you continue to lie about each of those things is just another example of why I dislike dealing with you. Am I happy? No, Ill be happy when you or anybody else gives an actual reason for the reverts of my rewrite. Since its now going on two days since I first proposed it, and, one hand wave at a policy without explanation notwithstanding, nobody has been able to articulate why it should be reverted, Ill be restoring it. And if you, or anybody else, reverts it without providing a policy-based reason for doing so they will be reported to AE. God I hope its you, as I would just love to link to diffs of an admin telling others that they are arrogant, stubborn, and that they should piss off, all while repeatedly, and explicitly, refusing to discuss the content on the talk page. As far as your final request, no. nableezy - 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You've not answered any of the issues raised regarding your massive, not previously discussed, change of a lead that's not only under discussion but is at ArbCom and you'll take anyone who reverts it to AE? It's going to be me, so don't get your hopes too high about Tariq. You can start writing your request right now, and we'll see how that works out for you. In the meanwhile, since you don't seem to understand the question I asked about your change, here it is more explicitly: what's the source for "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories"? What part of the article is this summarizing? Why did you remove the sections you did (do I need to quote each section or is this general hand waving sufficient)? Eagerly awaiting your answers, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is unequivocally false. The only objection raised, prior to this comment, is that it was not a proper summary. I asked you to explain that, and you still have not. As far as what is the source Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories, this article includes East Jerusalem, so you could read Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to establish that EJ is in the Palestinian territories, or Imseis, Ardi. "On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Harv. Int'l LJ 44 (2003): 65:

... the State of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Do you want a source for part of Jerusalem being in Israel? I'll address each of these in more detail above, but unless you want to challenge the Harvard International Law Journal as a reliable source we can wipe that objection away. nableezy - 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't SYNTH me an answer. Show me a source that explicitly supports the statement you put in the very first line of the article. And yes, I asked you to point out which parts of the article your new version summarizes, which you have so far failed to do. You also failed to explain why you removed the parts of the lead that you did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not synthesizing anything. I asked above if East Jerusalem is a part of "Jerusalem". Not one person said no. East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories, and that can be sourced to any number of places. And I did explain why I removed the banal text about a zoo and other trivialities, and I said that if you want to re-add that feel free. But I did so in the section about the edit. nableezy - 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Keene doesn't support your inference, so I don't know why you cited him:

'By 1877 Tokyo was functionally the capital of Japan, not only because it was the seat of the emperor and all organs of the government but also because the foreign legations were situated there.'(unlike the case in Jerusalem) and of coure Tokyo refers to a site on undisputedly Japanese territory. A good part of Jerusalem is not in Israel. Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't decide what about Jerusalem makes it not Israel's capital. The 1980 UN resolution? Okay, some countries, like Japan, don't even have laws that declare what their capital at all. Okay, but there are embassies in Tokyo, but not Jerusalem. Okay, so Jerusalem was still the capital of Israel the day after the UN resolution, before countries could move their embassies? Or Amsterdam is not actually the capital of the Netherlands because most embassies are in The Hague? Er, uh, no... the Netherlands has two capitals based on an About.com source. Yeah, ok, right. Oh, uh, it's because East Jerusalem isn't legally Israel's. Okay... so if the Israelis left East Jerusalem, would it be the capital? Yeah, more sidestepping. For some reason, some have allowed the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be removed, despite there being no certainty about what negates that statement. But, there is no basis whatsoever for omitting the fact that Israel's seat of government is in Jerusalem when talking about its capital status. Fear of some readers drawing a conclusion different from yours is not good enough. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If that tirade is addressed to me, I don't know what your point is. You cited an analogy, and close control of the source showed it failed the test. The word for capital city in Japanese 首都 is a modern calque on the foreign concept of a 'capital city' which was in any case alien to the Japanese. The word itself defined the new reality as Edo was renamed the Eastern-to, as opposed to Kyo-to. What you, from the outset, have systematically elided from your cognitive horizon, like everyone else who has an irrational attitude to source-based editing, is the fact that capital cities all over the world are not normatively sited wholly or in part in foreign countries, states or territories, something which constitutes the whole anomaly, for which none of you have an answer and which generates the POV-driven irrationality of most editors opposing intelligent alterations to the proposition in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Do as I say and not as I do, you know darn well that's an insulting and inaccurate summary of other people's positions. nableezy - 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For someone who seems so aggravated by interacting with me, you sure do a hell of a lot of unrequested, and unproductive, interacting with me. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed. Maybe if you tell me to piss off again that would work. It would be productive if you, instead of obstinately and arrogantly refusing to say what you think is bad about my proposal, actually responded to the questions and points raised, instead of trying to win the title 2012's Hardest Man on The Internet. nableezy - 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Piss off. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, another example of not practicing what you preach. I thought the people who deserved to participate are the ones who aren't going to respond to simple statements by being an ass, like you just did. And again, no. I dont generally accede to requests by wanna be tough guys, sorry. nableezy - 20:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows Nableezy has 2012's Hardest Man on The Internet in the bag. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Now arent you just the cutest thing! nableezy - 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Things like this: Corpus separatum (Jerusalem). Revealing the actual intent of the United Nations would achieve more weight in terms of a worldwide view rather than stating alone that a lot of nations don't recognize Jerusalem as a capital. "Y U no recognize Jerusalem as capital?" This is why. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are 5 facts regarding the political status :

• the last legal status for the whole Jerusalem with international recognition is the 'corpus separatum' status but this is in contradiction with the fact that Israel was accepted at the UN member when it controlled West Jerusalem and with the high majority of maps of Israel that can be found.
• the majority view today is that the final status should be decided by peace talks between Israelis and Palestians
• Israel controls and administers both West and East-Jerusalem
• Israel established its capital at Jerusalem (East and West) but nobody recognizes this ; it was even condemned by the internatinal community in UN Resolutions
• Palestine claims East Jerusalem as its capital but do not control the territory ; this claim is supported by numerous nations and the UN (all those who recognized the 1988 Independance Declaration).

I don't think that I forgot any. The only question is to give due:weight to each of this fact. I still think that the fact Jerusalem is one of the oldest city of the world and sacralized in the 3 monotheist religions is much more important than the capital question (wp:due weight).

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Point one, plenty of U.N. members are in violation of one thing or another. The contention that UN membership is relevant legally to legal questions about Jerusalem might be supported. How widely? Point two, no disagreement from me; that is a strong statement from an international view. Point three, I think I was making in a more general notability way rather than being so specific. Point four, interesting - presented as such, it shifts the weight as I had once perceived it; when I brought Pal & EJ up before, I was told they want all of Jerusalem, but a U.N. event-source showed me last night includes a speech by Abbas supporting your statement. Can we establish how widely the claim is supported by nations?

I also agree that Abrahamic POV is more weighty than national views, but less weighty than an overall worldwide view. My draft attempted to cover this in a quick religion-history sentence to establish a general context for the capital controversy. Thoughts? And any criticism of the facts below? I'd be amenable to replacing a statement about corpus separatum with your statement about peace talks if we can support that better with the weight with which you have stated it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not a good summary at all. First of all, Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950. Where does that figure in these "facts regarding political status"? Somehow whoever recognizes Palestine automatically recognizes their claim to East Jerusalem (where does the 1988 deceleration limit this to East Jerusalem, by the way?) but the same doesn't apply to Israel? Interesting. What is the basis for saying "corpus separatum" is a legal status and not just an idea that failed to gain any traction? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I keep this "not a good summary at all" as a 3rd point to keep for the record in case ArbCom : you may consider it is not perfect but certainly not it is not good at all. The only explanation that I can see is a useless agressivity or a WP:POINT with the wish of blocking the discussion.

• Regarding the "corpus separatum", I realized yesterday that the UN resolution that accepted the membership of Israel (see here on the Israeli MFA website explicitely referred to the Resolution 194 of 11 december 1948 that "resolves that, (...), the Jerusalem area, including (...) should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control.
• Regarding the fact that Israel established its capital at West Jerusalem in 1950, that can be added but what does it change exactly ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all states that recognize Palestine recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of that state. Some so, others don't. I'm not aware of any countries that recognize West Jerusalem (or for that matter, any part of Jerusalem) as the capital of Israel although Mitt Romney famously did. --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity they 'recognize' or they 'recognize the rights..' because there is no argument that there are many declarations of recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people(for example the popular UN resolution 69/7), but as far as I seen the actual details are always silverlined with pending final negotiation. Furthermore can you find one state that recognize both and stated that it recognize Jerusalem as palestinian and didn't recognize it as Israeli?(as you seem to imply) --Mor2 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They didn't just recognized the right of a State but they recognized the State of Palestine.

In Oct 1988, the PLO made a declaration of independance that was recognized by UNGA in November.

Since then more than a hundred states recognized invidually the existence of the State of Palestine, numerous in confirming the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital, some even in specifying the borders of the State.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Recognitions come in slightly different terms, some recognize just a state, some a state and borders, some a state, borders and East Jerusalem as the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We wasn't speaking about the recognition of state, but about recognition of Jerusalem, try to stay on topic. I asked a simple question. Can you show me a country that recognize both states and recognize the Palestinian rights in Jerusalem over the Israeli?(as you seem to imply by some SYN)

OT: as for the state, the UNGA didn't recognized the state, it "Acknowledged" the declaration, just as it didn't recognized the state in the last resolution 67/9. Please see how to obtain recognition by the United Nations. The rest is no more relevant to case of Jerusalem than UNGA Acknowledgement is.--Mor2 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would I need to come up with a source like that? I only said that not all countries that recognize Palestine recognize East Jerusalem as its capital, although some do (I provided sources for this above), and that I'm not aware of any country that recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fact bullets for Tariqabjotu

In reply to tariq, sourcing aeems to bear out

• Israel's government is located in Jerusalem
• Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital
• "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a minority view
• The international community still sees Jerusalem as an international city.
• The UN has always intended to make Jerusalem a corpus separatum - a separate entity under the administration of its five founding members. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Saying that most nations don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel because the UN wants a corpus separatum now is ridiculous OR.

Making some kind of compromise here just so someone who agrees now will come back later and try to change it is also pretty ridiculous since we already have experience with this sort of behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy. What is ridiculous is that you call it WP:OR. The UN is most nations. PerDaniel (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point about WP:NOR! Amended. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you like to fish google for refs. How does the one you just included jive with UNGA/RES/67/19? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

'Resolving a core issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict namely Jerusalem' does not seem to dispute anything at all. Probably why they phrased it vaguely. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns: That is how diplomatic documents usually are written. PerDaniel (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What is OR is that the "facts on the grounds" would have more due:weight than the international claims. What ClaudeReigns say about the corpus separatum is not that "stupid". Some countries, such as the UK, still stick to this position which was the last "legal" one. As soon as there is a protocol on which everbody agrees, it is worth going deeper into details about this. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. An encyclopedia should write about how things should be, not how they are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a personnal attack based on irony. I keep this for the record of the future ArbCom.

This point have already been answered. An encyclopaedia must write about how things are. But the point is that both claims for the status of the capital have their strengths and weaknesses and at the end are equivalent. The occupation and administration of the city and the facts on the grounds are not considered to have values in the way things are because the resort to force in the situation is illegal according to International Law. If you think it is, you have to find WP:RS sources that state the facts of the grounds are to be taken into account but you will not because they are not. And if I am wrong I will be happy to read these. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: The fact is that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as israels capital: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB. The lead should reflect this, per WP:NPOV. Another fact is that Israel has chosen to ignore this. By stating that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" the current version ignores both of these facts. PerDaniel (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you just said that facts should not have the same weight as claims, and then you act all offended when I say you prefer claims to facts? For real? At least the irony was acknowledged. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: Are you replying to me or Pluto2012? The placement of your reply makes it look like you are replying to me. PerDaniel (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the 2nd attack that I keep for the record. This is also a WP:POINT in the sense that you block the discussion.

I have already answered this point. The facts in the sense of wikipedia are not the "facts on the ground" in the sense of the Israeli's policy but the "facts in the sources". To give due:weight to the different points of views, we have to see how they are considered in sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am more inclined with:

• Jerusalem is official capital and seat of government of Israel.
• Jerusalem is subject of a geopolitical controversy.[ii]
• Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital.--Mor2 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't really add a majority international view, rather censors the controversy by relegating it to footnotes, basically a WP:POVFORK. I like that you mention the State of Palestine though. A footnote is for awkward and barely related things, obscure names and such. Things we're talking about are core to understanding the geopolitical notability of the topic, and can be phrased smoothly, though some may not like to hear it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see the footnote as a compromise, in which we can present basic facts and yet present the complicated situation, with its various views. Instead of warring about how can we streamline it into a simple statement, that present all views, keep to NPOV and doesn't change the focus of the article from the city to Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--Mor2 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The spirit of NPOV is to show everyone's point of view in proportion to its predominance. The debate over Jerusalem speaks to how the city is defined. A footnote may be defined as "a relatively subordinate or minor part". Encouraged as I am at your willingness to find a good compromise, I do not believe that this is it - I'd rather we broke the rules in finding a common ground. This suggestion, in attempting to relegate a worldwide view to footnote status, does not improve Wikipedia. I would be open to compromises about phrasing, fact and opinion order, consensual violations of policy, and much much more - even breaking the fourth wall. What else do you have which neither limits points of view nor understates the prevalence of this controversy? ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What we have in the article right now neither limits points of view nor understates the prevalence of this controversy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only is this assertion disputable, it's disputed. Those are the facts on the ground. While the Israeli flag indeed does fly in Jerusalem, this article lede nonetheless continues to be POV-tagged. "Is disputed" yields zero attribution to whom? To the international community. Why would the nations of the world refuse to place their embassies in Jerusalem? The weight of and reasons for this position deserve clear mention. The antecedent assertion "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," which carries enough weight that it is rightfully placed so foremostly in lede, has an alternative view which just has to be fleshed out in lede. Imagine a party where 200 people attend but only 2 are able to get in more than two words edgewise and you'll see where I'm coming from. The clearest solution: quickly strip off the painful band-aid and get down to the other details of the article. I do have other ideas which have precedents in other encyclopedias, but none of my ideas involve sacrificing a worldwide voice. So if that's your main objection, I am of no help. And that disappoints me, because I would be glad to help facilitate positive goals for improving the article to the satisfaction of everyone. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"not internationally recognized as such" is five words, my mistake. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is an analogy that will probably be lost on those who support the current wording, because it's not really applicable, as far as we're concerned.

Using the same analogy, let's say the hosts have two types of wine at the party, Wine A and Wine B. They've chosen to designate Wine A as the Official Wine of the Party, despite also serving Wine B. Nevertheless, everyone but the hosts like Wine B better and say that should be the Official Wine of the Party. Well, it's not, because it's not the guests' party to hold. It doesn't matter if it's illegal to serve Wine A, as they are clearly serving Wine A and they've designated that the Official Wine of the Party. So, while it might be relevant to mention in post-party gossip that Wine A is illegal and that nearly all guests prefer Wine B, Wine A was the Office Wine of the Party. End of story.

But I'm not admitting that this analogy will work for those who oppose the current wording either. As I said over a month ago, there is some perception that an unrecognized capital means it's not actually the capital. In other words, a city needs to be recognized as the capital city by other countries to be considered as such. This point has failed to be verified by a source, despite many requests for one. Instead, we just get a litany of sources that sidestep the issue, without any acknowledgement that these sources generally mention this issue in a tangential manner and would prefer doing so in a way that offends the least number of readers -- even if it's not precise.

Now I'm sure there are other wordings of the first sentence or paragraph, like some of the ones suggested above, that would please more people than the current wording. But there's a balance between tailoring to editors' complaints and being informative to readers, with a greater emphasis on the latter. An argument could be made from multiple angles (both from someone who believes lack of recognition negates the capital status and from someone who believes it doesn't) that we could better inform readers about the situation and appease more editors' complaints at the same time, but this is not a cut-and-dry worldwide view thing. Honestly, I wish people would at least acknowledge the position of their adversaries, rather than simply assume one's own position is clearly correct and, therefore, your opponents are egregiously violating some central tenet. -- tariqabjotu 05:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I have acknowledged that there are facts and opinions which support the Israeli POV, but until we dispense with minimizing the others, the elephant in the footnotes is still there, whether we are brave enough to have that discussion in namespace or not. What you're saying is an argument could be made (in talk). What I'm saying is that we're having that argument (in talk) because it isn't clearly being made (in namespace). There are other solutions which feature the diversity in thought instead of sweep it under the rug. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To Tariqabjotu : "Honestly, I wish people would at least acknowledge the position of their adversaries, rather than simply assume one's own position is clearly correct and, therefore, your opponents are egregiously violating some central tenet"

What is the position that you would like to see acknowledged ? If it is that Jerusalem is currently controled and administered by Israel and that Israel established its capital there, I think nobody can deny this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In Tariq's example, we'd have to assess what sources say about the wines. The idea that we'd have to assess the reality of the officialness of either wine isn't how I at least understand WP:NPOV. If there are major, reliable sources that describe the issue as a dispute or controversy, then that's what we should do as well. If reliable sources overwhelmingly say the hosts' choice is the real official wine, then that's our line, too. We don't need to, and shouldn't try to, decide which wine is really the official one, that's above our pay grade. WP:NPOV says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" (boldface font in original) --Dailycare (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In that light, we are directed to avoid stating, "Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel," qualifier or no. Seriously. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what's missing from the analogy is any suggestion of controversy. What would be our position is a case where the host says that the official wine is vintage Dom Perignon, but all the guests believe they are drinking Babycham? Formerip (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

I have my own little formulation on the lede. The first paragraph of the lede, especially the first sentence, should focus on what makes the city well-known so its disputed status needs to get mentioned as well as its history. Here is my idea of how this should look.

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Template:Lang-he-n Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world and is the disputed capital of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, though neither claim is widely recognized internationally. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem is administered by Israel as its seat of government and is the country'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). The status of Jerusalem is one of the core issues in discussions of a peaceful resolution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.^[ii]

Saying it is the disputed capital of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which currently represents the declared state of Palestine, covers both nicely in my opinion as the "disputed" wording does not try to convey legitimacy on either claim and is used in reliable sources to describe the capital.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Devil's Advocate,

Why don't you use Palestine instead of Palestinian Authority ? It is not disputed that there is a State of Palestine that is named Palestine.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone recognizes the Palestinian Authority and it serves as the official government of the proclaimed state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. nableezy - 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, they certainly act as the government. Maybe it is not official, but that institution is the one that passed the law claiming Jerusalem as its capital.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The PNA is not the State of Palestine, it does not represent the State of Palestine, and the institution that declared Jerusalem the capital of Palestine in 1988 was the PLO. The PNA is a creation of the Oslo Accords, a provisional organization with some governance authority over portions of the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In the article we cite the Palestinian Basic Law, which has been passed and amended by the Palestinian Authority. Would you please express your opinion on my suggestion as a whole rather than focusing on what is essential a trivial distinction?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Palestinian Declaration of Independence is what established Jerusalem as the capital of the state, not the Palestinian Basic Law passed by a body that does not represent the state. This isnt a trivial distinction. As far as the rest of the proposal, it may be an improvement over what is currently in the article, but it isnt something that I actually support. The line on it being the largest city doesnt give any reason why EJ would be excluded, and it relegates that to after it already says it is Israel's largest city. And there is way too much about the current relatively short-lived conflict for the first paragraph of an article on a city with thousands of years of history. I already made a proposal on what I think is a good lead, and while this one has merit I wouldnt support it over the rewrite in #The edit in question. nableezy - 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think my suggestion actually has less material about the current conflict then the one you mentioned, but no matter. How about the first sentence of my suggestion specifically?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It aint bad, though I like mine more. nableezy - 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be an improvement over the current wording. Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you just going to randomly interject with your input with disregard for anything said before or after? I've twice directly asked you a question, and you've never responded.

And, no, this is not at all an improvement on what the current article says. The "disputed capital"? Look, we can drop the phrase is capital for the sake of appeasement, but inserting a weasel word is not the way to resolve it. Describe the controversy (briefly); don't just taint the claim with the word "disputed". Also what does "capital of ... the Palestinian National Authority" mean? Since when did governments have capitals? The areas they govern do. -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite the hilarity of Tariq being upset that somebody hasnt answered his question, I find myself in agreement with most of his points. Not the disputed bit being a weasel word meant to taint the claim, but after looking at it a bit more I think the word is redundant given that the next clause of the sentence already says who disputes the claim. But it cant say capital of the Palestinian Authority. Im not really a fan of the proposal either. nableezy - 19:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a distinct difference between you repeatedly asking me a question at every (often irrelevant) opportunity despite me telling you that I'm not going to answer it until the RfC begins, and Kaldari not acknowledging that I've even asked a question. I've at least acknowledged that I read what you wrote; it is entirely possible Kaldari hasn't read what I wrote, given he hasn't responded at all to anybody in both instances (to anyone, in any part of the threads). If he wants to respond with "I don't want to answer your question", I'd accept that (unlike you, who would just badger him to try to make him look bad) -- although I'm not sure why he'd do that, given the question is merely "can you confirm which section of Pluto's comment you're responding to?"

This, of course, is neither here nor there, because the sole purpose of that swipe was to just pick a fight and sustain your baseless characterization of me. -- tariqabjotu 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Id say thats more a difference without a distinction than a distinct difference, and I object to the characterization of my characterization of you as baseless. nableezy - 20:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources that state Jerusalem is the current capital of Palestine

The comments above are still going round and round in circles with those who are proposing change to the introduction refusing to take onboard the key points being made by those opposed. I asked Pluto above a few days ago a simple question, and they basically accepted they could not answer.

For those who demand this article say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, please provide the clear sources here that say Jerusalem (not just East Jerusalem) is the current capital (not proposed future capital) of a Palestinian State (not future state).

I have been involved in this debate for some time now, i am still waiting for those demanding change to provide this very basic and fundamental information. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't subscribe to the view that the article should say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine, because to do so ignores all of the sources that presents both of those claims as claims. We aren't allowed to ignore sources. I don't see any point in asking people to provide sources that represent specific subsets out there. Both Israeli and Palestinian basic law make explicit statements of fact that Jerusalem is the capital and there will of course be other sources that present these claims as facts. But so what ? This isn't a zero–sum game to see who can most successfully employ confirmation bias using google. At some point, editors need to deal with the data in the sources, not just some of it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with additional text being added to the introduction in the last couple of paragraphs that handle the situation in detail. That should include a statement of the Palestinian proclamation. Something that would fit in nicely with the line "Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital"". But i believe it would be gross undue weight to act as though that proclomation should be handled in a way that seeks to put it on the same basis in the first sentence of this article as refers to the situation with Israel. Jerusalem is the defacto and dejure capital of Israel, and it holds effective control over the entire area. That cannot be said about the Palestinian side and to try to put the two as equal as some have.. would clearly be biased and pushing the Palestinian POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sean.hoyland. That is a deformation of what is discussed. Considering Jerusalem as a whole entity doesn't reflect the facts and what you advance is not at all what is said here.

• Anyway, there are sources for this too : UNGA resolution 43/177 of 15 december 1988 recognizes the Declaration of independence of Palestine which states that : "The Palestine National Council hereby declares (...) the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem." There is no reference to East Jerusalem. The choice of Jerusalem as capital as well as the choice of East-Jerusalem as capital of Palestine has more international recognition than the choice of Jerusalem as well as the choice of West-Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
• Regarding the fact that Palestine is a State : here a source on the UNO website that says that Palestie is a State. Maybe that according to some, UNO has no legitimacy to give the status of State to a country BUT it is a WP:RS source to say to wikipedian editors what is a state or not and this WP:RS sources says it is a State.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask for sources saying it is non-member state of the United Nations, or even a sovereign state in my question. This is about what sources specifically state Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine today. I do not accept that "Acknowledges the proclamation" is accepting and agreeing with everything contained within the proclamation. And did the state of Palestine exist back then on that declaration or is it only since it became a "non-member state" of the UN? It is certainly still not a sovereign state. I would just like to see reliable sources stating Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Many sources have been provided showing tha is the case for Israel,albeit with many sources also recognising that the international community do not officially recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You have got what you asked : sources that consider that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and even if you didn't ask this that Palestine is a State.

Now that is not the point.

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you posted your arguments here as well. I already disproved them, so all just add that in-light of UN long standing position about Jerusalem, on which most(if not all) the argument disputing Israel claims here are built, you must have a real grasp of the situation, to bring UN as sources to prove its recognition of Jerusalem as Palestinian capital.--Mor2 (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who BritishWatcher is referring to, but I don't think that the article should say that Jerusalem is the current capital of Palestine. What I am most concerned with in the article is the unequivocal statement in the first sentence that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This is an israeli POV, not an undisputed universally accepted fact, and therefore a breach of WP:NPOV. I think that the best way to follow WP:NPOV is to have the first sentence be something completely neutral and don't mention anything about claims to the city or who currently occupies the city until at least the second sentence. What the neutral facts in the first sentence should be is open to discussion, but I would suggest that it could be it's location, that it is one of the oldest cities in the world or its importance in the abrahamic religions. PerDaniel (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well i am glad that a number of responses here seem to be against stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Sadly that is what some have proposed in recent months unless i was dreaming it. You say "the first sentence that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This is an israeli POV, not an undisputed universally accepted fact, and therefore a breach of WP:NPOV.", the trouble is you only quoted half the sentence. The whole sentence reads - "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii] and one of the oldest cities in the world." That first sentence is not biased or in violation of NPOV. It quite clearly states the international view which is not to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This was an argument that people won 2 years ago when demanding changes to the introduction which at the time did have a first sentence saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but with no clarifying points for balance. The article has that now. the introductions first sentence is neutral ,and the introduction itself has a large amount of text on the legalities and international view of Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I translated the norwegian word "setning" with "sentence" (which is the usual translation). After a little searching I found that the meaning og "setning" that I wanted to use is not covered by "sentence" in english, but by "clause". What I meant was the first clause of the first sentence, which I qouted. I understand that you think that the second clause of the sentence "though not internationally recognized as such" is enough to make it comply with WP:NPOV. I disagree for (at least) two reasons: Firstly because the minority POV is mentioned first, and secondly because using the word "is" (in the first clause) we are declaring that it belongs to Israel. To qoute WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". I would be agree to using "Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel" or "Israel has unilaterally declared that Jerusalem is its capital", but not as the opening clause. I have not delved into the history of the article, but if what you write is true it was even more unbalanced before. That does not justify to abstain from improving its balance now. PerDaniel (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am against stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine" for the reasons provided above. The reasons provided also rule out stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine" so I oppose those too. It has nothing to do with recognition, nothing to do with what makes something a capital, nothing to do with who has the right to decide whether something is a capital etc etc. It is simply about not being allowed to ignore sources and inconsistencies between our presentation of information and their presentation of information. It's about objectively sampling and reflecting the information in sources according to the constraints imposed by policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq's version

I think Tariq's version is the best one and I think everyone should support it:

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

Alertboatbanking (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This version has much to commend it, but I think it is a serious problem to be throwing in "...if East Jerusalem is included..." in the lead, prior to any explanation of why East Jerusalem might not be included. ETA: Yes, I do appreciate that this is how it is in the current lead, but that doesn't make it not a serious problem. Formerip (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Its only that way now because occupied was edit-warred out. nableezy - 22:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Also the bit on the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power doesnt quite get it right. Palestine has already declared it as its capital, that is what should be said. nableezy - 22:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And the first sentence is missing a conjunction. nableezy - 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Chill down with the fervor and think before posting, as its annoying to see you double triple posting.--Mor2 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Know your role. I dont care what you think is annoying, and I havent shared with you what exactly I think about your "contributions" to the discussion. nableezy - 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the rush? The RfArb seems to be focusing on a binding mediation or a binding RfC. Why do we need to jump the gun, conducting confusing parallel discussions? -- tariqabjotu 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't going to make deterministic rulings on content, that's outside of their remit. Content will (certainly should) always be referred back to the talk page. Never mind, I misread that part about the binding RFC. Still, pre-emptive discussion surely couldn't hurt. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There are major issues with this suggestions, this article is not about Jerusalem religions importance, it is not about its geographical location but about the Jerusalem the Israeli municipal city. Furthermore it seems that everyone agree that Jerusalem is currently controlled and administered by Israel, who established its capital there. So any suggestion not starting with:

Jerusalem ( /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] (is the capital of Israel / Israeli city something capital/ variations of that) the reset...

and instead try to bury the topic of this article, in the middle of an paragraph, will not gain consensus.--Mor2 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Much of Jerusalem is not Israeli in any meaning other than Israeli-occupied. nableezy - 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You already said that before and I agreed i.e. yes the world doesn't agree with Israel annexation in 1980 and regard the territory as occupied. I also said that that doesn't change anything in regard to the article, occupied or not, it still Israeli i.e. Israel is doing the zoning and planing, policing, sanitation, transportation, education etc. So what is the point you are trying to make now?--Mor2 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're using criteria that you have decided constitute a legitimate decision procedure for establishing whether something is Israeli. Content decisions can't be made that way here. I have a decision procedure that enables me to decide who is an idiot and yet annoyingly I am not allowed to deploy it in articles about living people who clearly meet the criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to decided anything, only take a look at the article. Other than standard history section, this article is about the city of Jerusalemand the services it provides, within Israeli municipal borders. Continuing to ignore this basic reality doesn't constitute a 'legitimate decision procedure' and repeating once again the fact that East Jerusalem is considered occupied, wont change that or magically create another City council, Mayor and legislative bodies with power in those areas etc. So if you can take a step back, look at it again and hopefully acknowledged this basic realty(that everyone else already did), we can't proceed with trying to figure a better way to present the geopolitical controversy. --Mor2 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you agree to the fact that Jerusalem is partly occupied, will you then agree to the article saying something along the lines of "Jerusalem is a city in Israel and Palestine, it is currently occupied by Israel and functions as Israels capital"? PerDaniel (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You ask me to acknowledge a reality ? My opinion about what constitutes reality isn't relevant to anything here. If there ever comes a time where I start thinking my opinion about reality matters, I would urge editors to file a report and make sure that I am blocked to ensure that I can't contaminate an encyclopedia that is supposed to be based on reliable sources with my version of reality. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@PerDaniel, Not 'in Palestine', even the Palestinian representative don't say that, but yes for Palestinian claim to it, and yes to the UN/world position in regard to Jerusalem. But I am not saying anything new, as I already said this before. If you have better wording which is informative to readers, reflect this article and more neutral please suggest it.

@Sean.hoyland, you mastered the art of Seinfeld. --Mor2 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

it still Israeli i.e. Israel is doing the zoning and planing, policing, sanitation, transportation, education etc.

It would help if people familiarize themselves with the literature on Jerusalem before posting inane comments or generalizations like the above. Mosheh ʻAmirav's, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City, (2009) or any number of comparable books for the reality which is that Israel's policies do not run, but 'run down' or leave in neglect most of those 'services', and don't zone or plan anything for ther Arab population. A Supreme Court case last year was required to impose an obligation on the municipality to provide Palestinians there with equal opportunities for education. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you suggesting that someone else is managing the city, your comment would be helpful only in one of the subsections presenting the POV that ISRAEL is doing a poor job of it.--Mor2 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Cant support this proposal at all, we cannot just remove the fact this is a city in Israel / capital of Israel. If so the WHOLE article needs entirely changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Much of Jerusalem is not a city in Israel. I really do not get what is so difficult to understand about that. nableezy - 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat incredulous of the notion that perhaps the only city to have ever been the subject of a UN decision designating it as "a "separated body" with a special legal and political status, administered by the United Nations" under the circumstance of a yet to be resolved conflict should be introduced as if its status with respect to that conflict had been resolved.

Moreover, I'm interested in hearing specifically what sections of the article BritishWatcher is concerned about having to be rewritten. The scope of the article encompasses much more than the contentious point as to the current disposition of the city/cities.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Recognizing (and reflecting) the suspended status in no uncertain terms

New here. Having read through some of these comments, it seems that the opening sentence of the lead is tantamount to tilting the perception of the reader in a manner such as to impart the impression that Israel is only temporarily not recognized under international law by the international community, but that their lawyers are working on that and will have the matter taken care of in not time. One editor has favored the term "dejure" in describing the city as the capital of Israel, and another has tried to emphasize that the article is more about administration of the municipality than history or political status. Those would seem to be clearly biased POV positions. I don't have the time to go through this presently, nor do I have an alternative to propose, but it would appear to be self-apparent from a grammatical standpoint that using the verb "is" in the univocal opening sentence serves to substantiate Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in a manner such as to circumvent admission of the surrounding controversy. That would seem to be maybe a little duplicitous, as it amounts to a surreptitious representation of the hoped for outcome of the real world state of affairs as promoted by editors favoring that outcome, in disregard of the countervailing circumstances.

The statement by PerDaniel seems accurate with respect to the fact that the current opening prioritizes the Israeli agenda over and against the declared position of the Palestinians vis-a-vis East Jerusalem, as well as that of the international community, and therefore constitutes a non-neutral POV.

Firstly because the minority POV is mentioned first, and secondly because using the word "is" (in the first clause) we are declaring that it belongs to Israel. To qoute WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts".

Clearly the issue of the city's (cities?)has not been settled, so why shouldn't the opening sentence more accurately reflect that circumstance?--Ubikwit (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

And, again, this entire comment is predicated on the idea that recognition makes a city a capital. The idea that Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel and that the rest of the world doesn't recognize Jerusalem as legally the capital of Israel are not necessarily mutually exclusive statements. If you are in the camp that detests the current wording, they are as you believe recognition or legality makes the capital. But if you're in the camp that's fine with the current wording, they aren't as you do not believe recognition or legality makes the capital. This is a central issue. Neither belief has really been explicitly substantiated by sources, so it is wrong to flatly state that those for the current wording are violating NPOV, as it is wrong to flatly state those against it are violating NPOV. It's a matter of interpretation.

From my perspective, the onus is on those against the current wording to provide substance to their interpretation to get the wording changed. But even if we were to start at zero and assume both sides have an equal responsibility to prove their interpretation is correct, that has proven to be an impossible task for those in support of the current wording, as our proofs by omission have been stymied by claims of WP:SYNTH, when not being attacked by suggestions that those making them are just Israeli apologists. I feel that if the interpretation made by those against the wording was actually correct, it'd be much easier to demonstrate. Find a source that says, because of the lack of recognition, that Israel has no capital, we'd find the counterpoint to the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Find a source that says, because of the location of embassies or because Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal, etc, that Tel Aviv is actually the capital of Israel, we'd find the counterpoint to the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". But repeated requests for such have not been fulfilled.

Now, this isn't to say I'm against any change to the current wording. I'm perfectly happy with an in-between, although not one as pithy and uninformative as in most sources, that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions based on the points (that Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, that Israel's government is focused there, and that most countries don't recognized Israel's claim) that in sum have led to the conclusions on both sides. Readers can decide for themselves what they believe is or is not relevant. I've come to this conclusion less because I believe those supporting change have ever given a convincing reason for their allegations that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital" is against any of our policies, but because (aside from decreasing the likelihood of someone complaining about the article) it's more informative than what we currently have. I, for example, would not definitively say, from the perspective of someone with no background knowledge, that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" juxtaposed with "although it's not internationally recognized as such" implies that Israel's government is situated in Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, I'm not sure your description of the various positions captures everything. I oppose the current statement of fact because it's inconsistent with the numerous sources that don't present the information as a statement of fact. Why some sources don't present it as a statement of fact doesn't matter. All that matters on this specific "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" statement is that there is an inconsistency between us and them. That's enough to show that there is something wrong from a policy perspective. Whether recognition or anything else makes a city a capital isn't relevant to the statement of fact issue at all. Whether lack of recognition is why some sources present it as a claim doesn't matter. Recognition is a separate issue. Even if every single source agreed that recognition is required and a city cannot be a capital without recognition, we would still have to deal with the "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" statement the same way we have to deal with it now, by changing it so that it reflects the way the diversity of sources present the information. We would still not be allowed to say "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" on the basis that it is not recognized. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a convincing reason and reasonable approach, but that's not the approach most have been taking. -- tariqabjotu 19:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the more I think about it, they stranger your approach sounds. It's still fine -- as I said I'm already OK with rewording the first paragraph -- but it's a bit unorthodox to say that even though some sources say X, because many/most other sources don't say X, we can't say X -- even if there are no sources that say X is not true. Unorthodox, but I'll let it slide as it's not worth my time to argue against a point in order to keep something I'm fine dropping. -- tariqabjotu 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well Tariq omitted what for me is the most important consideration, the semantic ambiguity of 'Jerusalem', which in Israeli usage is a unified city, and in international usage refers to a divided city (Seddon's definition, which I've cited elsewhere). It follows that the NPOV character of any generalization must be calibrated against this fact, which has nothing to do with recognition, but with the contested denotation of the term Jerusalem. When Ben-Gurion declared Jerusalem its capital in 1949 ('Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel and its eternal capital'), was he asserting that Jerusalem across the Jordanian cease-fire lines, in Jordanian-held territory, was part of Israel? No. He was declaring that 'West Jerusalem' was the capital of Israel. The occupation from 1967 onwards changed one thing. Israel extended its denotation to include East Jerusalem, so that 'Jerusalem' in the Israeli POV refers thereafter to the whole city. The word 'Jerusalem' however, in international usage, is inflected by conflicting land claims to title, meaning that the city remains a divided city, and as a consequence, East Jerusalem cannot be called part of Israel, because it is, as a matter of fact and law, not in the state of Israel. Even the ostensible annexation law is questioned as not in fact annexation (Ian Lustick). So assertions that (undivided) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is to assert that Israel has its capital partially in a foreign country, which is without precedent.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Copied from my statement at the current arbitration request:

After the 1967 War, the UN passed a series of resolutions stating that any current or past unilateral Israeli attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, East and West, were invalid, including Israel's Basic Law of 1980 which declared Jerusalem its capital.

As one example, see Resolution 478 of 1980: "[the UN Security Council] determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith." As another example, see Resolution 267 of 1969: "that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status." (see article Positions on Jerusalem)

Accordingly, the UK government, for example, takes the position that: "... no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. The UK believes that the city's status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned." One recent demonstration of the disputed status of Jerusalem was at the London Olympics, where the BBC listed Jerusalem as the seat of government, rather than capital, of Israel (and East Jerusalem as the intended seat of government of Palestine). Another concerned a complaint made to the UK Press Complaints Commission about The Guardian stating that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The Commission ruled that there had been no breach of its code (The Guardian subsequently updated its style guide so that it no longer calls Tel Aviv Israel´s capital, instaed just stating that Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel).

    ←   ZScarpia   18:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. And? What are you responding to and what conclusion are you drawing from this? I don't think anyone in these discussions has not seen the text of UN Resolution 478 and I, at least, have seen the other sources already. None of these statements are tantamount to saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is false. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you can see from the indentation, it's a response to your comment. And? It shows that, as far as "the international community" is concerned, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, nor, East or West, Israeli territory. On Wikipedia, facts are things that reliable sources agree on. If something is disputed, it must be presented as an opinion rather than a fact. Your comments indicate that you can't get your head round that (an odd state of affairs for an admin). To you, it is a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and that is the way it should be presented in the article. To you, the contrary views make no difference to it being a fact. However, your view of what a fact is and Wikipedia´s definition of what a fact is don´t mesh. Here, the contrary views do matter. Your "fact" is only an opinion. Your comments also indicate that you can´t get your head round what the presentation of the status of Jerusalem in terms of opinions means or what the aim of those opposing you is. Stating that it is the Israeli view that Jerusalem is Israel´s capital doesn´t mean that Jerusalem is not Israel´s capital.     ←   ZScarpia   19:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside your minority stance that not even West Jerusalem is considered Israeli territory today, if you're going to take the stance that "Most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital" is equivalent to "Most countries believe Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", you're going to need a source that says that. Your sources support the first statement -- which has been in the first sentence for years and in the article since its inception -- but they do not support the second. You'll have to find a source that says recognition makes a city a capital. Or you're going to have to find a source that says, based on the lack of recognition, some other city is the actual capital of Israel or that Israel actually has no capital at all. Unless you can do that -- and I don't believe you can -- I suggest you stick to Sean's approach, perhaps the only presented here that could necessitate a change to the lead while not requiring proof [which doesn't seem to exist] that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is false. -- tariqabjotu 20:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It astonishes me that, after so many years, you still can't understand what the arguments being made in opposition to yours are. That includes mine and Sean's, which, I think, is the closest to mine of any editor here. The sources I provided show that the status of Jerusalem, including its status as a capital, is disputed. The UN resolutions say that any Israeli acts which change the status of Jerusalem, including the Basic Law, which declared Jerusalem Israel´s capital, are not valid. As far as UN member states are concerned, actually, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, which is why the guidelines for The Guardian and the BBC state that Jerusalem should not be referred to in that way. Wikipedia policies being what they are, therefore, you can't state as a fact rather than an opinion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, as is done in the first part of the sentence (though you can state that it is the declared capital of Israel or the capital under Israeli law as no sources would dispute that). The sources I provided don´t support the first part of the sentence in any way. I am curious to know how you derived that opinion. Given that you seem to be having extreme difficulty understanding editors' viewpoints which oppose yours, perhaps you're having difficulty understanding the sources too? When something is disputed, the neutrality rule says that all significant sides should be presented and presented in the form of opinions. What is proscribed is editors arguing that the opinion of the side they support is the true one and presenting it as a fact. That is what your argument about what makes a city a capital, for which there aren't any fixed criteria in any case, amounts to. The name for that is point-of-view pushing. Minority? Oh right! You quickly deleted the last source quotation you provided to try and argue that, my guess being that you might have had an inkling that it tended to oppose, rather than support, your argument.     ←   ZScarpia   10:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources I provided don´t support the first part of the sentence in any way. I am curious to know how you derived that opinion.

You're shooting yourself in the foot. You're accusing me of "having extreme difficulty understanding editors' viewpoints", and then you make that statement. I did not say what you said I did in the comment you're responding to. You're misunderstanding a central tenet of my comment, which suggests you didn't understand any part of my comment. Let me repeat what I did say:

...if you're going to take the stance that "Most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital" is equivalent to "Most countries believe Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", you're going to need a source that says that. Your sources support the first statement...

In other words, I see a difference between not recognizing the status of a city as capital and believing it's not, as a point of fact, the capital. You don't see a difference, as you've suggested repeatedly. From my perspective "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel" are not mutually exclusive, as recognition doesn't decide the status of the city; from your perspective, they are. This difference of opinion then points back to my comment at 18:03, December 20; absent any evidence that your interpretation is correct and absent any sources that explicitly state that regardless of the indicators that generally denote capital status (national proclamation, placement of government), because of the lack of recognition, Jerusalem is not the capital or that some other city is actually the capital, you have no basis to denounce the opposing view as just an Israeli POV. Your sources do not provide such evidence, and yet you are speaking about them as if they do.

So, we are left with some sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, many sources that waffle about the issue, and no sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital. In that case, you are left to argue that either (a) we should put "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" because it is supported by some sources and negated by none (my position) or (b) we should waffle about the issue simply because most sources do (how I understand Sean's position). The staunch assertion, though, that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a minority, Israel POV is without basis, considering you have yet to present reliable sources that negate the point -- as I requested you to do more than a month ago.

Minority? Oh right! You quickly deleted the last source quotation you provided to try and argue that...

I have no idea what you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 17:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Btw Ubikwit, you know that there is whole article that deals exclusively with political/legal positions, instead of the city it self? --Mor2 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Content forking does not relieve us of the responsibility of outlining an overview on the main topic page. Welcome Ubikwit! ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, ClaudeReigns, and to Mor2 for the tip on the existence of that article.

I meant to write a couple of brief abstract comments and once I started looking at the pages I ended up spending an hour or more writing the following comment. It will be apparent, I would imagine, that I haven't read a lot of sources on the topic, but believe I am familiar enough with the basics to contribute something that may move the discussion forward.

I can see that this is going to take some sustained study and effort, but I'm sure there must be a way to either find a compromise solution or at least expose the fault lines for what they are, which may contribute to explicating the real world scenario in a manner that facilitates a better presentation of the subject matter. I just found the Positions on Jerusalem article, and having read the first paragraph or so, am of the opinion that the lead of this article should reflect the content of that article instead of pretending that the disposition of the city has been defacto and dejure settled.

Since I am not familiar with the specifics, I will try to restrict this comment in response to Tariq to more abstract issues.

I think that the notion that

Readers can decide for themselves what they believe is or is not relevant.

is important to the discussion, because of both the various possible dispositions the city/cities could take on in the future, and because of the linguistic mode of presenting that to the reader.

Why I am opposed to the positivistic attribution of the current sentence is because it implies that the status of Jerusalem is fundamentally established in a semi-permanent way, only awaiting "recognition". That presents an existential status to the reader that does not reflect the complexity of the situation in a manner such as to "decide what they believe is relevant or not".

To me, it is not even clear, given the historical relevance of the city, that the attribute of its contested status as capital city of Israel belongs in the opening sentence. If you put that in the opening sentence, you cut off some avenues of explicated the complexities of the history as it relates to the potential configurations that might take form in the future.

In fact, at a glance it seems to me the opening sentence should start with the phrase, "Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world," because that immediately opens up the historical horizon of the city for the consideration of the reader, whereas the current version of the sentence closes that horizon off.

It seem that the force with which government of Israel is trying to present the city as its undivided capital city represents an attempt to efface history, and the opening sentence in its current form would seem to support that, insofar as, once again, it closes off the routes of considering the alternatives to that unilateral, highly unlikely hoped for outcome of the Israeli government with respect to the eventual disposition of the city.

The solution I think lies in some phrasing that presents the temporal horizon of the current control of the city by the government of Israel against the broader historical horizon, with oblique reference to the most likely courses of progress toward an eventual compromise disposition of the city at some point in the future. And that is complicated by the Jerusalem-East Jerusalem division, annexation, etc. ::But to allow the opening sentence to state in a substantiating manner that the entire city is the capital of Israel would seem somewhat misleading (and perhaps not neutral) as to the reality of the situation. That is why the use of the phrase "dejure", in particular, is something I feel compelled to take issue with--though I am not an attorney--because would seem to be dejure only with respect to the laws promulgated by the government of Israel, which would appear not to be recognized as having force under international law. Does international law have "force"? That may soon be found out if the Palestinians go to the ICJ, but I don't know whether even an attorney could answer that in a definitive manner.

Just looking further at the lead paragraph, from a literary/rhetoric point of view, the introduction of East Jerusalem would seem rather disjointed. Why is there not a prior mention that the city is divided in the first place? Again, this would seem to support the agenda of the Israeli government to present it as unified, which in turn is another means to substantiate their claims on the entire city. And that is further supported by the statement that, "It is Israels largest city... if East Jerusalem is included." This sentences, too, effaces the historical status of the city. What does a phrase like, "if East Jerusalem is included" do there. Well, it might indicate to an astute reader that there is more to the picture than meets the eye, but it might cause another reader simply to gloss over the issue of the existence of East Jerusalem as a non-issue.

Is there no better way to introduce the existence of "East Jerusalem". That is perhaps the crux of the problem. The existence of East Jerusalem is in fact something that the Israeli government would seem to be intent on changing by integrating East Jerusalem with Jerusalem, wiping the brief existence of East Jerusalem out of the collective memory before the Palestinians with the support of the international community make the division permanent in a two-state solution. Anyway, that is a major controversy that is being glossed over, it would seem.

I'm inclined to think that there is a possibility that the continued existence of "East Jerusalem" as such and the status of Jerusalem as the "undivided capital city of Israel" may not be compatible in view of the position of the government of Israel vis-a-vis the disposition of the city/cities of Jerusalem (/East Jerusalem), but perhaps that is obfuscated in the lead.

The inclusion of the word "also" in the end sentence of the opening paragraph, "Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam" would seem to subordinate the substantial historical import and actual religious status of the city to the political claims being pushed by the current government of Israel.

OK, well, I intended to just write a couple of theoretical statements and have ended up doing a preliminary analysis, so I'm going to make some preliminary comments on some specifics.

From a quick check of the Judaean Mountains article, it seems that they span Palestinian territory as well. Do the Palestinians call them the Judaean Mountains, too? If not, then one would assume the naming convention would only apply if Israel had sovereignty over the entire mountain range. Maybe Hebron Hills is more neutral? Maybe geography and demographics could be moved to the second paragraph.

In lieu of the forgoing, it seems to me that maybe the entire first paragraph be dedicated to concisely explicating the current scenario against the complex history, with an eye to the future. That in itself seems a rather difficult task, but the present version seem to me a disjointed effort that deprecates the historical background and fails to foreground the most likely possibilities for an eventual compromise disposition in favor of presenting a hypostacized version of the present.

I should read more about these issues (including the related Talk pages), but I don't think I will have much time for that in the near future, so I will probably be more of a follower than active participant on this article, excepting the unlikely event that these thoughts generate some impetus. --Ubikwit (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

This article is not about the capital city of Israel, nor about History of Jerusalem but about the Jersualem city. Since you think that its historical relevance is not explored enough, I decided to drill down of what we have in the lead of this article:

• First Paragraph: Introduction, providing a basic overview of the city article(see also infobox)
• Second Paragraph: Stipulate the city Historic roots.
• Third Paragraph: Stipulate the city long religious significance to Jews,Christian and Muslims.
• Fourth Paragraph: Stipulate the city current status as a core issue in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
• Fifth Paragraph: Points Palestinian stake in East Jerusalem.
• Six Paragraph: Something notable I presume.--Mor2 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that it isn't worth discussing, but maybe discussion of the extent to which Jerusalem can be divorced from its history and the overall structure of the article could be moved to its own section. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think what Ubikwit was saying was that the semantics which we use in the lead section have a certain power which should be minded and respected. A single word can the shift balance. I had also mentioned earlier how the brief mention of East Jerusalem in the smallest way promotes a divided city. I think what he's saying is, it's a divided city - don't hedge.

Mor2 has given a rundown of when we do have. Here's what we should have in the most general terms:

• Define the topic
• Establish context
• Explain why the topic is notable
• Summarize the most important points-including any prominent controversies

My understanding was that we promote the capital controversy because it also speaks to notability. Trivial basic facts are also something which add flavor to lead sections and are suggested. I suggest that since he has an elegant pen for such things, we should invite Ravpapa to edit for flavor once we decide how we will present the harder aspects of lead. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

@Formerip, The point wasn't to discuss the article structure, but note the lead structure. Contrary to what it may seem to anyone following the discussion, the lead is composed from more than just the first sentence. --Mor2 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit draft

I see that several of the issues have been discussed above (even though I’ve yet to read through all comments). Let me just clarify that as ClaudeReigns stated, there are a number of semantics issues that relate to neutrality, as well as some syntactical points that are important to the presentation of the content.

At least until the present dispute between the government of Israel and the Palestnians/international community over the disposition of the city is resolved, the opening paragraph should present the current situation in the broader context of the history of the city. I see that several drafts that do open with the statements situating Jerusalem with respect to historical aspects that are reflect the priorities I have suggested.

Does Israel have administrative facilities in East Jerusalem?

Is there some phrasing other than “is considered holy” that reflects the religious import without embracing monotheism by the use of terms such as holy? Same for Abrahamic, something more generic seems more neutral in respect of the status of Jesus and Muhammad to the second and third religions on the list.

Here is a quick draft of a lead intended to be more concise as well as inclusive, and less controversial. I have tried to present the relevant aspects in a manner that would facilitate their explication and access in the main text with better readability with respect to each of the various views on the respective issues.

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is an object of religious veneration in relation to its connection to the founding of each of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established the seat of its government in the western part of the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, and the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of the future state of Palestine. A sentence introducing demographics and geography could be tacked onto the above paragraph or integrated into another paragraph that introduces those in a more comprehensive manner integrated with other modern characteristics of the city.

--Ubikwit (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Seems like an improvement. Some thoughts and concerns:

• The first sentence is a bit wordy. Could it be more concise?
• I believe Palestine claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, just as Israel does, not just East Jerusalem.
• Palestine is already a "state" (according to most of the world); it just isn't a sovereign and independent state.

Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A diplomatic nuance: one may believe based on previous reliable sources that Palestine claims all of Jerusalem as its capital. A recent contrast may be found. According to Ynetnews, as of 29 Nov 2012, Abbas' stated position is that "the Palestinians will not accept anything less than an independent state with east Jerusalem as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967"

• Benhorin, Yitzhak. General Assembly recognizes Palestine as observer state Ynetnews 30 Nov 2012

Would this, if believed, represent a shift in position? Is it reliable? Does it have any weight? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I hope I'm up to this task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How's this (changes bolded)?

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is a site of religious veneration connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established its seat of its government in the western part of the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, and the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine.

I replaced the definite article with the indefinite before the mention of the "the state of Palestine" on the basis of the intimate connection of the resolution of the question of the status of Jerusalem to the as yet somewhat tenuous "two-state" solution, but I'm not sure that's accurate.

Here's an alternative draft of the first sentence.

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is an object of religious veneration as a site connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Strongly oppose this proposal which seeks to completely change the introduction and would have implications for the entire article, fundamentally changing the way these matters have been handled for MANY years. If people seek to push ahead with such radical changes, then they better be prepared for the article to need entirely rewriting. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand. It seems like this is going to change everything. I can't guarantee that the article won't need some further revision. I just ask that you remain patient a little while longer as the semantic equation is being worked out in anticipation of a second draft to add some lightness and warmth to the tone. If you are still uncomfortable at that point, then let's talk about those further changes. I don't want to make assumptions about how you foresee them. Is that okay, BritishWatcher? ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole process is going to be deeply flawed anyway so it is hard not to look at this situation with a lack of confidence. It seems now that 3 administrators will decide the outcome by decree. An absolutely terrible method that entirely undermines everything that wikipedia is meant to be about.

Just as long as people recognise the fundamental nature of the changes that are going to be needed if the changes being talked about are implemented. This is no longer about the basic wording of the first paragraph or introduction as a whole. This is about if this entire article after many many years should be changed to no longer treat Jerusalem as a city in Israel. I dont think people quite realise the magnitude of the potential change that is being required if that is altered, it will will have far reaching consequences not just for this article but numerous articles on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the proposed lead obscures the fact that, "Jerusalem is a city in Israel", but that statement about Jerusalem is something of a loaded statement, and only represents only a slice of the scope of the significance of Jerusalem and its status as a city/cities. I do not see how the proposed change to the lead--of which there have been similar versions proposed heretofore by others--preculdes the adequate treament of Jerusalem as a city in Israel, along with the treatment of Jerusalem as all of the other aspects of the city that should be presented. --Ubikwit (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Let's suppose, without looking too far ahead, that you could write the very next passage in the lead section. I am interested to hear what you would say. You may wish to speak of Jerusalem as an Israeli city. I think the object would be to speak to a number of facts which indicate Israel's de facto position and things as they stand. You may also remember that trivia is allowed and welcome in the lead section. How would it go? ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the approach we should take to the first paragraph should be along these lines..

"Jerusalem is capital of Israel, though not internationally recognised as such. It’s future status remains one of the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Palestinians claiming East Jerusalem as the capital of a future sovereign and independent State of Palestine. It 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. Jerusalem is also a holy city to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

I have no view or preference in terms of how the religious sentence should be handled or if it is needed in that first sentence, but im just working from the current paragraph and the proposal above trying to alter it as a compromise. Removing the specific mention of the population / area size, which could be handled better in the later paragraphs of the introduction where the whole dispute is gone into in more detail in terms of if East Jerusalem is or isnt included. But the opening two sentences state the position fairly in my view without forcing this article to be radically changed throughout after many years of one style. Id also not object to it just saying Palestinians claiming Jerusalem rather than East Jerusalem if that is more accurate. But i believe to try and avoid stating Jerusalem is currently in Israel would be far too problematic for the whole article and not reflect the reality of the situation. Just because some countries do not recognise something, does not mean it does not exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem largely is not in Israel. That is the reality of the situation. nableezy - 15:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Just because some countries do not recognise something, does not mean it does not exist": No one is trying to deny that Jerusalem exists, the problem is where it exists. According to most sources it exists on the internationally accepted boundary between Israel and a palestinian state which may or may not control part of it in the future. By using the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", we (wikipedia) are saying that it rightfully belongs to Israel. This is not in line with WP:NPOV. Just because one change will cause a lot of change in other articles is no reason to break core principles. PerDaniel (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

By using the phrase "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", we (wikipedia) are saying that it rightfully belongs to Israel.

Ugh. That conclusion is nowhere in that sentence. If you infer that, it's your fault. -- tariqabjotu 15:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why one of the motivations for at least some of the people supportive of the current wording is because Jerusalem is in Israel or Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Must be our fault for seeing that. nableezy - 15:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that is a complete misrepresentation and misapplication of BritishWatcher's point. I'll leave it to him to explain why, if he so chooses. -- tariqabjotu 18:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

this is not about who is right or wrong in terms of the final status, which is why i proposed including that wording making it very clear its future status remains part of the conflict. It is about reality on the ground, and the massive changes that would be required to this article and many others if all of a sudden we decided that wikipedia will not explain the situation in the way it does. I fail to see how my proposed wording of the first two sentence is in any way a violation of NPOV, it states boths sides point of view and the fact that its future remains up for negotiation. Its not so much the is Jerusalem the capital of Israel or not, its more the city in Israel bit. It does not take long looking through the article to find dozens of things that would need changing, if we change things to a situation where we do not say if this is a city in Israel or not. We cannot say Jerusalem might be a city in Israel or it might be a city in Palestine. We can be clear that the future remains to be decided. But the first sentence of this article must not overlook the fact that it is the defacto, dejure capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not talking about a final status. The current status is that East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory that Israel has held under military occupation since 1967. East Jerusalem is not in Israel, and if you want to have an article about an Israeli city you need to remove everything on East Jerusalem, including the Old City. Your final sentence is confusing to me, as it is de jure the capitol of Israel only under Israeli law. It is, at least EJ, de jure occupied Palestinian territory under international law. And Tariq, you still think I was misrepresenting his position (or Mor2's for that matter)? nableezy - 19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, why don't you just ask him if he believes all of Jerusalem rightfully belongs to Israel (or, rather, that the article should say that)? So far, I don't see anything suggesting he's saying that. From my understanding, he's saying we can't pretend as if half of the city is not currently Israeli, i.e. pretend that Jerusalem functions as a divided city. While the ideas of West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem do exist and have legal importance, they are not two separate cities with two separate governments. They are not divided by walls. Jerusalem is a single city, and we shouldn't ascribe excessive weight to the idea that it was, and perhaps might be again, divided. If we were to imply otherwise (and I'm not sure the proposals are really suggesting that), then we'd have to drastically change the article. -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

None of my previous comments have anything to do with it rightly belonging to anybody, so Im unsure who you are supposed to be replying to. What he has said, and what Mor2 has said, is that it currently is Israeli or in Israel. Which is what I would expect a reader to think when they see this article. No, there are not any walls dividing Jerusalem, but that does not mean that the Green Line does not exist or that a large portion of Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories. I havent said that this article should remove material related to EJ, what I said is if people insist on having this article take the position that Jerusalem is strictly Israeli or in Israel then material on locations that are not in Israel or Israeli in any sense other than Israeli-occupied should be removed. Which was what I was trying to get at earlier with my question What is Jerusalem?. If Jerusalem is (1) whatever Israel defines as being Jerusalem, city limits, ring neighborhoods, united capital ..., then nobody can argue with a straight face that an article that takes the Israeli position represent[s] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If Jerusalem is (2) a city that straddles the Green Line between Israel and the Palestinian territories then the lead should reflect that. And if Jerusalem is (3) only what is in Israel, then everything on its history prior to the 20s and everything east of the Green Line should not be in this article. People seem to want to take 3's position for the first sentence but have the rest of 2's content included, minus the pesky bits about Palestinians and international law. nableezy - 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

None of my previous comments have anything to do with it rightly belonging to anybody

Okay, but you see, it's not all about you. I responded to PerDaniel's comment about "Jerusalem is the capital" meaning Jerusalem is rightfully Israel's. If you didn't disagree with my comment, you probably should not have responded or at least not said, and I quote:

Which is why one of the motivations for at least some of the people supportive of the current wording is because Jerusalem is in Israel or Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Must be our fault for seeing that.

I assumed you don't just ejaculate one of your trademark quips every time you see me comment, and actually say something relevant to the discussion. Spare me the step where you explain how your words meant something totally different from what you said; I'm not interested. -- tariqabjotu 02:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, if you cant spend the time to read and understand what people write then you should really stop complaining about others distorting your view or attributing to you the views of others who arrive at the same conclusion as you. Otherwise, somebody might get a certain, Im sure mistaken, impression about the quality of your character. I meant what I wrote, and you seemingly choose to ignore that to argue against an easier position to discredit. Something that you have, repeatedly, found insulting when people do it you. Theres that impression forming again. nableezy - 02:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But it seems that the sources provided above by ZScarpia are basically being ignored, for starters, and even by attempting to push a statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel you are pushing a POV that the conflict has been resolved in favor of the position of the Israeli government, and that cannot possibly be considered a balanced presentation of the situation with a neutral point of view.

What are your objections to my characterization in terms of

"Israel has established the seat of its government in the city"?

That introduces the state of affairs in a balanced manner with a neutral point of view and accommodates the further presentation of the various standpoints of all parties concerned in the main body of the article, serving as a reference that frames the more detailed discussion in the main body.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The problem with that phrase is that it isnt true. Israel has built government buildings in East Jerusalem, for example the Ministry of Public Security. nableezy - 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I've removed "western part of the" from that phrase in the working version of the paragraph below. I left the wording as is, that is to say, as "city" instead of "Jerusalem", of course. I had actually asked at some point in my ruminations above whether it was in fact the case that the Israeli government had (or had not) established any administrative facilities in the east side, as I am probably the least well-informed person with respect to the specifics, though I would not say I am uninformed, and this is within my scope of competence, just in a geographical area somewhat outside of my focus.

At any rate, the fact that they have established administrative facilities in East Jerusalem is a further point of controversy, no doubt, and would seem to further problematizes the balance/neutrality of the current opening paragraph. Not only is the Israeli government violating the UN declarations related to Jerusalem, they are flaunting their violations.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

current draft with sentence added to end of paragraph

So that everyone can examine the actual paragraph as a whole as it stands at this stage.

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is a site of religious veneration connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established the seat of its government in the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community, however, does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, while the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine. The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Does anyone else read it a different way if you forget to process the comma in "Israeli government, while the Palestinians"? It may be genius. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's genius. There may be a way for everyone to get what they want on this one. Who hates it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, a belated thanks for the flattering comment, but I took it in the flow of developing discussions that you heartfully approve of the text, and neglected to acknowledge the compliment. Compliments higher than "genius" are hard to find! Much obliged.

In light of the questions from Mor2, I have been compelled to further examine the lead in its entirety, and was somewhat put aback by what I found. At any rate, I'm looking forward to our input regarding the proposed 3-paragraph structure for the lead I've described below in rough form.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I don't see this as anything but a rehash of previous proposals. In this case you ignore what is and provide a bad summary/repetition of another paragraph in the lead. Hiding the fact that this an Israeli city(nothing todo with politics, but administration), removing other basic info and giving prominence to the political issue, that has nothing todo with article.(like future Palestinian state?!) Even though this is the article about the city and not the political positions on Jerusalem. This maybe your current draft, but it looks like another draft that in has proven to have no consensus.--Mor2 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To try and keep it constructive, i'll elaborate/repeat several of the concerns/issues that I see here:

1. The phrase "holy city to the three major" was replaced, with "site of religious veneration connected to the founding". While I don't mind the change, I'd like to know why cahnge the current more popular and common terminology.(btw is it actually connected to founding or has religious significance?).
2. The fact that this article is about the Israeli administered city, which has been established as their official capital was dropped between the lines.
3. When the subject of capital brought up, Israel established capital becomes "established seat of its government". When the term "capital" is brought up its in relation to Israel "future undivided capital city"(future?!), followed by "this claim is not recognized, while Palestinians claim it as their capital"(paraphrased). - Also note that that between the established and the claim there are 30 years.
4. Why expand the current "capital of future Palestinian state" to "the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine". If you add that they claim is since 1988 you'll be half way to 'state of Palestine' lead.
5. Also the city wasn't "partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948" but divided by the Israeli-Arab war of 1948.
6. Overall it seems that you are trying todo a lead section to the lead, providing unnecessary repetition. Note how the current lead provide informative summary and logical progression. The only thing that goes out of that way is the "capital of Israel," part, IMO it can't be avoided as it is one of the main/standard characteristics of a city, but it is immediately balanced by as imple statement that is not recognized as such and later expanded. --Mor2 (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll respond to several points in line.

1. Not everyone in the world is a follower of one of the three religions that trace their founding at least partly to the city, so it seems to me that the article should not adopt the vocabulary of monotheism to describe an important city related to its history. I would propose that its religious significance and connection to founding are related, but I’ll defer to the section on “Religious significance” for the specifics of its connection to David, Jesus and Mohammad.
2. ClaudeReigns has addressed that concern in terms of suggesting that the second paragraph address things like demographics, geography and administration, and has mentioned some specific statistics.
3. I think the sentence introduces the fact that the Israeli government currently controls the city, and foregrounds the pending issues in terms of indirect reference to recent claims made by the respective leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority against the background of the partitioning, while simultaneously introducing East Jerusalem as a proper noun following the description of the historical fact of the partitioning.
4. This was introduced based on a concern voiced by Kaldari above. I had contemplated removing future, but could find no other way to reflect both the current flux in the status of the state of Palestine and the relation of the eventual official recognition of a sovereign and independent state of Palestine with respect to the issue of the status of Jerusalem.
5. I think that the phrasing with “partitioned” is more inclusive, encompassing the full scope of the events, including the UN involvement. The specifics relate to the existence of the Green Line, etc., as pointed out by nableezy, but the status of the current political situation is clearly being presented against the historical background in a manner such as to facilitate reader comprehension of the complexities involved. The final sentence presenting a definitive statement by the UN brings resonance to that aspect.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I agree that not everyone is a follower of one of the three religions. In fact some of us don't follow any religion and yet I fail to see how the use of the term "Holy city" offend or a problem to anyone.(btw look inside link, its not only monotheistic religions).

Furthermore Jerusalem religious significance is related in the third paragraph of the lead, while the first paragraph gives a quick run around of the city characteristics per the article topic. i.e. its Holy city, Capital city, oldest city, largest city etc. Trying to introduce it in the most neutral way, avoiding any pandora boxes that can't be explained in a couple of words and thus have their own sections.

As for ClaudeReigns addressing the issue in 2. I have already addressed his addressal before, infact many other objected to similar drafts and taking one side wont get you a consensus. Furthermore the lead suppose to be as informative as possible with the least amount of words, so take care how you address each concern. I suggest looking at the article/lead as whole, or better start small. I don't know why everyone think that they can build a whole new lead that would satisfy everyone, when in the past several years less than a sentence was introduced!.--Mor2 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Mor2 - sorry, what was your reply? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "holy" is a term that has origins in a specific cultural context that does not readily translate into languages of countries that have other religious traditions. I am something of a linguist, and the Wikipedia Holy city article is somewhat problematic with respect to that point. This is related to the general topic of naming conventions, or alternatively simply using generic descriptive language that is neutral. I used the phrasing incorporating the term "veneration" because that represents a cross-culturally readily translatable emotional and social phenomena related to "religion", which is also a phenomena that in its generic capacity is intelligible across cultures; thus, "religious veneration" is a phrase that neutrally describes the disposition (intentional state) held by followers of any of the three monotheistic religions mentioned with respect to the city.

Here is a link to a search result for "holy city" on a popular online dictionary in Japan. Space ALC Japanese-English/English-Japanese dictionary. Note that all but one of the results (and that usage is a descriptive statement) pertain to one of the three monotheistic religions mentioned in this article. Generally speaking the fields of descriptive linguistics and prescriptivism are concerned with such questions.

I have taken a brief glance at the entire lead and corresponding portions of the article, and must admit that it seems somewhat disjointed and lacking cohesion. From a rhetorical perspective, I have to beg to differ with regard to the avoidance of "pandora boxes", as it seems to be to lack thematic focus of any sort, and mentions various important points without indicating how they are related, when in fact they are intimately related. First, considering the fact that there are only four relatively brief paragraphs under the "Religious significance" section, it seems to me that the somewhat lengthy paragraph in the lead (the longest paragraph in the lead) is disproportionate to the amount of text in the main body. I think that the opening paragraph under consideration would enable that paragraph to be substantially condensed or even removed from the lead, as the relationship of the historical importance to the religious significance of the city has been stated in a concise manner; moreover, there is an entire separate article on the Religious significance of Jerusalem.

I also think that lead paragraph under consideration would allow for the fourth paragraph of the lead to be integrated and condensed, as the points relating to the "undivided capital" and the UN statement in the final statement have already been set forth in a concise introduction. With respect to the fifth paragraph, it would seem that the demographics, geographic and administrative introductions could be incorporated into a single paragraph, which I would propose be third, as opposed to second, which was the order put forth by ClaudeReigns. I think that if that paragraph is placed between the proposed lead paragraph and the current second paragraph the lead becomes disjointed and doesn't flow.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

  Though only a minor concern, I still don't see in what way the term "Holy city" is somewhat problematic to you, or violates NPOV, only that is a very common one. Moreover, this English Wikipidea and not Japanese one and if you have issues with the Holy city Wikipedia article, you may want to express your opinion there. Also you still didn't addressed my and others issues with your proposal, and if you didn't get the hint before "X addressed it" or "this was to address X" doesn't solve the issue. Especially when you only addressing the concerns of a very limited group.

  As for your thoughts about the entire lead, that your opinion. I find the current led very informative, with great thematic focus(you can see my brake down above) and that it covers everything in most natural way possible. Also while I can't care less about religion, I don't think that we should drop the 'religious significance' paragraph that is important to a huge part of the population on earth(Christians+Muslims+Jews) only because you find the political angle more interesting.

  Overall I agree with some of the points you made, but I don't think that they applicable here. This an article about the city not about the political views on it, its history or any number topic that other articles covers and this should be reflected in the first paragraph of the lead. Once you see that, you'll realize that various other "issues" are actually solutions that have been introduced to address issues of neutrality and NPOV .--Mor2 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

@Mor2, some agreement is progress, so I welcome and appreciate your constructive comments.

It dawned on me after a couple of hours of sleep that alternative phrasings are possible for incorporating the term "holy city", two of which follow:

• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city associated with the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city in the monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city in the monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I agree that the religious significance of the city is intimately connected with its historical importance, which is what I have tried to focus on. It seems to me that the political situation as present relates to the historical importance. We can work on further drafts of sentences and paragraphs. I proposed the reduced version of the 3-paragraph lead in part because the balance between the corresponding amount of text and level of detail with respect to the religious significance seemed to be incongruent. It seems to me that by drawing the explicit connection between religious significance and historical importance in the openining paragraph, and then mentioning the major religious institutions in the second paragraph after a statement or two about ancient history and interposed before the indication of its designation as a world heritage site due in no small part to the religious sites suffices to set the stage for more detailed exegesis in the main body without diminishing the stature of the city with respect to its religious significance. --Ubikwit (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Not a fan of it either. For example, I have no idea what "while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city" means. Again, can we wait for the RfC or mediation? -- tariqabjotu 23:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You want should I add more Yiddishkeit?

About 64% of the city's current population is Jewish and the city has a strong connection to Jewish history. King David first estabished it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city. Today, the mayor of Jerusalem is Nir Barkat, who matriculated from Jerusalem's own Hebrew University. Under Israeli rule, the city has become increasingly modern.

Or add more to it. What more convincing evidence can we offer of it being an Israeli city? Obviously we cannot state it de jure without challenges. But we can lay out the facts and let the reader make up their own mind. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not responding to me, are you? -- tariqabjotu 01:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a line from the draft script to Taxi Driver. Formerip (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL FormerIP. @Tariqabjotu Bibi said he wants an undivided Jerusalem for the capital now and forever. Abbas said he wants no less than East Jerusalem for his capital. Straight out of the horses' mouths. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Um... so were you actually responding to me? I can't imagine how my comment (23:45, December 21) could have led to that response; hence my question. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu - At this point I am lost as to which question or clarification I should begin addressing first, if indeed you were speaking to me. Perhaps bullet points and @ might be appropriate. It's weird how we get lost with each other sometimes. I apologize for the confusion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I presented only one question/clarification: are you talking to me? I'm not sure what was confusing about that. Ideally, people should indent in just below the comment they are replying to; no "@" would then be necessary. I tend to adhere to that strictly, so there should never be confusion about who I'm replying to. But some people don't do that. You indented in just below my comment, so I should have assumed that you were talking to me. But your response seemed so irrelevant to and unwarranted by my comment that I thought I'd ask for a clarification before simply railing you for your ridiculous suggestion. Perhaps you were replying to Mor2, but if that was your intention, you should have placed your comment below his (as Ubikwit did) and not mine.

So, again, it's a simple question: to whom was your comment at 00:40, December 22, intended? -- tariqabjotu 05:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, may I ask you to focus on the content, which is already difficult to follow ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Pluto, I know you enjoy playing the peacemaker (ha!), but there are times where your holier-than-thou attitude hinders not helps. This is one of them. I don't need your condescending tone because I asked the most basic of points of order: who was ClaudeReigns speaking to? If it was me, I'll respond to his suggestion. Otherwise, I'll leave it to whomever Claude was actually speaking to. Geez. Get off my ass. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to you? PerDaniel (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu - It seems that the content you have noted by Mor2 is no longer present. If my memory serves correctly, it was he who first responded, and as I usually prefer to respond to one comment at a time. You were always welcome to comment in return. Perhaps I have done a disservice to discussion in the placement of my comment, so I wish to again apologize for any confusion.

If we were to focus on content, as Pluto2012 has suggested:

Shall we allow for paragraph 2 to present trivial and/or notable, yet always non-disputable facts about Jerusalem from a Jewish/Israeli perspective be appropriate, given that a majority of Jerusalem's citizen are both Jewish in faith and Israeli by citizenship? In my opinion, this would allow the lead section the freedom to explore other points of view similarly, without making de jure arguments about a wider border dispute of which Jerusalem seems to be only one particular disputed area. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Claude, you are making a valiant effort to forge consensus on this matter, but I'm afraid that it seems there are some intractable positions involved.

With respect to the order of the paragraphs of the lead, although it might appease the moderates of the "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" proponents, it won't sate the appetite of the megalomaniacs that are determined to deny international law, etc.

I also think that, perhaps even more importantly, such an ordering of the paragraphs would not correspond to the order in which the article is laid out in the main body. If one were to assume the proposed draft as the opening paragraph, several elements noted in the lead in paragraphs other than the opening paragraph are already accounted for in a much more concise manner, meaning that it is not necessary to repeat them. So I've ordered the paragraphs in the 3-paragraph model proposed below in a manner such as to correspond to the order in which the content is presented in the main body the order presented; wherein the first paragraph basically represents a synoptic statement of the current state of affairs, and the second and third paragraphs basically represent the corresponding relevant points of ancient history and present disposition, respectively, of the city. --Ubikwit (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

No, Claude, Mor2's comment is still there. It has just been distanced from my comment because everyone who was responding to him rightfully responded below his comment and not mine. He did respond first, but Mor2 and I are not the same person. If you had a comment to him, you should direct it to him, not assume I can or should respond on his behalf. Just because Mor2 and I agree on one thing, doesn't mean we agree on everything. But since you've now asked me, I'll take the comment as directed at me:

In response to the content you suggested... uh, no, not in agreement at all, and -- again -- I don't know what in my comment made you think that that is what I wanted. I was simply noting that you have an unclear clause in your Ubikwit's (-- tariqabjotu 21:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)) proposal. In fact, I assumed the paragraph you suggested was just a joke to make me (or someone else?) look bad. The desire to keep the current capital statement is not necessarily a desire to add more "Yiddishkeit" (whatever that means) or promote the Jewish connection to the city, and I request you stick to the arguments I've actually made rather than tailor to preconceived notions about me. -- tariqabjotu 17:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The intent is to make sure that points of view are balanced. I seldom joke, but when I do, the intent is to create a warmer atmosphere in which consensus can thrive. Personal comments made towards one editor or another seem not to serve that goal. I recognize that you additionally have a content concern, namely, "You have an unclear clause in your proposal." I was unaware of a content concern in my proposal, which actually a very rough draft meant explicitly to be modified. The proposal it was meant to augment, Ubikwit's by summary of other editors, is one which I support, though it may indeed have an unclear clause. Would anyone like to offer an amendment to it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which part of You want should I add more Yiddishkeit? did you think would create a warmer atmosphere? The stereotypical "Jewish accent" or the misuse of the term Yiddishkeit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence of opening paragraph

I would please like the last sentence to read: The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 12:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The notability factor and the manner in which it ties in the present status with respect to the historical context and the significance thereof attested to by the notability of the UN make that a fine closing sentence to the opening paragraph.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I would also be willing to defer the idea to the end of the entire leading section for flow if the need calls for it. BritishWatcher has a strong point in being cautious that our process is not flawed. I envision a process that submits gladly to the notion that each voice will have its say in deference to the predominance of its view. An opening statement that tries wherever possible to focus on people, since that is truly what makes up a city. A process in which the romantic past, realistic present and hopeful future all are represented in equal voice, since it may be impossible to discern which has the most actual weight for any particular reader. When do we get to say something about the mayor? Who will be the first to talk about the founding? Are we accurately introducing the topic to the multitude of Palestinians who have hopes of living there but have no firsthand knowledge of what the city actually is today? I am excited to see how this will turn out. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm listening to what BritishWatcher has to say, but insofar as he ignored your invitation to draft a second paragraph presenting the viewpoint of "Jerusalem is a city in Israel", and instead posted a slightly revised version of the flawed current lead paragraph under the subsection you created titled "Ubiwit draft", I don't see that representing much in the way of a spirit of collaboration. One could even see it as retrenchment.

I think that the working version of the draft reflects the same perception that several other editors gave voice to before I began participating here and of which I wasn't even aware when I wrote the initial comments about historical context. That would seem to indicate that those perceptions are fairly prevalent. Aside from the religion-history register of significance, the partition/divide register of significance was the other aspect that seemed glaringly problematic with respect to the half-crocked, semi-veiled, disjointed and rhetorically inflected presentation in the lead.

With respect to reader reception, there will be different reactions to different points, but isn't it the point of the encyclopedia to present the subject matter in a manner such as to reflect the current state of knowledge as per reliable sources and enable diverse and various readers to interpret that themselves? --Ubikwit (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Ubikwit

Good points. But maybe at some point BritishWatcher will want to reengage, and he's welcome. He may be looking to start the next paragraph instead. This may be the silent version of "wait, guys". I'm not a mind reader.

Looking back over the article as a whole, I think it already reflects the main ideas I had thought about. We do talk about the past, not usually sensationally, but in good taste. We do talk about the present, and the article as a whole does not pull punches nor speak too rashly. And we do talk about the future from the day-to-day planning to grand schemes. It seems to me that those perspectives are balanced in the article. If we do the same in the leading section, we'll be doing the article justice. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope that BritishWatcher is doing just that. I hope that he is hearing your and nableezy's comments with respect to the dejure position to which he seems to be clinging.

Aside from the one outstanding point raised by Kaldari and addressed by the source you provided with respect to the status of the Palestinian claim on East/Jerusalem, I'm inclined to think that the draft might already be nearly ripe to have Ravpapa take a look at it.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The strong opposition of Britishwatcher to any proposal should not stop you. Have in mind that he just disagree with any proposal. I suggest you both to focus on the content and try to comply at best with NPoV.

More, as underlined here above, the ArbCom decided to ask the community a binding RfC on the topic so nothing should move until the conclusion of this RfC. Anyway, you work and propal should be suggested there.

I suggest you to gather numerous sources that proves that what you suggest is in compliance with these.

Thx for your good work. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully support BritishWatcher and there is not going to be forced POV editions against consensus made prior. There are numerous reliable sources from National Geographic to CIA factbook, both political, geographical, academic etc which do states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Therefore it is not truth that there is "unanomues consensus" that it is not. Any proposition which is just aimed to deny this in not acceptable---Tritomex (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no less sources to state that East-Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and there are no less source to state that the choice of Jerusalem as capital is not recognized by any country in the world. And we all know that is the choice of a country to decide where to establish its capital and we all know that East-Jerusalem is not in Israel.

It is useless to behave the way you both do as if your life was depending on this and to try to move forward.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I wish to point out, that the initial question of this subject was the both part of this sentence. Those two parts namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "although not internationally recognized as such" were equally but separately viewed as they are already balanced. Numerous sources are relating to this subject, without mentioning international dispute in the lead. F.x CIA fact book [12] National Geography and [13] and [14] Index mundi [15] even in sports and entertainment [16] etc. So if this sources without any dispute point out that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim through "international community" which could be also challenged. There are also sources which are dealing with the question of the lack of international recognition, although no source I have found which categorically claim that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Concerning East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine, I did not found any source uninvolved to the Arab-Israeli conflict on the Arab side, which support such claim.--Tritomex (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly none of the sources you just listed would meet the criteria of "reliable" in this context. None of the sources are published by scholarly/research publishers, one is a popular magazine, and another a political tainted publication due to its being issued by an agency of the US government and reflecting the policy standpoint thereof: the CIA, no less. You might as well cite a publication by the Mossad as reliable.

There is the fact of the recent vote at the UN, for example, that squarely puts the US in the minority POV with respect to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

There is the USS Liberty incident, which was covered up by the CIA, with several The Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford, Penguin Books, 1982, has a detailed description of the Israeli attack on the SIGINT ship USS Liberty, and the events leading up to it, on pages 279–293.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Tritomex, there are sources that present things as a fact and there are sources that present things as a claim/opinion/Israeli view, not a fact. For example, the BBC 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."[17] Look at how the source presents the information. There are many sources like this that do not present the Israeli view as a fact. They present the positions of various parties as just that, the positions of the parties, and they attribute the views to the parties. These sources exist and can't be ignored. Also you say "our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim". What claim ? If it is a claim present it as a claim. Right now there is an unattributed statement of fact in the voice of the encyclopedia that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That is not a claim. It can't be negated by anything other than a sentence that follows it that says "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" and that would be ludicrous, to have a statement of fact followed by its negation. An opinion can't negate a fact.

Ubikwit, the CIA factbook qualifies as an RS. There are many RS that present it as a fact and the CIA is one of them in the sense that they say Capital: name: Jerusalem. What Tritomex didn't say is that the CIA don't mention Jerusalem at all in their lead (...not really an option for us) but they do also present the information as a claim - "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as it's capital in 1950, but..." etc on the map and in the Capital section.[18] The CIA do the same thing in the annotation for Greater Jerusalem SPOT 5 based map File:Greater_Jerusalem_May_2006_CIA_remote-sensing_map_3500px.jpg. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, please could you confirm that you acknowledge the existence of RS that do not present the Israeli position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel as a fact ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so that editors such as tariqabjotu know, what Sean says, though more elegantly put, matches my own views.     ←   ZScarpia   19:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

draft including "holy city" in first sentence

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city in the monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established the seat of its government in the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community, however, does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, while the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine. The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Alternative versions with "holy city"

• • Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city associated with the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is venerated as a holy city in the monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Version w/o "holy city"

• Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is a site of religious veneration connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Would a more concise 3-paragraph lead along the following lines be feasible?

Upon examining the remainder of the lead after receiving questions and comments regarding the above-proposed opening paragraph, it came to appear that the lead in its present form is not in a clearly defined relationship of correspondence to the main body of the article. It seems to me that three paragraphs might better accomplish the introduction of the material in the main body than five. I think that the lead can indeed be presented in a much more logical and concise manner with better coherence and readability than it has at present.

I've simply taken text that was already in the lead, slightly modified some passages (such as the Judaean Mountains name), rearranged sentences and deleted duplicate content with respect to the content presented in the opening paragraph, and added a sentence for balance (not a single Palestinian affiliated cultural institution is mentioned in the present lead).

I look forward to comments from those of you more familiar with more of the specifics as to whether this would be a feasible approach.

Paragraph 1

Jerusalem (pron.: /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is a site of religious veneration connected to the founding of the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israel has established the seat of its government in the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community, however, does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, while the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine. The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Paragraph 2

During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times. The oldest part of the city was settled in the 4th millennium BCE. In 1538, walls were built around Jerusalem under Suleiman the Magnificent. Today those walls define the Old City, which has been traditionally divided into four quarters—known since the early 19th century as the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters.[8] Despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi),[19] the Old City is home to many sites of tremendous religious importance, among them the Temple Mount and it’s the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque. The Old City became a World Heritage site in 1981, and is on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond its boundaries.

Paragraph 3

Jerusalem is located in a mountain range that includes Mount Hebron (Judaean mountains/Jibal al-Khalil) stretching between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea. The total population of the city, including East Jerusalem, is 801,000 residents, over an area of 125.1 km2(48.3 sq mi). According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 208,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem. All branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister and President, and the Supreme Court. Jerusalem is home to the Hebrew University and to the Israel Museum with its Shrine of the Book. Jerusalem was designated the Arab Capital of Culture in 2009, and is home to the Palestinian National Theatre, The Edward Said National Conservatory of Music, and the Islamic Museum.

--Ubikwit (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

One nice point here in para 3 is that there is no mention of the nonsense which has proved refractory to removal despite its patently unhistorical character:

Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Jewish tradition since, according to the Hebrew Bible, King David of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 1000 BCE, and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city.[10]

That's totally unverifiable, since the concept of 'holy city' (setting aide the issue of 'holiest city in Jewish tradition') is only recorded several centuries later, in the post-exilic period, in Deutero-Isaiah, to be exact), and the Tanakh says no such thing.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. I wasn't aware of that detail, but it would seem to be an important detail.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Which question to put to the proposed "binding RFC"?

The "binding RFC" motion seems to just be lacking one vote to gain a majority, do we have ideas concerning which question the RFC should ask, assuming it goes ahead? My thinking would be to keep it as simple and plain as possible, optimally just asking whether a specific edit should be done, or whether one of two possible edits should be done. If the proposed edit is simple, there ought to be less to discuss which would improve the odds of reaching a conclusion with a reasonable amount of text. --Dailycare (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it just needs to get to the nub of the thing: Should the lead to the article on Jerusalem state, in Wikipedia's voice, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?. I think other supplementary questions that could be asked don't actually need a binding RfC and can be sorted out afterwards in the normal way. Formerip (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A slightly different suggestion: Does stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in the Jerusalem article comply with the policy of WP:NPOV? This has the advantage of narrowing down the discussion to a strict application of policy, (hopefully) avoiding arguments of the more personal kind. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I have to agree that referencing policy in the question would be better. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we take the highest care to what we'll be discussed.

The question is complex. I think that people could agree stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is acceptable but then they would also agree stating the East-Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. The same way, people who would not consider adequate to state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel would not consider stating this for Palestine.

I think we should suggest several paragraph that just concern the political status and let the RfC comment or amend these.

We would have :

Option 1/ Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.

Option 2/ Both Israel and Palestine chose Jerusalem as capital but the final status of the city should be the object of peace negocations.

Option 3/ Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally

Option n/ Israel has established the seat of its government in the city, which was partitioned as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1948, while claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city. The international community, however, does not recognize the claims of the Israeli government, while the Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city--East Jerusalem--as the capital of a future sovereign and independent state of Palestine. The United Nations has identified Jerusalem as one of five core issues in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that is the way to go, because it inevitably drags in lots of tangential issues which will make both voting and reading the votes harder. Isn't "should be the object of peace negotiations" an opinion? Is the main reason for the Israeli claim to J as its capital that "maintains its primary governmental institutions there", or is it a fact of Israeli law? Would many Israelis agree that Israel is "claiming the entire city for its future undivided capital city"? All of these issues will keep us from deciding the central question. Personally, I couldn't support any of the options listed.

I could add versions of my own which I think are less problematic, but by the time we have let everyone do that, we'll have twenty versions and no chance of a consensus for any of them. Formerip (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you don't put a version you think would be best up for everyone elses consideration in advance? I am in no way indicating that I disagree with the preceding comments regarding simplicity and reference to policy. Making direct reference to policy may have represent a strategy that makes the process more efficient and workable by clearly delineating the scope.

What I am suggesting is that putting out concerns in advance, especially in the form of tangible sentences that people can read, contemplate and discuss in advance might further facilitate efficiency in the RfC negotiations.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I don't really have a version that I think is best, all I really think is necessary is to decide one way or the other in taking the "in WP's voice" option off the table. That could be achieved, for example, by "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to Israeli law, though not internationally recognized as such". But I wouldn't want to insist on any particular version or stand in the way of further honing after the RfC. Formerip (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I much prefer providing several options and having people choose among them. Asking a question leaves what the actual wording of the lead should be open to interpretation. In addition, I'd rather not waste time resisting attempts to formulate the question in a manner that prejudices respondents toward your perspective. When an RfC is started, it should not be apparent from the way the question is formulated what stance the initiator holds. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Frederico1234's proposal sounds elegantly simple. That way, the discussion is focused on the major point, and not minor issues that editors see with specific proposals. Then, if the RFC finds there is no NPOV violation, the current wording stands, and if the RFC finds there is NPOV violation, the current wording is removed. We'd then separately agree on a new wording. The risk of course would be that agreement might be difficult to reach.. Maybe we could have two questions, 1) Frederico1234's question and then 2) "If the answer to question 1 is 'no'", a choice between 2-3 options. The two questions would be closed separately, and question 2) would only be closed if 1) is closed with a 'no'. --Dailycare (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Issues such as whether the current wording is neutral should be sorted out first. The wording should be sorted out afterwards, which is when editors should be choosing between versions, if at all (in fact I don't think that we should be trying to come up with a binding wording). The narrower the focus the better, otherwise the result will just be another gargantuan, untangleable morass of discussions. That means trying to deal with a single issue at a time, stopping the discussion from going of at tangents.     ←   ZScarpia   19:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I also think it might be advisable to prepare versions in advance that illustrate the differences and possible alternatives corresponding to the various positions to with respect to NPOV, though I don't quite understand the details of the process of "closing" the RfC. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I think that there are four types of solution: to omit mention of the capital status of Jerusalem; to say that Jerusalem or bits of Jerusalem are the capital of one or both of Israel and Palestine; to state the capital status in terms of points of view; to use statements about the status which no-one disputes (such as that Jerusalem is the "declared capital"). Some editors here, including me, obviously think that the second type of solution breaches the neutrality rule. Once that was confirmed or rejected, I think that choosing one of the other solutions wouldn´t be too difficult. Looks as though we may need some assistance to formulate a suitable question though!     ←   ZScarpia   18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, those are four good starting points for discussion. I agree with those that feel the second type of the four solutions you mentioned is the most problematic and therefore the least desirable, so we should establish the arguments that support dismissing that type from consideration. I actually don't think it should be that difficult to accomplish that, but it calls for advanced preparation in light of the various circumstances.

Before I point out some concerns I have with the approach/strategy of those supporting the current lead, let me point to a couple things in the first paragraph I've proposed above that pertain to the problems you have drawn out a bit by elucidating the above-described four types of solutions.

First, the two appearances of the word capital in the paragraph I proposed are both prefaced with the modifier "future", and in that manner I think that the question of the status as capital is effective deferred, which parallels the actual state of affairs in the real world--though the supporters of the present lead would deny that. There might be some problems in the details regrading Israels claims, that is to say, that they claim the entirety of Jerusalem is already their undivided capital, but it doesn't seem to me that would be sustainable, as you have pointed out that sovereignty is at issue, probably the most direct refutation of their argument under international law, but that argument is reflected already in the UN resolutions, right?.

In relation to the first point, note that the generic term city is operative here, because the various circumstances at issue regarding the status of the city, i.e., its partitioning, whether it is capital, etc., are introduced subsequently vis-a-vis the city as such and the various claims being made on it. The article is about the city, first and foremost. Whether it has one attribute or another is a secondary order matter that has to be decided for each attribute. An identity statement that presupposes a specific attribute is not a manner of describing the city but a means of presrciptively appropriating the city as capital in order to subsequently describe the capital in terms of secondary attributes, such as "occupied", "not recognized". I need to go through some of the "dictionary definition" based arguments, but such arguments seems utterly facile when you shift registers from "dictionary" to "encyclopedia".

Second, I believe that I have covered the presently admissible state of the claim of the government of Israel with the phrase "Israel has established the seat of its government in the city". That acknowledges the physical presence of the administrative organs of the central government of Israel in Jerusalem, but nothing more than that with respect to status "as capital".

The approach/strategy of the supporters of the current lead would seem to rely heavily on two threads that they may try to weave together. The first is the attempt to argue for a "dejure" capital status for Israel. The second is the language games that relate to the framing of the of the "positions", "status", "claims", etc. The opening sentence for the new section that has been created after this one is useful to illustrate the point.

The lead currently documents the current position of there being no foreign embassies in Jerusalem.

That sentence attempts to present as a mere "position" the present physical reality of the fact that all governments having diplomatic relationships with Israel have removed their embassies from Jerusalem to demonstrate that Israel has acted against international law with their various transgressions against the rights of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Jerusalem. That is an attempt to frame the topic in a manner that shifts the register of significance from a verifiable reality to a merely subjective "position". The other side of the coin in that strategy might be to then attempt to assert the physical reality that the Israeli military effectively controls the entirety of Jerusalem in support of arguing for the status of its "undivided capital city" that is simply not recognized. The present lead represents to me a mess that has been built on false compromises related to such language games.

I think that a solution that minimizes the possibility for friction arising in relation to such language games might be the shortest distance between two points. Now, ClaudeReigns has demonstrated a highly polished level of diplomatic acumen as well as penetrating insight, so maybe he will grace this conversation with a comment.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

" Does stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in the Jerusalem article comply with the policy of WP:NPOV?" - is blatantly biased question, if it is going to be along those lines, it should include what is actually says. The article does not just say it is the capital of Israel, it says it is the capital of Israel but not recognised by the international community. BIG Difference! BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We could have:

In the sentence Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such, do you believe the clause "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to be compliant with Wikipedia's policy on adopting a neutral point-of-view?

Formerip (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You cannot make an identity statement that is inadmissible and then try to retroactively justify it with a qualifying statement. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Although that's what the article currently does, which might may "can you..?" a legitimate aspect to the question in an RfC. Formerip (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is why we need a third party to set up and provide direction to whatever process is used. I'm not convinced we'll get some in favor of changing the current wording to agree to anything that isn't a leading question. In case I wasn't clear, that, FormerIP, is a leading question. -- tariqabjotu 17:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Is it because it attempts to "lead" the reader to consider the question in terms of policy?

If we need a third party, then a request for meditation would be the way to go. Formerip (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, I'm not sure that you've made the case. In my opinion, there is no question that either of the statements that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or that "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" is unequivocally not in correspondence with reality; therefore, I find it hard to even comprehend what it is that you are trying to get at. What is "leading" about presenting sources against which to conduct a reasoned discussion as to whether the sources verify the validate the identity statement?--Ubikwit (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

@Ubikwit, I don't think that you'll find many disagreements here, UN/world regards Jerusalem status as undetermined. However that doesn't change the fact that Jerusalem is under Israeli control, or that they established their capital and seat of government.(i.e. the difference between de jure and de facto).--Mor2 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but then why are we trying to formulate questions? It would seem that a more neutral opening along the lines of the description I believe nableezy wrote to the effect that "Jerusalem is a city straddling Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories" would be in place, as that recognizes Israeli control as well as the international law position of the Palestinians. Questions could be framed in terms of the defacto and dejure positions being argued by BritishWatcher. I'm not an expert on international law, but if it can be established that international law is the prevailing frame of reference discourse related to this issue, then the sources cited by ZScarpia would seem to easily refute the neutrality of the current wording as well as support phrasings such as the "straddles" version.

Are you suggesting a question worded win terms of the dejure and defacto status of Jerusalem?--Ubikwit (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

What is the problem with asking whether the current wording "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" is compliant with Wiki policy? Ankh.Morpork 17:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not much, although I think you do need to specify which proposition is being asked about, or you risk a lack of clarity if you get a "no" vote. Formerip (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was as clear as I could be in my comment. I've already spent excessive amounts of my time commenting on this talk page, explaining again what I've already said. I'm not doing it anymore. Reread my statement a couple times. Reread the comment that I was replying to. Still don't understand what I'm saying? Fine. I don't care that you don't. -- tariqabjotu 18:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is an identity statement Counterpart_theory#Counterpart_theory_and_the_necessity_of_identity that: implies that Jerusalem is a city in Israel, which is an unsustainable statement with respect to the status of Jerusalem under international law; and two, attempts to divert the questioning of the verity of the identity statement by appending a qualifying statement to the a priori inadmissible identity statement. --Ubikwit (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ubikwit, please read Wikipedia:Indentation. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if your view is that the current version is unacceptable, then vote against it at the RFC. However, there are proponents of the current version who contend that the initial sentence is acceptable and the qualification and proposition should be regarded together, and that being the case, the current version should be presented in its entirety at the RFC for other editors to decide upon. Surely other editors possess the mental faculties to determine for themselves whether it is an "inadmissible identity statement" or an "attempt to divert"? The issue at hand is whether the first sentence is acceptable, I fail to see how you can construe presenting the sentence in question as problematic. Ankh.Morpork 18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, please read Wikipedia:Indentation. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, OK, I will do that tomorrow, after I get some sleep.

Ankh, the problem with your PROPOSITION is that the statement "Israel is the capital of Israel" is not a proposition, it is an identity statement. This is not an exercise in trying to prove a hypothesis. That identity statement is not in conformance with international law, and is therefore inadmissible on Wikipedia, at least that is my take on the situation.

There have been a couple of proponents of that statement that have been trying to argue a "dejure" position in order to validate that identity statement, but that would appear to be a patently false position.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The formulation of the RFC is independent of your personal misgivings regarding the current lead sentence and reiterating them does not negate that there is still support for the current form. As such, the RFC question should be designed to ascertain the validity of that opinion, however "patently false" you consider it, and a prerequisite for that is presenting the full version in question. Ankh.Morpork 19:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point, I'm just not sure what it would mean to "present the full version in question" when what you actually have are two separate statements, one of which is being used as an expedient to try and gain passage for the other, which is not in conformance with the discourse of international law that one would imagine to be the prevailing discourse with respect to matters such as this on Wikipedia. For your erudition in light of my less than optimal presentation of the topic of identity statements: First-order logic. The point I have been trying to make is that, the question of the disposition of the city of Jerusalem is pending--to say the least--in the arena of international law as represented by the pronouncements of the UN and many nation states. It is therefore a contradiction to make a statement that identifies Jerusalem with respect to the criteria of the prevailing discourse of international law when the identified status is not in conformance with the criteria. Therefore, it is a foregone conclusion that a phrasing of an RfC question of identity predicated on a statement that attempts to qualify that identity in terms of acknowledging that the applicable criteria are not met is inadmissible. It is nothing more than a duplicitous rhetorical maneuver. It is not a "proposition" which is presented in order to evaluate its truth conditions, because the horizon of the "truth conditions" is not the unknown but an established discourse; in this case, international law.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Once again, how you think the RFC should be adjudicated does not affect the manner in which the question should be posed. Your dogmatic exposition of how you would answer the question is of no relevance to this section which attempts to decide upon the question itself. What is a relevant "duplicitous rhetorical maneuver" is dismissing the opposing view as "patently false" or omitting to fairly present it in the RFC because its inadmissibilty is a "foregone conclusion". The purpose of the RFC is to present the current version and decide on its validity and you should allow for due process to take its course. Ankh.Morpork 20:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The comments were addressing the mode of the question, as there were two proposals: one proposing to simply ask whether "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" violates WP:NPOV; and the other inserting the qualifying statement "though not recognized internationally..." or something to that effect.

I don't think that posing the question in the second of those two is logically consistent as a question. I wasn't trying to answer the question, just point out a problem with asking it in that way to begin with. If you ask the wrong question how can you expect the right answer?

That was what I meant to point out.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

"and the other inserting the qualifying statement "though not recognized internationally..." or something to that effect." Are you actually aware that this is the current form adopted in the article and is supported by a number of editors, and is not simply a gratuitous qualification dreamt up a few moments ago? What could possibly be "wrong" with presenting the current version - which arose out of previous lengthy deliberations - when requesting people to pass an opinion upon it? Ankh.Morpork 20:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that quite a lot has changed even within the events of the past year to throw that statement into stark relief--especially with respect to international law considering the elvated status of Palestine at the UN--as to the problems moving forward with the two-state solution. That should not be trivialized. I am inclined to believe that a two-step or even a three-step approach might accommodate the various modes of approaching the question.--Ubikwit (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I would note that nothing has changed that effects Jerusalem. Sure PLO delegate at the UN has been upgraded, but neither Palestinian Sovereignty or Independence status has been changed and more importantly UN/world position on Jerusalem hasn't been changed. As for the rest, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when we will have a two state solution or some other solution/change that will effect Jerusalem status, municipal borders or materialize Palestinian claim, add something notable to the article etc then changes will be in order.--Mor2 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't see problems with modifying Federico1234's question as Ankh.Morpork suggests. The modified question could be question 1) Does stating "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" in the Jerusalem article comply with the policy of WP:NPOV?. If we adopt the two-step approach, the proposals in question 2) to replace "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" might be e.g. a) "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital" b) "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government", c) "Under Israeli law Jerusalem is Israel's capital". --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I see several problems with it. That isnt the only dispute here, and the 500 kB of text on this page should make that clear. nableezy - 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

d) Jerusalem is Israel established Capital e)Jerusalem is Israel official capital. need more?--Mor2 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

^^^^ is why an RFC is a stupid idea for this. This dispute cannot be boiled down to a simple statement that could elicit a support or oppose. Mediation that is binding on everybody, whether or not they accept it, is the only thing that will resolve the issue. nableezy - 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not an RfC would be a good idea or if it would further answer any of the questions I have. I don't know how the arguments that it is or isn't NPOV would be presented if at all. As a general principle, I do like it when other editors get involved. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit moot, because the RfC motion has the votes needed to pass. Do we think we can get as far as a question in this discussion, or should we cut to the chase and ask for mediation? Formerip (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

After participating in this discussion for a short couple of days, it does seem that the insistence of the statement on the status of Jerusalem as a city in Israel (only) or the capital city of Israel is the main sticking point to forging a more neutral lead for the article. In that respect, addressing that point would appear to be a priority, though certainly not the only issue of concern.--Ubikwit (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

If there is going to be a large RFC which is binding for several years, it must have specific options for people to choose from so they know what the alternatives are, otherwise nothing is resolved at all. It need not necessarily have the specific proposed wording but a basis for how the article should be handled. Like 1) Current method which has existed in the article for years. 2) Say it is the proclaimed or claimed "capital of Israel" 3) try to avoid saying it is the capital of either. 4) say it is the capital of both. etc. That sort of approach would give us an insight into how people want the situation resolved. Unlike a question asking is the current wording or saying Jerusalem is the capital NPOV? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's an RFC or mediation, whichever question is posed to respondents, people's responses need to be consistent with the data. Whatever happens, I suggest we provide the data in the form of a compilation of 20, 50, 100, or however many is regarded as an appropriate number of sampled RS that deal with the status of Jerusalem. Much of this sampling work has already been done. Many samples can be found in the archives and high quality sources that describe the status of Jerusalem are plentiful. Without the data there is nothing to anchor people to the RS-based evidence. Providing the data should help ensure that people base their statements on the evidence and policy and nothing else. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I share your mind.

Whatever our point of view on the matter, the most important is to compile the sources on the topic and provide them at the beginning of the RfC. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean, if a 100% of sources were to describe Jerusalem as the captital in a particular way, and a 100% of sources defined the word "capital" in an incompatible manner, how would you suggest we proceed? Ankh.Morpork 21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, of course the issue is complex, but I think we should aim the binding rfc to the core of the issue to have a focused, meaningful and hopefully brief discussion. It's not realistic to assume this rfc will settle all issues in this article, but it can settle the key point that has caused years of discussions. In order to get a result we should be solution-oriented and focus on getting an acceptable result that can be lived with permanently. A perfect result for everyone isn't a realistic goal. Merry Christmas, --Dailycare (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, is it not the case that an encyclopedia is a higher order text than a dictionary with respect to describing any given topic?

This article is not about "capitals" per se, but about a city. Attributes such as "capital" are secondary to the taxonomical category of "city" with respect to Jerusalem.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Foreign embassies

The lead currently documents the current position of there being no foreign embassies in Jerusalem. However, there have been many embassies there in the past since 1948 and previous foreign attitudes towards Jerusalem should equally be mentioned. Ankh.Morpork 19:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a position it is a material fact of reality.

Since countries moved their embassies as a result of illegal acts of the government of Israel, it a fact that relates primarily to the suspended political status vis-a-vis the international community, and probably is too fine grained of a point to be in the lead in the first place. So why clutter up the lead even further if you are already complaining elsewhere about the level of political detail, as per the statement, "I consider the detailing of the current political stances re Jerusalem in the lead as excessive" under the section 'Repetition in the lead'?

How would you propose including it in the lead, for example? In conjunction with the aim of illustrating what?

The circumstances of the embassies and the presence/removal should be discussed in the main body, in conjunction with the acts of Israel and the response of the international community and how that relates to the problem of (West) Jerusalem's recognition as the capital of Israel, the partitioning, etc.

It seems to me that the lead has been misappropriated for politicking, and the mess it is in at present is the result of a series of false compromises related to that salient fact, which is the reason for the RfC regarding neutrality.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Language issues, naming conventions., etc

In the course of the foregoing recent discussions several language issues have been addressed in a somewhat piecemeal manner, so I was thinking that it might be useful to assemble those in a single section for ease of reference. In the 3rd paragraph of the 3-paragraph lead proposal, for example, I tried to address the issue of the use of "Judeaen Mountains" by adopting a more equitable representation of the status regarding the name that should be used in this article. To reiterate several determining factors that would appear to necessitate such revisions, here's is a list:

• Israel does not have sovereignty over Jerusalem
• The majority of the land area of Jerusalem is in the occupied Palestinian Territories.
• It would appear that the mountain range in question is called by a different name by Israelis and Palestinians.

If those three points are undisputed, then the naming conventions used in this article would seem to require a much higher degree of sensitivity, and we have to make efforts to accommodate all relevant aspects, representing the voice of each party in an equitable manner.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

What you did with the Judaean Mountains is ridiculous, as are some of your other proposals above.

That mountain range has a name that's used in most reliable sources. Let's see if you can find out what that is. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and understand wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written according to your sensitivities.

Also, may I inquire as to how many sections you plan on opening on this page? I've been gone for a few days and I see you've started, what, 5 sections? Most of which got almost no responses? Where are you going with this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to this section NMMNG, glad you decided to stop by! This section is aimed at eliciting opinions from other editors regarding language issues in the article. Feel free to differ and disagree at will, but please refrain from adopting a condescending tone and describing my proposals as "ridiculous". You may have intimidated some editors on this article, but if you try that with me I will take you to task. For example, Two of the current references under Nos. 2 and 3 would clearly appear not to represent reliable source, and the third does not mention the proper noun you mentioned. Let's take a look see:

1. This is from MSN encarta, reliable?

• "With a population of 701,512 in 2004, Jerusalem is Israel’s largest city. Israel claims that all of Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such."

2. This is a publication of the state Israel:

• Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, which I assume obviously not to represent a reliable third party source.

3. I found no reference to "Judeaen Mountains in the NY Times article.

There are two sources published by academic presses, but I don't have access to those. Perhaps you would care to share your sources with us? I would imagine that there are various sources available.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Your suggestion that we should call the Judaean Mountains by some other term based on your perception of "representing the voice of each party in an equitable manner" or whatever, is ridiculous. Go ahead and "take me to task" whatever that means. This mountain range has a name commonly used, and that's what we should use in this article.

I'm not sure what your point was about encarta or not being able to find "Judean Mountains" in a specific NYT article is. ICBS is generally reliable. Why would you assume it is "obviously" not? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In the introduction to The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History and Reclaiming Memory, Nur Masalha identifies place names as one means of what he calls the "politicide" of the Palestinian people. Another source comes from A War of Words: Language and Conflict in the Middle East by Yasir Suleiman, page 164:

"The elimination of Arabic names from the map is part of the political-cum-linguistic conflict between Arabs and the Israeli Jews. The linguistic dimenstion of this conflict is sometimes manifested in the academic discourse on place names. Examining this meta-linguistic discourse may therefore give us valuable insight into how aspects of the naming process are manipulated to signal a political interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. ...English is the language of wider diffusion through which this is done on the international scene...."

Another acknowledgement of the contentiousness of place names comes from Kramer and Harman in A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel as referenced in the article "Place names of Palestine". The article states: "The significance of place names in Palestine lies in their potential to legitimize the historical claims asserted by the involved parties, all of whom claim priority in chronology, and who use archaeology, map-making, and place names as their proofs." Given all of these acknowledgements of the Arab-Israeli conflict being waged through place names, is it not logical to consider the possibility that the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics may not be neutral? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit is a reply to NMMNG that was being penned at the same time as ClaudeReigns' edit, so I'm posting it in its present form. Fine, let's just stick to the sources. I'm a linguist, so you are correct in stating that I am more sensitive to language issues, but there is a reasonable basis for the issues that I am trying to address here. There would seem to be a hole slew of issues with the article in its present form. When I say I'm going to take you to task, it means you better have sources to support any argument you are advancing with respect to content to be reflected in the article. So let's try a hypothetical question. What do you think the Palestinians are going to call the "Judaean Mountains" if the final disposition of Jerusalem winds up following the UN resolutions? The Judaean Mountains article lists an Arabic name for the range. I would imagine that sources supporting or having an affinity with either respective side uses the corresponding name, but that remains to be borne out by the sources. The encarta source would appear to be blatantly representing a position supportive of the agenda of the government of Israel as well as misrepresenting the position of the UN and the international community of harsh condemnation of the actions of the government of Israel. It is not the case that "the United Nations has not recognized it as such"; as you are aware, the UN has passed numerous resolutions explicitly declaring all actions by the government of Israel against Jerusalem as illegal. That is not a reliable source. Period. You want to argue against that? Such references will be removed. It looks like I'll have to examine some more of the sources and associated claims in the article, and hope others join in, as I don't have the time to make a career out of editing this page. --Ubikwit (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It doesn't matter what the Palestinians are going to call the Judaean Mountains. What matters is what those mountains are called in most reliable English sources. It doesn't matter if you think encarta is "blatantly" representing this or that or something other that doesn't fit your political agenda. What matters is if it's a reliable source according to wikipedia policy. You don't appear to be a new user so I'm assuming you know all this. Please stop wasting time with irrelevancies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What criteria are you using to determine "most reliable English sources"? Are you asserting that the nonsense on encarta is comparable to something published in an academic press? Are you asserting that the statement in encarta is not decisively disproven by any of the UN reolutions mention above? The Place names of Palestine article mentioned by ClaudeReigns contains many solid references from academic publishers.

You don't appear to be a new user so I'm assuming you know all this. Please stop wasting time with irrelevancies.

--Ubikwit (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

OK, I see you are interested in wasting time with irrelevancies, like your personal opinion on the reliability of encarta based on your personal opinion on UN resolutions, and hand waiving at the general direction of other wikipedia articles which are not reliable sources for anything. I have better things to do with my time. If you want to change the term in the article maybe you can show that some other term is more commonly used. Good luck with that. Here's something to get you started. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, Almost all of the sources in your Google book search have to do with Jewish or Zionist history and geography. The Arabic name for the Judaean Mountains is Jabal El Khalil. I suggest you look at this list of books, for the alternative. In English, that would be the Hebron Mountains; see this list for sources that use that term.

I point this out without taking a position one way or the other in this dispute. Just pointing out the futility. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's your 750 sources compared to my 8500 sources. That's without going into the silly notion that books that talk about the geographic area in ancient times are somehow "Jewish or Zionist history and geography". Unless you're getting substantially different results than I am. I'm getting stuff like "Canaan and Israel in antiquity: an introduction", "The Fortifications of Ancient Israel and Judah 1200-586 BC", "The Routledge Handbook of The People and Places of Ancient Western Asia", and stuff like that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you have produced sources, and we're not just trying to address issues that would seem to represent a lack of balance or neutrality. There would appear to be a preponderance of sources that adopt different names to represent the same geographical entities, maybe your name of choice outnumbers others, making it a majority usage in English. That would be counterbalanced by both the academic texts presented by ClaudeReigns and the usages presented by Ravpapa. Accordingly, since those geographical entities are in limbo at present with respect to the question of sovereignty, it would seem that in describing those geographical entities Wikipedia articles should try to strike a balance in the names used so as to present the subject matter in a neutral POV. What you referred to as my "ridiculous" effort above was simply an example of a possible approach to integrating the names having currency in a text that would represent a neutral POV to the reader. I don't think we should waste time doing battle over issues such as this where either side can produce reliable sources, compromise is the shortest distance between two points. With respect to encarta and the UN resolutions, if someone else wants to reply, they're more than welcome. I don't think that is the same type of situation though, nor simply a matter of my opinion.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Ubikwit

We're not going to battle over this because fortunately there are rules on how to approach this sort of situation. We use the most common name in English. I believe I showed you what that is above. I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Would those rules be found on this page Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)?

That page includes some parallel examples of the current scenario, but not even close in level of complexity.

In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the reasonably common name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted, mainly because it is neither Korean nor Japanese. Similarly, Wikipedia's version of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute has been resolved by naming the city page Derry and the county page County Londonderry.

It might be best that the naming issues not be taken up in the upcoming RfC, unless they can be addressed in some overarching framework regarding neutrality.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I see that there is also this Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)--Ubikwit (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It seems that the only editor currently working on this article that was involved in that naming dispute Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Involved_parties was Nishidani. I hope Nishidani doesn't mind (and that I'm not breaking any rules!) my citing a short quote from dispute here in order to pique other editors interest in the current context, which is, admittedly, of a somewhat different but not unrelated nature.

There are no Palestinian, as opposed to Israeli, nationalists involved. It is a clash between those (Israeli and Jewish editors) who support a restricted number of Israeli naming conventions, of a distinct and proven nationalist colouring, for an occupied territory 83% of whose population is Arab, and those who support neutral international usage. It is a conflict therefore between international naming conventions, as opposed to unilateral nationalist naming. If there are no guidelines that privilege the former over the latter, there is really no point in editing I/P articles.

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Great quote. As you may have noticed, there's no talk about having "a much higher degree of sensitivity" or "making efforts to accommodate all relevant aspects, representing the voice of each party in an equitable manner". All you have is making the word "Judea" verboten in any modern context. You're correct that what you're doing here is "of a somewhat different but not unrelated nature". I'm sure you'll get Nishidani's full support. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's predictable. Anything associated with my handle, even in a festive moment like this, stirs your personal campaign against my bona fides. Verboten? I get the period echo, but it only reminds me of a recent article about things not permitted, like Christmas trees in Upper Nazareth, on the grounds that such Palestinian Christian insignia are offensive to Jewish eyes. As the German saying has it: Was nicht erlaubt ist, ist verboten. I suggest you make a New Year's resolution: 'Stick to the technical issues, and avoid the temptation to indulge in personal insinuations and asides'.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)