From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Text taken from Talk:Israel and Talk:Jerusalem archives

Request for Comment/Jerusalem

This RFC has been notified in Wikiproject Israel and Wikiproject Palestine and the neutrality noticeboard. Should the capital status of Jerusalem be qualified in the lead and infobox of the Israel article, and if so how?

The lead currently states simply that Jerusalem is the capital, and the infobox contains the text "Capital: Jerusalem [1]".

Recent discussion has failed to gain consensus to change the text to, for example "Capital: Jerusalem [nb 1]", in order to make clearer the existence of an explanatory note explaining the disputed status of the city behind the superscript link .

Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dailycare

The question of what is Israel's capital is very sensitive. The lead currently states simply that Jerusalem is the capital, and the infobox contains the text: Capital: Jerusalem [1], which looks like [1] leads to a source, whereas it is in fact an explanatory note, where the contested nature of Jerusalem is explained. Recent discussion has failed to gain consensus to change the text to, for example: Capital: Jerusalem [nb 1], where the existence of the note would be clearer after the example of notation used in the article on e.g. China, this guideline (and nota bene).

My suggestion is to change the infobox text to: Capital (unrecognized): Jerusalem[nb 1], and mention non-recognition also in the lead.

That way, the existence of two sides to the issue is immediately obvious, and the extra info is also clearly presented for the interested reader via the explanatory note. Reliable sources typically mention non-recognition in the same breath as Israel's claim to having Jerusalem as the capital. Mentioning only Capital: Jerusalem is in my opinion POV, since it presents only the minority (Israeli) view.

Below is a smattering of sources, including the UN resolutions that the non-recognition is based on. I've selected sources from various countries for diversity, which is why they're not all in English. However this selection ought to show that a format along the lines of "Israel claims Jerusalem as it's capital, but this is not internationally recognized" reflects an international consensus among reliable secondary sources.

  • 1 ("The city's status remains disputed" (BBC))
  • 2("Jerusalem is not recognised internationally as the capital of the Jewish state" (BBC))
  • 3 ("The UK rejects these Israeli measures to change the status of Jerusalem" (UK))
  • 4 ("Seat of government: Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv" (BBC))
  • 5 ("Israel - Jerusalem* " only asterisk in the list+footnote)
  • 6 ("Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city but this is not recognised by most of the international community")
  • 7 ("Jerusalem consists of unilaterally annexed areas, which have not been recognised as legal, by any country " (Guardian))
  • 8 ("Though the annexation has not been recognized by any other country, Israel insists that the whole city is its capital." (The Independent))
  • 9 ("Jerusalem2 ")
  • 10 ("Israel claims sovereignty" (New York Times))
  • 11 ("East Jerusalem (...) which the Jewish state has annexed in a move not recognized internationally" (New York Times))
  • 12("L'Etat hébreu considère l'ensemble de Jérusalem comme sa "capitale unifiée et éternelle", ce que ne reconnaît pas la communauté internationale" (Le Monde))
  • 13 ("cette «capitale» autoproclamée n'est reconnue par pratiquement aucun État étranger", "«territoire disputé»" (Le Figaro))
  • GA resolution 63/30 ("the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (is) null and void" (United Nations General Assembly))
  • SC resolution 478 ("(..) the recent "Basic Law" on Jerusalem (is) null and void" (United Nations Security Council))
  • 16 ("the European Union has never recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 nor the subsequent 1980 basic law" (EU))
  • 17 ("Israel seized East Jerusalem in the 1967 war with its Arab neighbors and annexed it as part of its sovereign capital; a move not recognized by the international community." (CNN))
  • 18 ("Israel (...) annexed it and claims all of Jerusalem as its eternal capital. But the annexation has not been internationally recognized" (Associated Press))
  • 19 (""Jerusalem is Israel's capital" he said, stating an Israeli position not recognised by world powers" (Al Jazeera))
  • 20 ("Jerusalem must not be used as a metonym or variant for Israel. It is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital, and its status is one of the central controversies in the Middle East." (The Times))
  • 21 ("Jerusalem is not recognised as the legitimate capital of Israel by any foreign country" (Inter Press Service))
  • 22 ("Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital")
  • 23 ("its capital (remains) unrecognised" (Al Jazeera))
  • 24("Jerusalem (...) zur Hauptstadt Israels gemacht; (...) die Vereinten Nationen haben diese Annexion nie akzeptiert" (Der Spiegel))
  • 25 ("Israel beansprucht ganz Jerusalem als "ewige, unteilbare Hauptstadt", einschließlich des 1967 eroberten und später annektierten Ostteils. Dieser Anspruch wird jedoch von der internationalen Gemeinschaft nicht anerkannt." (Die Zeit))
  • 26 ("Capital: Tel Aviv" in an infobox on Israel. (El Pais))
  • 27 "(Israel) claims the entire city as its capital but the move was never internationally recognised" (Daily Telegraph)
  • 28 ("Israel has declared all of Jerusalem its indivisible and eternal capital, a claim not recognized internationally (Reuters))
  • 29 ("Si le statut de Jérusalem-Est reste contesté - bien que son annexion par Israël ne soit reconnue, trente ans plus tard, par aucun des 192 Etats des Nations unies" (Le Monde Diplomatique))
  • 30 (""Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries" (LA Times))
  • 31 ("he welcomed the pope to "the capital of Israel," a status that does not have international recognition" (LA Times))
  • 32 ("Jerusalem, the capital recognized as such by no government but Israel itself" (USA Today))
  • 33 ("Israel claims (Jeruslalem) as its "undivided capital" (…) "annexed (it) in a move never recognized internationally" (Washington Post))
  • 34 ("Israel claimed sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, though the claim is not recognized by the international community" (CNN))
  • 35 ("(israel) insist(s) that it regards the whole city as its (...) capital." "annexed it in a move never recognized by the international community" (Sydney Morning Herald))
  • 36 ("Israel insists (...) east Jerusalem (is) part of its own capital, a view disputed by the international community" (New Zealand Herald))
  • 37 ("Israel's mismanaged July 2006 intervention in Lebanon (...) did great damage to Tel Aviv's military reputation" (Japan Times))
  • 38 ("La comunità internazionale, inclusi gli Usa, non riconosce la rivendicazione di Israele che sia Gerusalemme la sua «eterna indivisa capitale»." (La Stampa))
  • 39 ("Nel 1980, Israele proclamò la città sua "eterna e indivisa capitale", uno status non riconosciuto dagli altri Stati" (La Repubblica))
  • 40 "Israele (...) nel 1980 proclamò (Gerusalemme) sua eterna e indivisibile capitale. Uno status non riconosciuto dalla comunità internazionale." (AMI))
  • 41 ("The battle for Jerusalem has always been a battle that Israel has waged alone, since even the United States has not recognized the city as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
  • 42 ("Israel has declared all of Jerusalem its indivisible and eternal capital, a claim not recognized internationally" (New York Times))
  • 43 ("No major foreign government has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (New York Times))

Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Many sources, particularly professional ones that have country overview articles, do not include any footnote when specifying the capital of Israel. See More sources on this page.
  • No sources have been provided that say that non-recognition has any effect on a city's status as capital.
  • Foreign officials meet their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem regularly and foreign ambassadors present their credentials there, implicitly recognizing Jerusalem as the capital.
  • Other countries whose capitals are not recognized internationally such as Taiwan have no footnote in the infobox on the country page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems User:Dailycare has failed to provide a single relevant source, opting instead to list irrelevant news articles. Why are they irrelevant?
No one here is claiming Jerusalem is recognized by other countries / the UN as the capital. Thus, all the sources saying it's not recognized, are fully irrelevant. I ask User:Dailycare to remove them, being nothing but a red herring - no one is disputing non-recognition, it's not the issue here.
The question is, how do we treat the following, undisputed, list of facts:
  • Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government.
  • Jerusalem is designated as the capital by Israel.
  • Jerusalem is under Israel's full control.
  • Other countries don't formally recognize Jerusalem's status as capital, not having embassies there, though they all come to Jerusalem to conduct official business (meet with Israeli officials).
Now, in the course of this discussion, several points have become clear:
  • A "capital", per any dictionary I've ever seen, is "seat of government".
  • No sources has been provided to show that international recognition is in any way a factor in a nation's designation of its capital, or somehow a prerequisite for a city to be a capital.
  • I've examined a long list of sources, to see how they handle this. When I say sources, I don't mean a news article in the New Zealand Herald focusing on Jerusalem, but encyclopedias etc., that have an entry about Israel, just like we do. The great majority of these simply say Jerusalem is the capital; some of them mention the dispute in the article's body, and some don't. The minority have some note, or qualify Jerusalem's status as capital in some way.
So the question is, how do we present this data? No one is suggesting we remove the information from the article itself. It's covered nicely, and is notable. However, it seems (per the sources), that, when discussing Israel (and that's the article we're on), it is but a minor issue; the sources seem to indicate that despite non-recognition, there's no problem with calling Jerusalem the capital, and mentioning the dispute in the text. Thus, I argue we should do the same.
In the past, the footnote was suggested as a compromise solution - list Jerusalem as capital, but place a footnote for the dispute. Now, as a glace at academic publications can show, the footnote mechanism is equally valid for notes and references, and is used for both. Our own policy, WP:FOOT supports this use. Thus, I hold that we should maintain the status quo in this matter.
I must say I'm dismayed to see User:Dailycare mislead the editors here, when he claims "Mentioning only Capital: Jerusalem is in my opinion POV, since it presents only the minority (Israeli) view." This is demonstrably false, as the sources I've presented show, which is why he had to resort to the long list of news pieces mentioning a fact not in dispute. His choice of advocating "[Nb 1]", instead of the more common option (mentioned above) "[A]", is an attempt to further politicize this entry, in effect trying to make the article say "Capital: Jerusalem [BUT NOT REALLY LOOK AT THE BIG NOTE]". okedem (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be best to bring this article in line with the dozens of other Wikipedia articles which say that Israel's actions to make the City of Jerusalem its capital are considered illegal. That is not a insignificant fact that readers should have to glean from the fine print of the footnotes. In the jurisprudence of many countries, states have a legal obligation not to recognize sovereignty of otherwise legitimate regimes over any territory acquired in violation of the United Nations Charter. NNMNG is trying to conflate diplomatic relations law with the laws governing recognition of states and recognition of governments. Those are separate subjects in the Foreign Relations Law of the United States and many other countries.
Many countries have laws which say that regimes that acquire territory by illegal means will be denied access to their Courts and will not enjoy the normal legal immunities for their acts of state. Okedem is saying that Jerusalem nonetheless operates as a de facto capital, but doesn't want to call attention to that fact in the info box. harlan (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to give the relevant information, not your personal interpretation of the finer points of international law. okedem (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Correction, that's not my personal opinion. It is a legal position adopted by more than 160 other countries. harlan (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no precedent anywhere that says one country or group of countries has any say whatsoever regarding the location of of another sovereign country's capital. None. Further, Wikipedia does not qualify any other country's capital. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; if that's not considered proper by some or another group, that can be discussed in the appropriate place. The infobox is for brief and concise information; nuanced discussion (such as other country's opinions of Israel's choice of capital) can go in the body of the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the depiction of the footnote is extremely trivial; I don't think it's a big deal if the superscript is changed to [a] or [i] or even [nb 1], but I also think it's fine the way it is. However, the introduction of unrecognized as a direct qualifier of capital anywhere, but especially in the infobox, or the addition of any text that suggests that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel is completely unacceptable and not based on fact. This issue is so tired I will devote no further time to talking about it. -- tariqabjotu 22:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • From the RFC. Nations choose where their capital cities are, and there is no issue about international recognition. If there were any doubt about the matter, then look slightly behind the definition: the capital city is the location of a nation's highest administrative functions. The government is centred in Jerusalem; the Prime Minister's official residence is in Jerusalem; the Knesset meets in Jerusalem; the Supreme Court of Israel headquarters is in Jerusalem. The only aspect of Israel which is not centred in Jerusalem is due to the financial centre being in Tel Aviv, but that is hardly unusual (for example the financial centre of Germany is Frankfurt but Berlin is undoubtedly the capital). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have this recurring fantasy that if I say something enough times, someone will agree with me. It hasn't happened yet, but for the umpteenth time, I will propose my compromise to this quandary:
We all agree that Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's government, and the proIsrs contend that "capital" means "seat of government". So why don't we simply change the word "capital" in the lead to "seat of government"? I believe that everyone will agree that that statement is indisputable. On the other hand, no reader other than us politically hypersensitized editors will notice the difference. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That suggestion, to be frank, is in poor taste. Really. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
?? in what way? "Seat of government" is actually more precise; our Capital disambiguation page provides a pointer in that direction, saying "Capital (political), the area of a country, province, region, or state, regarded as enjoying primary status, usually but not always the seat of the government." As Ravpapa points out, it's indisputable that Jerusalem is currently Israel's seat of government; the term doesn't seem to carry the political and semantic load that "capital" does. --jpgordon::==( o ) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ravpapa and Jpgordon (and can only express confusion at the idea that it is in "poor taste"). We could also take put the redundancy of saying in the lead that "Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government ...". The major point about keeping it saying, unqualified, "capital" is that it is the seat of government. So why not just say "seat of government"? Brilliant in its simplicity. nableezy - 18:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Though every other country has a "capital" listed, and not "seat of government". The disambiguation page is mainly because of the economic term capital, and several terms that include "capital" (e.g. financial capital). There's no confusion here. If the infobox said, as a standard matter, "seat of government", I wouldn't argue to change it, but there's no justification for special treatment here. I remind you, that no source has been provided that says international opinion is in any way relevant to a city's status as capital, and that the great majority of RSs simply say it's the capital. Political pressures are not a valid argument. Just as it is indisputable that Jerusalem is the seat of government, it is indisputable that it's the capital, per the very meaning of word, and the RSs. It's also indisputable that other countries think Israel's designation of it as capital is unacceptable / illegitimate. It's just not very important, and irrelevant to its capital status. okedem (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Reliable secondary sources say simply that Paris is the French capital. Of Israel, they say that Israel claims Jerusalem is the capital, but this is not recognized internationally. Here in Wikipedia we should go with reliable secondary sources, so it should be clearly presented that there are two sides to the issue of Israeli capital. If non-recognition wasn't significant, secondary sources wouldn't waste ink mentioning it. In my opinion we can achieve this by changing the link to [nb 1] since that means "please note", see nota bene. A mention in the lead is also in order, IMO, since secondary sources characterize the Jerusalem issue as one of the core controversies in the Middle east. Happy new year, --Dailycare (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, repeating a falsehood will get you nowhere. The majority of relevant sources (not news article about building in East Jerusalem or something, which will obviously discuss the controversy, as that's their point; I'm talking about encyclopedias etc.) don't give this too much space, and don't qualify Jerusalem's status. okedem (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
If it's so obvious that non-recognition is significant to a city's status as capital, it should be trivial to find a couple of sources saying exactly that. So far you have been unable to find any. Your opinion on what newspapers would "waste ink" on is, well, just your opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, sources that say that Paris is the capital of France are not reliable. Paris is not the capital of France. France has no officially designated capital. Most government offices are in Paris, but the parliament sits in Versailles. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected about Paris ;) Okedem, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, whereas we should primarily rely on secondary sources such as reputable newspapers. See Wp:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. You're advocating using a tertiary source for not conveying something in this article which is a bit weird, frankly. We typically source statements, not omissions of statements. That there are two sides to the issue of "Israeli capital" is clear. Don't you agree both should be presented? Happy new year, --Dailycare (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. The question isn't the veracity of the non-recognition issue, but how important it is. Naturally, news articles focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will mention the dispute over Jerusalem prominently; however, as I've shown, sources similar in nature to Wikipedia, such as encyclopedias, choose to give this issue much less space, and only rarely qualify the statement in any way. Thus, if we do any differently, we take a minority position. In our articles about the conflict, it makes sense to highlight this issue. In our article about Jerusalem this is discussed at great length, including in the lead. However, this article isn't about the conflict, or about Jerusalem, but Israel.
  2. "...not conveying something in this article" - if you can't write accurately, don't write at all. The issue is covered at length in this article, we're just discussing if it should additionally be in the infobox. As I've cautioned users on this misleading phrasing before (claiming I've trying to omit the information from the article), I can no longer assume good faith, and must conclude you are intentionally trying to mislead other editors here, so they think I and other users are trying to hide information. This cannot continue. okedem (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, Jerusalem is already mentioned as the capital of the State of Palestine, a country that does not actually exist and yet is presented as a de facto and de jura state in en-wp (many Palestinians and Israelis talk about the need to establish it, which would be ridiculous if there were already such state). Since this is the case, it seems logical enough for en-wp to designate another capital for Israel, let's say Hadera or Bat Yam (sorry for the sarcasm, but it is unavoidable here). DrorK (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa, Jpgordon, Nableezy - I agree that "Seat of government" would be true and neatly side-step the questions related to "capital", and would in that sense be OK for my part. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that proposition as well. Tiamuttalk 19:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
That would work if you go and change every country page on wikipedia to say "seat of government" instead of "capital". This encyclopedia is supposed to be consistent. If it's just Israel, you're once again implying Jerusalem is not really the capital, an idea we have yet to see a single source for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Not recognizing means that the international community does not consider Jerusalem to be the capital. That's why I said saying that Jerusalem is the capital is POV, namely the POV of the law-breaking party. Championing this POV all the way down to resisting the link change from [1] to [nb 1] is absurd. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have repeatedly requested that you provide a source that says non-recognition has any influence on a city's status as capital. You have been unable to do so. Jerusalem being the capital of Israel is a fact, supported by you not being able to provide a source saying it isn't. Your OR regarding what non-recognition means is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: is there anyone participating in this discussion who has not been previously involved in editing or arguing about this and other ME articles? I mean, the idea of an RFC is to get fresh opinions, no? And here we are, the same old gang, running through the same old arguments ad infinitum. So if there's anyone new out there, please raise your hand. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my hand (use our imagination). And here's a hint: I think the reason why you get so few comments is because so few people care about the difference between [1] and [nb 1]. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Or, for that matter, between "capital" and "seat of government". As Henry Kissinger said, the reason academic arguments are so vicious is that there is so little at stake. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem was the capital of Israel since 1948. It remains the capital today. The fact that Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 war has as much to do with Jerusalem's status as capital as Israel's capture of the Golan Heights or the Sinai or the Gaza Strip. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite any injustices Israel may or may not have committed against Palestinians. Furthermore, capitals don't require foreign embassies to be located within their borders.

The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491). This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia. Many of the above state that most countries' embassies are in Tel Aviv, but most of them simply identify the capital of Israel as Jerusalem just as they identify the capital of the United States as Washington, D.C. --GHcool (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GHcool: of the sources you quote, those that I have been able to access all qualify the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is exactly what WP should do, in whatever way. The statement: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" is not very clear at all. I am the most beautiful man in Western Europe, as it happens, although this is not recognised by most of the international community...
It would be a bit of a jaw-dropping indictment of Wikipdedia if the idea that "Jerusalem is the capital of Isreal" needs no futher clarification were allowed to stand. I think that Dailycare has the least ridiculous take on this. --FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It has always been the capital of Israel. Wikipedians can talk till they are blue in the face, but Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel. Please channel all that pent-up energy and creative footnoting into improving the thousands of other articles on WP Israel/Palestine that sit there forlornly, consisting of half a sentence and a bunch of OR. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
FormerIP, please see the sources I've reviewed above, under "More Sources." okedem (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, so of course it shouldn't say that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In what sense does a nation's capital have to be 'recognised' by other nations in order to be its capital? There is no procedure for doing so. The most commonly indicated fact is that foreign embassies in Israel are generally in Tel Aviv, but that really does not help. The Comoros has its United States Embassy in New York City (sharing with its UN Embassy) and not Washington DC. That does not mean that the Comoros disputes that Washington DC is the capital. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Sam, according to Wikipedia rules, articles should reflect the main or majority viewpoint. When one single country - Comoros, choose to have their embassy in New York, it is not for any political reasons, while in Israel, all countries have chosen to not have their embassys in Jerusalem and this is for political reasons. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What political reasons? It was a blackmail ultimatum. Leave Jerusalem or have your oil cut off. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Political reasons even mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, It is not acceptable when you take something from someone else that doesn't belong to you, and this act is not recognized. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Please Gilabrand. OR hyperbole with bigoted undertones does nothing to help the discussion. Tiamuttalk 19:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Perhaps you could provide a source that says that where embassies are located has any bearing on what a country's capital is, since you're obviously unable to provide a source that says non-recognition changes a city's status as capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, you say that the majority of tertiary sources don't give any qualification to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. What sort of survey did you conduct in order to determine this? I'd suggest that it probably depends which sources you choose to look at. Britannica, CIA World Factbook and Infoplease use the qualification that Jerusalem is Israel's "proclaimed" capital CIABritannicaInfoplease I think this would also be appropriate for Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
FormerIP, have you read the section I wrote on sources above ("More sources")? If not, please do. I wrote down every source I could access, never omitting a source based on its phrasing of this. This is why I listed Britannica (with some more details), or Encarta. CIA was already mentioned, so I had nothing new to say about it. Infoplease, as their site says, takes their information about countries from the CIA handbook (which is why their phrasing is exactly the same), and so is not a separate source. Additionally, note that the CIA factbook simply lists Jerusalem as the capital, and only adds a note in the bottom of that section, similar to our footnote (they don't use footnotes).
If you have access to other sources of this kind, please present them (not cherry picking them, of course). okedem (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The BBC guidelines on terminology for reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict offer some useful information on how to report neutrally on Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. About Jerusalem, it says: The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians ... Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war. That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.
I don't see how editors here who claim that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is not a controversial and completely disputed statement can continue in that illusion. Its clear that it is disputed and its clear that to achieve NPOV in this article, if you do make such a blanket statement at all, it must be heavily qualified. Tiamuttalk 19:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo about the BBC being the end-all of editorial considerations. Please forgive me for presenting actual sources. Somehow, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Columbia, and many others don't seem to agree with the BBC's stance, and have no difficulty stating Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Are they all suffering from these illusions? Or are they on the take from the Zionist cabal? okedem (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, I don't believe there is such a rule as "first one to ten tertiary sources wins". There are clearly an awful lot of secondary sources that the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is something about which there are various POVs. The question here is whether the article/infobox should ignore that and exclusively reflect one POV. Your argument seems to be that this is what respectable tertiary sources do. However, I would say that the fact that a number of tertiary sources do not do this is enough to defeat your argument. Or else, in what respect do you think Britannica (for example) has erred? --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Please enumerate the other POVs. I have yet to see a single source that says Jerusalem is not Israel's capital. They mention non-recognition (this relates mainly to not recognizing unified Jerusalem as the capital, but lets not waste time on details), or they mention the embassies are elsewhere, but the "thus Jerusalem is not really the capital" part is somehow always missing. Do you know why that is? Because other countries don't have a say in what a sovereign country's capital is. It's really that simple. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
First off, please be accurate - not a single person here has suggested that the article ignore the dispute, so please don't create that impression here.
The point here is extremely simple - Jerusalem answers all the definitions of capital. Other countries dispute Israel's right to make Jerusalem its capital, so keep their embassies elsewhere. The question is - does this non-recognition actually affect Jerusalem's status as capital? Or is it just other countries' opinions, incapable of changing the fact? Not a single source has been provided that shows that a city's status as capital in any way depends on recognition, or embassies, or the UN.
You seem to be using a straw-man argument; I've never claimed that "this is what respectable tertiary sources do", so the different choice of Britannica doesn't "defeat" my argument. I said, and say, that this is what the majority does. Wikipedia should not take a minority position, and that includes in phrasings such as this. If the majority of similar sources (tertiary) don't qualify Jerusalem's status - why should we? To qualify is to take the minority view. Why did Britannica choose to use "proclaimed" (the most extreme stance of such sources)? I don't know, nor do I particularly care. I've done my best to present a fair review of sources, to see where we stand. At this point, it's clear. If you can't provide more sources, the conclusion doesn't seem to change. okedem (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You may think that Jerusalem answers all the definitions of a capital and that's all there is to it. However, there are other POVs on this, and that diversity is something that should be reflected in the article. Your question about how international non-recognition affects Jerusalem's status is, I admit, interesting. However, it is not for WP to determine an answer and act on that basis, just to make an appropriate representation of the different viewpoints that there are.
I'll tell why I think Britannica chooses to use the word "proclaimed", it is because the authors obviously believed that to be appropriate and neutral. --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The diversity is reflected very well, by giving this issue lots of coverage in the text of the article (including the "null and void" resolution), and in a footnote.
What you are advocating is for Wikipedia to take a stand, to reach a certain conclusion - that non-recognition means that Jerusalem isn't the capital. It seems (and you're free to prove me wrong) that Jerusalem answers the definition of capital, at least any definition that I can find. You claim that non-recognition somehow affects that - the onus is on you to provide evidence for this claim. So far we've seen exactly one source (Britannica) to think so. All the others don't; some think non-recognition is notable enough to be mentioned, some don't, but only Britannica thinks it actually affects the capital status. okedem (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment' -- Taiwan, a political state not even recognized as a legitimate sovereign nation by most of the world, has its capital listed as "Taipei" in the infobox and article. Why? Because Taiwan presents Taipei as its capital, its seat of government is there, and if any nation wants to do business with Taiwan, they must travel to Taipei. In regards to Israel: Israel presents J'slem as its capital, its government is seated there, and even though most/all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv, whenever embassy officials want to do business with the Israeli government, they must still travel to Jerusalem. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The dispute over Taiwan's statehood has nothing to do with its capital. Even those who dispute that Taiwan is a state, have no problem recogniing that Taipei in the capital of that region.
It is uncontroversial to note that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. But it is highly controversial to state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. International consensus is that Jerusalem does not belong to anyone at present and its fate is to be determined via negotiations. Hiding these facts from our readers does them a disservice and also fails to abide by NPOV. Tiamuttalk 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Country infoboxes (and settlement infoboxes) should exist to give the reader a quick, concise and unambiguous, set of facts and statistics. They also exist as an attempt to create uniformity between articles. If we admit that an entity called Israel exists, and that entity presents Jerusalem is its capital, and that entity controls Jerusalem enough to make that presentation a reality on the ground, then that should be the end of it as far as infobox content goes. The reality is that there is no "disputed status" in relation to the infobox content. The opinion of (or recognition by) other entities, be they countries, organisations, or individuals, is irrelevant for infobox content. The infobox does not exist to reflect or contain shades of opinions (that is what the body of the article is for). Also, the infobox for this article should be no different from the infobox for any country article - no second class articles please, so no quick-fix like "seat of government". Meowy 22:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

...or, it could be spun the other way. If we admit that the international community does not recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that a UN Resolution has explicitly invalidated Israel's declaration of Israel as it's capital, then Jerusalem is not legally the capital of Israel and should not be considered as such. In fact, we should not attempt to spin in either direction, we should attempt to provide factual, neutral information. --FormerIP (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The only problem with your "spin" is that we have yet to see a source that says that non-recognition or UN resolutions have any bearing on a city's status as capital. In other words, you're engaging in original research. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't put it any better than Meowy's last comment. It is really as simple as that. We will never reach an agreement in this issue because people are coming at this from strong POV perspectives and refusing to accept the simple fact that it's a very clear matter of semantics. Everyone arguing against the fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is continuously ignoring the undisputed fact that Israel gets to choose its own capital, and that when we on Wikipedia provide the basic facts in the info box, we cannot argue that Jerusalem is NOT Israel's capital. International recognition is another issue. It is covered elsewhere in the article. The infobox doesn't have a section about international recognition. We are discussing how to deal with the "capital" section in the infobox, and that's it. And Jerusalem happens to be the capital of Israel, as selected by Israel, and nobody else. Legally, officially, and in any other way you want to try to spin it, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The UN, or any individual UN member states, have no say in the matter. They do not get to choose Israel's capital. Breein1007 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No. "Israel gets to choose its own capital" is one of a number of possible POVs. Perhaps the view of the international community is relevant, perhaps it is not. That's a debate that is outside our scope here. The bottom line is that the matter is not clear-cut (indisputably - am I being asked to provide cites for this? A number have been provided and the BBC cite above will do), and the article should not present that there is a definitive answer to the question. --FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Say Israel decided to change its currency from the shekel to the "bekel", but the international financial community doesn't like so it decides not to recognize it. Is there any question what Israel's currency is? Of course not. Israel is a sovereign country and gets decide the name of its currency. The same way Israel gets to decide where its capital is. The fact that other countries don't like it is irrelevant to any discussion as to where its capital is.
  • This whole discussion is sort of funny. We have a bunch of people sitting behind their computers trying to challenge reality by changing its wikipedia description. If you want to change the reality, a crusade/jihad may be a better idea. But until then, wikipedia only represents reality, nor our dreams.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No-one is trying to "change reality", we're trying to change this article to say what secondary sources say. If there were dozens of reliable sources saying that the currency name "bekel" wasn't internationally accepted, then that would be mentioned. The infobox in State of Palestine says "Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed)", so there is a neat precedent for modifying it. Concerning what recognition, or non-recognition, means, users may consult dictionaries. Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in 1990 wasn't recognized, and the UN proclaimed it "null and void". Sound familiar? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest making a comparison between the secondary sources and how they define Jerusalem. This should end the dispute once and for all.Imad marie (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
And by mentioning State of Palestine you prove my point - in that case, a proclamation is all we have. The SoP (or the actual body, the Palestinian Authority) doesn't control an inch of Jerusalem, and doesn't have any government institution there. So the strongest possible thing we can say about Jerusalem as the capital of SoP, is that SoP proclaimed its their capital. Obviously, this is extremely far from the situation with Israel, which proclaimed Jerusalem as the capital, but also actually made it the capital. okedem (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still favour the deliberately simple and pragmatic approach of aligning the infobox entry with Britannica, 'Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed)' for the reasons I listed i.e. it has 100% WP:V compliance based on an a reliable uncontroversial source, it's neutral, it adds information, it allows readers to verify the information transparently, it eliminates the need to discuss competing decision procedures that attempt to measure the capital-ness of a city and it's true. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Simple, but why should we follow the most "extreme" source we found (in their choice of phrasing), as opposed to the majority of sources who made a different choice? okedem (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Because that way we get the strongest implication that Jerusalem isn't really Israel's capital. Duh. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem is Israel's capital and has been proclaimed as such. That's why I favour this simple approach. Anything we chose will obviously have problems from someone's perspective. I think we do need to openly acknowlege in the infobox that something is non-standard in this case. Simply adding the word 'proclaimed' is relatively painless, less 'extreme' and more positve than 'disputed' (or something similar). It seems to me that the much of the chaos on this issue is caused by a lack of consensus on decision making methods. Everyone is approaching the issue in a different way, sampling the vast pool of sources and interpreting them in a way that produces the result they probably already favour. It causes the usual editing spiral of death so popular here. If we are going to do that then we might as well be honest and straightforward about it, select a sensible result/infobox entry that doesn't oversimplify or overcomplicate matters together with the associated source. Having said that, I also support Ravpapa's "seat of government" proposal as a nice solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • CommentThe '08 World Almanac handles it similarly with "Jerusalem (most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv)" A line like that would work well in the last line of the lead already discussing both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. This can be viewed as an opportunity to present relevant political information about the country and not as a way to beat up on Israel. A note is not unheard of on Wikipedia, but it also does not appear to be mandated (List of countries with multiple capitals might be an interesting project for those more concerned with the MoS side of things). Using the quote parameter in the first reference wasn't a bad idea but it currently is a little long for our purposes. That same source has a more concise version that resembles the Almanac with the CIA World Factbook stating: "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv." in its infobox like list.
Finding consensus at Template:Infobox country might also help the project in the future. Also, Ravpapa might be interested in the multiple articles calling Paris the capital. I'm not sure of those articles assessment grades, but it looks to be the assertion on Wikipeida. A few quick ones: Paris, France, Paris (disambiguation), Capital region Cptnono (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not liking the language used by several editors here. Please avoid allusions to theft, jihad, crusades, illusions, etc and focus on ways to bring this discussion forward. Editors with strong conflict of interests, please make sure that you are trying to listen to the other people's perspective and try to avoid circular repetition of the same arguments. Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cptnono, for pointing out the incorrect identification of Paris as capital of France in several Wikipedia articles. In the article on Paris and Paris (disambiguation) I have corrected this by changing the word "capital" to "seat of government" and adding a footnote. I would have changed it in the infobox in the article on France, but this is, alas, beyond my poor technical skills.

No one on the France project thought this change to be offensive, or even mildly interesting. Vive la différence! In any case, there is now a precedent for calling a capital a "seat of government" whenever a city's ceremonial status is in any way called into doubt. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It's not as simple as that. I just need to point out as respectfully as possible that we are going in circles now. All of these arguments have been covered over and over again in the discussion above. You say that we now have "precedent for calling a capital a 'seat of government'" when the status is in doubt. However, it's not the case for Israel. France and Israel are not in similar situations. France has not selected Paris to be its capital. Israel, on the other hand, has selected Jerusalem as such. Breein1007 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh crap. I wasn't trying to start a fresh debate on another subject. I saw two people make a couple mentions and thought it would be something interesting to follow-up on. Sorry about that.
With this article. Does anyone else think the quote in the first reference is too long? We have shorter quotes available, Wikilinks for the article, and maybe even a link to a source.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

States are not allowed to unilaterally annex territory and claim sovereignty over them, so they obviously have no right to claim a city within a unilaterally annexed territory as their own possession. Wikipedia is kowtowing to propaganda. If Saddam designated Kuwait city as Iraq's new capital during his invasion would wiki have rolled over?Mudder81 (talk)

Comment by Joe407

As people have clearly stated, this is a difficult topic. I'd like to thank all parties involved for keeping a cool head. I feel that a distinction should be made between Israel in the context of Jerusalem and Jerusalem in the contex of Israel. In the artical about Jerusalem, as in all articles about disputed territory (in this case the 1949 armastice line), there should be a recognition of its disputed status. In this case, the article on Jerusalem should not just say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" or even a location of "Jerusalem, Israel". On the other hand, the state of Israel can call what ever it wants to be its capital. It is a political move by a state to declare a capitol or even to decide not to have one. As such, the political statement of that state should define what the article says. My memory is far from perfect but I recall that one of the first actions of David Ben-Gurion's first goverment was to declare Jerusalem as Israel's capitol. At the time, they did not posses east Jerusalem. It was a political move and should be recognized as such. IMHO Joe407 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment -- A country declares its capital, it is its capital. It is not up to others to claim otherwise. That is why most other tertiary sources call Jerusalem the capital without making a big deal of its so-called disputed nature. I agree with Joe407 that the context of Israel (ie this article), as opposed to the context of Jerusalem, makes a big difference as well. It is not as if there is no mention of the "dispute" in the article. There is no need for special handling such as "seat of government." As someone else pointed out, as far as most of the Arab & Muslim and even some other nations are concerned, Israel itself is illegal, and is only considered a "Zionist Entity" by them at this moment in history. Should we exclude the name of Israel, make a large note to that effect, or include "Zionist Entity" in the info-box, or perhaps embolden it and add it as a separate name to the lede? I don't think so. No special handling. Jerusalem is Israel's stated capital and all the sources agree on that. Stellarkid (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the gathered sources (the 43 above, BBC and Okedem's sources), most say something along the lines of proclaimed+Jerusalem+not recognized. The most extreme sources, either way, say either "Capital:Jerusalem" or "Capital:Tel Aviv". For the record, I'm OK with either the "Seat of government" or "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" proposals that have been floated here. Saying the capital is either "Jerusalem" or "Tel Aviv" is IMO POV. Joe407, the international community has since 1950 made a point to not recognize this particular political move. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I oppose "seat of governemnt" unless it is applied to every other country article on wikipedia. I allow oppose "proclaimed", "so-called" and "they wish".
Still waiting for a single source that says non-recognition has any bearing on a city's status as capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The only problem is that you have brought no sources, but random news articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or just quotes from the UN and the EU, showing (how unexpected), the position of the UN and the EU. Many/most of them don't dispute Jerusalem's status, but just add that other countries don't recognize it as such - a fact not in dispute here, and an obvious thing to mention when discussing the conflict. I've shown that most actual sources (like encyclopedias), knowing all the facts that we do, have no problem simply stating the Jerusalem is the capital. You've presented no sources to show that the UN's opinion (or international recognition in general) has anything to do with a city's status as capital. I conclude that other countries may choose to express their disagreement by non-recognition, but this move is just a part of diplomacy, and has no effect on the capital's status.
In, even the Al-Jazeera link you presented seems to support this conclusion: "Israel's borders remain undrawn, its capital unrecognised,..." - not "its claim to Jerusalem as capital", or any such thing, but "its capital" - this text fully acknowledges that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but just says that other countries don't recognize this. Even Al-Jazeera... okedem (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't think this is primarily an issue about sources. NMMNG says that no source has been brought forward to show that international non-recognition has a bearing on Jerusalem's status as capital. However, neither has any source been brought forward to show that Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as its capital has any similar bearing. I don't think, though, that it would be useful in either case for anyone to go hunting for sources, because it is so very painfully obvious that there is no reasonable room for doubt in either case.

The facts, such as they are, are not disputed by anyone. (1) Israel considers Jerusalem as its capital; (2) the world at large refuses to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The disagreement is about how these two facts should be added together and what the result is. This is, by its nature, a matter of POV, and WP should not fix upon any one POV to the exclusion of others.

We could seek out academic opinion, but even a child could predict that this will only provide more material for arguing over and would not move the discussion forward. In order to do that, we either need an agreement that all mainstream POVs should be represented or an explanation as to why any given POV should be downgraded (apart from: "because mine is right" - editors should be explaining why differing POVs should be excluded, rather than just explaining why they believe in their own POV, which is a bit pointless). --FormerIP (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I think Paris is the capital of France. The poster who pointed out above that its parliament sits in Versailles must have been reading an extremely old newspaper.) --FormerIP (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You forgot one undisputed fact - Jerusalem serves as Israel seat of government, fulfilling the definition of "capital", which is why the majority of sources similar to us simply say it's the capital. To use language properly, one usually consults a dictionary. In this case, any dictionary will tell you that capital is "seat of government". As Jerusalem fulfills that definition, I see nor reason not to call it the capital. Unless you can prove that international recognition has any bearing on a city's status as capital, this is nothing more that just another detail, similar to the many others covered in the article's body. Saying "I don't think this is primarily an issue about sources" does not exempt you from the requirement to present sources. okedem (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
We have plenty of sources saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Some of them note that it is not recognized by the international community. We do not have a source that says this non recognition has any bearing on its status as capital as opposed to just being an anecdote. Thus your claim that this is a POV is WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedians always decide whether things represent a POV by making judgements. We don't look in sources to tell us. The idea that it is possible for a claim of POV to be OR makes no sense. Do you mean something else other than "anecdote"? --FormerIP (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Okedem. You are wrong to suppose that "capital" is synonymous with "seat of government". Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, but it's government sits in The Hague (which is not its capital - see the piped link for confirmation). Edinburgh has been the capital of Scotland since the fifteenth century, but for most of this time Scotland has not had a legislature.
There is also no basis to the idea that the Israeli view about its capital is more important than any other. The Burma article testifies that, as far as WP goes, the view of the government of a country is not even decisive in determining what the name of the country is.
The bottom line is that there is no cold hard fact that can answer the question of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital or not. There are only opinions and it depends who you ask. This is what the article should reflect, not the superiority of any particular opinion. --FormerIP (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Burma is a very bad example, because the there are evidences that the current regime there was imposed on the people, and that the name change was not done according to the laws of the country itself and is not popular among its people. Jerusalem was proclaimed capital of Israel by an elected parliament and according to the regular procedures of relevant country. As for the international non-recognition, it does not go beyond maintaining the embassies in Tel Aviv. Very rarely have there been leaders who insisted on meeting Israeli officials in Tel Aviv rather than in Jerusalem. Israel holds official international events in Jerusalem and only a very small number of delegates ever refused to attend due to the fact that it was held in Jerusalem. The diplomatic corps even regularly attends the official opening ceremony of the Israeli Independence Day held in Jerusalem. DrorK (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Saying that non-recognition has an effect on a city's status as capital is indeed OR unless you can find a source that says it. This is not a judgment call. It's WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments I make on the talkpage cannot possibly be OR. Unless I am misunderstanding something, you seem to be employing a strange logic here, NMMNG. If the question is "is international law and opinion at all relevant when discussing the status of Jerusalem as a capital?", then the answer seems to be so obvious that a request for sources is simply frivolous. I could equally demand to see the sources for the case that Israeli law and opinion is relevant in this regard. But that would be equally frivolous, so I decline to do it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see how "Jerusalem (most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv)" as seen in the World Almanac and various online sources isn't a great solution. SeanHolyland pointed out that Britannica did it similar with "proclaimed". I think "proclaimed" disregards that it functions as the capital, but it might work as well. Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Would something like "proclaimed and de facto" or "proclaimed and seat of government" deal with this reservation? (Although, personally, I think "proclaimed" will do and that concise is better). I don't like "most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv" because it is wordy, because it may be confusing to uninitiated readers (I know what it is meant to convey, but some may struggle) and because I think it is a formulation which is more likely to lead to future dispute, with editors on both sides of the POV divide seeking to delete or amend it. I also don't like "disputed" because it is likely to meet with the approval of a more restricted group of editors and because it is inexact IMO (there are various shades of opinion on this - "disputed" tends to imply you have a quarrel with Israel, which may not always be the case). Plus it is a negative word, whereas "proclaimed" is positive.--FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think "proclaimed" disregards function but it is in Britannica and you do have a point about brevity. If we were to go that route, should we use an inline citation to Britannica with the quote parameter, a footnote in the infobox, or no note at all (simply "Capital(proclaimed)")? Concerns over it being the equivalent to "HEY LOOK AT THIS!" are valid so it makes me a little cautious about how it is presented.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What about a wikilink to either Proclamation (although that article is not great as it stands and is rather England-specific) or Jerusalem#Political_status (which would probably be most helpful to the reader, and would help deal with concerns that the infobox is not offering full disclosure)?
A footnote is probably, strictly speaking, unnecessary IMO, but it might help deter future POV editing. It could be to Britannica or it could contain a short explanation with a link to an RS giving a fuller explanation (if one can be found) - that would be better.
I agree with "HEY LOOK AT THIS" (come to think of it, someone should do an essay on that), although I'd add that any wording in WP that doesn't want anyone to look at it is a bit pointless. I think the worst examples of WP:HLAT are where the wording immediately strikes you as the uncomfortable product of an edit war. But I digress. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
okedem's original phrase was "BUT NOT REALLY LOOK AT THE BIG NOTE". I'm not sure if WP:BNRLATBN or WP:HLAT is funnier.
See reference number 1 currently used. It is a whole separate article with its own inline citations. I'm still looking at it trying to figure out a solution but drawing a blank. Overall, we could be looking at two separate issues here: How to handle the infobox and how to handle that reference? Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not merge the current footnote into Jerusalem#Political_status and then provide a footnote pointing there? You are right, it is a mini-article rather than a footnote, but it also seems to be accurate AFAICT. I suppose there is the risk that the section in the Jerusalem article may degrade over time, but WP will always require vigilance. --FormerIP (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems that whatever point that is trying to be made about questioning Jerusalem's status as seat of government "capital" should have a section either in the Jerusalem article or the Israel article rather than something in the info box. To my logic, the point made earlier about Taipai in Tiawan fits here. The Israeli seat of government is Israel regardless of it's status in global politics. A capital is what a govt says it is. By the line of reasoning of the person who started this Rfc, it would be more appropriate to question Israel's status as a country (As evidenced by the large number of people in the Arab world who fail to recognize its legitimacy)rather than Jerusalems status as a captial. Within Israel itself, Jerusalem itself is the captial no disupute there. It seems to me that the whole basis of this Rfc is rooted in POV.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's true that Israel is not universally recognized as a state, but the majority of the world's nations do recognize it and it is a UN member, therefore the "Israel doesn't exist" view is a small minority view. To the contrary, "Jerusalem isn't the capital" is a view subscribed to just a year ago (most recently) in the United Nations by 163 countries (source #14 above). On the other hand, I don't believe any country disagrees with the statement that Jerusalem is the proclaimed Israeli capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

* Comment: No more sources are needed; these many sources are good enough, but none alone say it well enough to be accepted by consensus in the limited box available. Personally, the existing ‘Jerusalem<ref>’ looks OK, but adding ‘proclaimed’ before the ref seems more informative and neutral. People don’t question the city, they question its status, and that is where the ref should go. The city is their capital; that is proclaimed. But that status is not recognized internationally; if it were, there would be little discussion or need for the ref. While some worry about "HEY, LOOK AT THIS", I do believe in an encyclopedia that the city’s highly ref'd variable status should indeed be looked at, as well as seen, when such a short space is available. It looks as if this remains for involved editors to come up with one to fit into the short-answer info box. I do however, object to the ref’s POV’d description of the JEA, which is neither neutral in description, nor inclusive of the other side of its coin, having been consistently waived by succeeding Presidents since passage. That should be corrected to Wiki neutrality standards. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "proclaimed" implies that Israel cannot exercise its proclamation, and in this case it is definitely not the case. Israel proclaimed the city as its capital and made it its capital for real. DrorK (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The term 'proclaimed' implies only that Israel proclaimed it; the ref attached only indicates more information regarding that word's usage. I doubt it implies anything more; how it has exercised its proclamation is well known and a whole new topic. Wallowing in the might that created the facts provides little benefit to the discussion, except to point out the considerable differences with a right that others accept. Proclaiming something is one side of a two-sided coin; the other side is the recognition of that proclamation by others. To a large degree, it is similar to the difference between de facto and de jure. The facts are one thing; their acceptance by others is different; both are true from their respective points of view. At the same time, having facts shoved down one's metaphorical throat is much different than accepting them and swallowing them on your own. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose using "proclaimed" for the reason Drork mentions above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
CasualObserver: Proclaimed disregards function and if a couple editors here have concern with it than it probably means even more will if it is in the main space. People assume all sorts of stuff. I am not totally against it but can't see using it if there is already so much friction. If "proclaimed" "de facto" or similar terms are considered ambiguous to some and mention of Tel Aviv is too long, then scrapping the idea of a qualifying note in parenthesis might be best.Cptnono (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the formulation "proclaimed and seat of government" (or, if preferred, "proclaimed and de facto") would fully deal with the concern about stressing functionality. As I said above, I would prefer the clarification to be as short as it can be. But if it is crucial to some editors to stress that Jerusalem is a functioning capital, then OK. --FormerIP (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm torn between objecting to this on the basis of the opening brace before "proclaimed and seat of government" implying a sad face or a right ear. It's difficult to know whether to take the Western or Asian position on this important issue. Other than that this proposal seems reasonable. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Sean, you'll need to explain the thing about the "opening brace" a bit more. --FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I also object to "proclaimed" on the basis of only one source actually using it in such a manner.
I think Sean was attempting to dismiss the concerns about the implications of "proclaimed" while attempting to be funny. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I understand your new objection or not, NMMNG. Are you saying that you object on the basis that you can find only one source that is syntactically the same and combines the word "proclaimed" with the use of parentheses and an information table? It is too much to hope that, rather than being a serious objection, this is just an illustrative example intended to help me understand the comment made by Sean? --FormerIP (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
See Emoticon. I wasn't dismissing concerns. I was raising potential new concerns about content changes based on my personal views on the implied meaning of the '(' symbol to the entire population of people who might read this article. With hindsight it seems disruptive, irrational and unhelpful to do that kind of thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, we have yet to see a source that supports the notion that international recognition is somehow relevant to a city's status as capital. While CasualObserver claims "Proclaiming something is one side of a two-sided coin; the other side is the recognition of that proclamation by others", neither he, nor anyone else, has bothered presenting sources to support this claim.
So far we have many respectable sources calling Jerusalem the capital; we know that it answers the dictionary definition of capital; and it's designated as capital. We don't have any source regarding recognition's importance in this; to the contrary - we have multiple sources that don't even bother mentioning recognition, or mention it somewhere in the text, but not their infobox. okedem (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the demand for sources runs the risk of looking purely tactical. It might be reasonable to point out that there is room for debate about how Israeli law and international law may interact, what significance UN Resolutions or statements made by various governments may have or not have. But to demand proof the these matters are relevant at all does not look at all reasonable. What sort of source do you suppose would ever address such a non-question anyway? It doesn't even appear to make logical sense. I can provide sources to show what the view of the UNSC is, for example, but to find sources that bother to discuss whether this view is meaningful would be very difficult. Plus, as I said above, there is no less reason to demand sources to prove that Israeli law is relevant on the same topic. However, I remain determined not to engage is such foolishness.
Anyway, to get back to the point, I think you are also arguing against a straw man, okedem. I don't think anybody proposes that Jerusalem should not be identified as the capital of Israel. However, it remains clear beyond reasonable doubt that there are a range of POVs as to how appropriate this is, and so it can't said to be true without qualification. --FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that confirming to WP:V is "purely tactical"? It is one of the pillars of wikipedia, as I'm sure you know.
If I read you correctly, you're saying the effects of non-recognition on a city's status as capital are a "non-question"? It would be unreasonable to expect someone to write something along the lines of "because it is not recognized as such, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel"? Seriously? I think you're trying to dismiss this issue precisely because you can't find any sources making that claim. Perhaps you should take a second do think why that is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:V is a policy requiring that statements made in WP articles should be supported by Reliable Sources. It does not apply to arguments made on talkpages.
Ample sources have been provided to show that there are diverse legitimate POVs on the subject of Jerusalem's status as a capital city. I believe that is all that is required to make the case that it is inappropriate to present a claim about Jerusalem's status as if it were uncontested.
The further challenge that has been made appears to be "provide a source that proves that these opinions are not irrelevant". This seems to me to be an attempt to narrow the debate and demand something that is more or less impossible, barring the possibility that I could get God to make a statement on the matter. Opinions cannot be "proved" in the way that seems to have been demanded. However, I do not need to "prove" the relevance of any opinions. The fact that they exist (within reason, in the mainstream) is enough.
On the other hand, if all that is being asked is to demonstrate that the view that international opinion/law casts doubt on Jerusalem's status as a capital exists and that this is not something I have made up all on my own, then obviously that will be easy to do (once again).
Please note that it is not my case that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, so I do not feel I need to either demonstrate this or rebut any evidence that it is.
As a gesture of goodwill, I will go to the trouble of googling for a source that supports something like the claim you demand in your most recent post (ie the view of the international community is relevant in determining how appropriate the description of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is). I will perform only one search, thinking of the best search term I can, and pick what I think is the best source from the first page of results. Just for fun, you can watch the timestamps and see how long it takes me. --FormerIP (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay here is the source: [1]. It is from the Jerusalem Post (a respected and Israeli paper) quoting the BBC (one of the world's largest and most respected news organisations, with arguably one of the strongest reputations for unbiased reporting). The quote, from an official BBC statement, is: "We of course accept that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that the BBC should not describe it as such." How does that strike you? Is that sufficient evidence? Or do I further need a source that demonstrates that the view taken by the BBC is relevant? --FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't hype the BBC's neutrality. There's a reason they waste public money to keep the findings of their bias investigation secret. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG, Okedem, what's your suggestion on how to take the view of the 163 member states of the UN into account, who just recently said they don't consider Jerusalem as the capital (source #14 above)? You've been critical of suggestions put forward by others, but so far less vocal on proposing solutions of your own. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Although I am interested to see their suggestions, I can't see any response but: "The UN isn't Israel so who cares" (in better words I'm sure). I suggest:
  • Nothing" "Jerusalem[1]" [1] is an inline citation. Under the references section the quote parameter is used in a much more concise way than now
  • "Jerusalem (see positions on Jerusalem)"
Either way, it isn't for us to label and the lead can be adjusted to give a quick summary:
"Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem is as the country's capital. It is the seat of government, and largest city, while. Israel's main financial center is its second largest city, Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is not recognized by many countries as the nation's capital so most embassies are located in or around Tel Aviv.
It doesn't offer so much weight that it overpowers the lead but still says enough to get the point across. Tweaks can be made to make it completely accurate and readable. More and more detail can be shoved into related articles or in below sections. Unisgned comment by Cptnono
I think that there's another side to the WP:HLAT coin. The clarification should be concise and accurate, but it should also be immediately visible, so I don't think that burying it in a footnote will do. WP:SHHH! would be my term for this.
I think your proposal for the lead looks basically okay though, assuming it meets WP:V. --FormerIP (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hot damn, we need to start writing essays.
How about using see "see positions on Jerusalem". Proclaimed is causing concern and explaining it is too long. We summarize it as appropriate in the prose of this and related articles.
I didn't completely check the minor details for that line so small tweaks may be needed. It also has to be worded as carefully as possible so we aren't ignoring the dispute or giving it excess weight.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There may be minor things with the lead (I think I'm right that Tel Aviv is actually the biggest city in Israel for example).
I think the objection of NMMNG and okedem is really to the idea of clarification per se, rather than to "proclaimed" in particular. I still think that is the best solution, and it seems to be the one that has gained the most support overall. I'd point out that other alternatives seem, to my mind, less favourable to the pro-Israel POV ("disputed", "Tel Aviv" or even "none" could all be argued for).
Some variant of "see positions..." might be okay, but it still needs to contain some explicit clarification so as to directly indicate the existence of other viewpoints (and, again, I can't think of anything more accurate and neutral than "proclaimed", but maybe someone else can). --FormerIP (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, I strongly oppose using "proclaimed", BBC editorial policies notwithstanding.
I also reject your accusation that I'm trying to hide something. The article Positions on Jerusalem is linked to no less than four times in this article. Not enough?
Instead of making up silly policies like WP:SHHH! you should be reading WP:AGF. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue going on and on saying the same thing about why the current text is appropriate. I'll just say that you are incorrect; Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, not Tel Aviv. Breein1007 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Silly policies, NMMNG? On the contrary, I condfidently predict it will be one of the pillars of WP within my lifetime.
I'm not trying to accuse you of trying to hide anything and sorry if it came across that way. The only proposal you seem to approve of, though, is the one where no qualification appears alongside the word "Jerusalem". Because of this, I don't think your objection to any partiuclar word should be taken as a reason to reject that word in particular. If I'm wrong and you have a preferred formulation of your own, I don't think it is too late to throw it into the hat. --FormerIP (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not too late to throw anything into the hat since your suggestion to change the current long standing text and to qualify in the infobox has very little support. I count you, harlan, Supreme Deliciousness and Sean, and I assume Dailycare and two others will support anything that implies Jerusalem is not the capital. On the other hand there's okedem, jpgordon, tariqabjotu, Sam Blacketer, Jaakobou, DrorK, GHcool, Gilabrand, Meowy, Breein1007, brewcrewer, Joe407, Stellarkid, Elmmapleoakpine and myself who do not think it should be qualified in the infobox. So that's 6-7 for, 14 against so far. I may have missed a couple on either side, or misunderstood someone's position, but that won't substantially change the consensus (or lack thereof) here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's see your suggestion then. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a vote NMMNG. What counts is what arguments are put forward. The only viable argument I can detect on your side is that the the opinions of the UN, every government in the world (except one, obviously), the Canadian supreme court, the EU, the BBC, the Times style guide, Britannica (and so on and so forth) should all be ignored because they are not the government of Israel. That seems like a very weak argument. And it clearly contradicts WP:NPOV, so I don't think it is viable after all. --FormerIP (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This indeed isn't a vote. You obviously do not have consensus to change the long standing text. That you think your arguments are better is quite irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FormerIP: That still doesn't answer the question of what makes a capital a capital. Is it where a country maintains its governmental offices and claims is its seat of government or is it where other countries maintain their embassies? Its all a matter of perspective I guess. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 21:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. My case is that there is more than one legitimate perspective on this question, and nowhere on the page should the validity of any one perspective be asserted without qualification. --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a source that says the capital is where other countries maintain their embassies? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think above it was discussed, that we don't need to resolve that issue. There are two sides (perspectives in your words) to the issue, and at stake is that some editors feel that Israel's perspective has undue weight since the lead and infobox do not qualify Israel's claim that Jerusalem would be the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
True, often the term Zionist entity is used in media in the Arab & Muslim world to refer to Israel; Maybe the name "Israel" should be given an "*" denoting that fact. Its all a matter of perspective, after all. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No that's clearly daft. As far as I'm aware, neutral sources never refer to Israel as "Zionist entity". As I say, there are different legitimate viewpoints, but that isn't one of them.
On the question of embassies, I guess different people will have different opinions about that, which is my whole point. If you want my personal opinion, I guess it's a clear sign of non-recognition, but I'm not sure embassies necessarily make a capital any more than any other single factor. Maybe some countries put their embassies in Tel Aviv because the restaurants are better.--FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, neutral is a matter of perspective. What isn't neutral to you or I, may be neutral to someone else. Certainly the BBC or NBC isnt considered "neutral" in the muslim world. If we are going to question the neutrality and WP:UNDUE of listing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, we should also make sure that the name of the nation isn't given the same undue weight. Afterall, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan, none of Israel's neighbors recognize the nation. Nor does most of the muslim world... Seriously, a line has to be drawn at some point, or every article will be laced with notations and exceptions. Sadly, this whole debate reminds me of a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a line should be drawn somewhere, I just don't think it should be drawn neatly around the POV of the Israeli government to the exclusion of any differing opinion. Good luck with your campaign to change the name of Israel. --FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There are some things that are POV and some things that are fact (much like the sky appears blue). This seems to be an attempt to change a fact and replace it with an opinion because some people in the world do not like the reality of things.--nsaum75¡שיחת! 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm tired of going around in circles. There's obviously no consensus to change the long standing text in the infobox and the lead. There's also no consensus to change the long standing way the footnote is marked. If you find some sources that support your POV that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel (and I mean WP:RS not the BBC's editing policy), please feel free to present them and I'll be happy to reconsider my position. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

nsaum75: Obviously, the status of Jerusalem is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Clearly, there are a lot of opinions about it.
NMMNG: I don't think it is at all clear that there is a consensus in favour of the present version. There are a lot of supporters (as well as a lot of objectors), but consensus is measured in good argument, of which I see little from your camp at present. I haven't done a headcount for myself, but perhaps you are right to suppose you have numbers on your side. But, given that an edit war is naturally guaranteed never to happen in this type of article, numbers don't really count. Also, the RfC has a while yet to run, so don't assume anything.
I think I have already said quite a number of times that it is not my POV that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, just that various views on the matter are out there, which has been more than adequately sourced already. --FormerIP (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's better to strike out comments like "If you find some sources that support your POV that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel..." because a) no one is proposing that Jerusalem should not be identified as the capital of Israel (apart from Ravpapa's proposal to avoid the issue and just have 'seat of government') b) strawman statements like that are the reason this is going around in circles and most importantly c) new editors who come along to comment might be misled. The question is 'Should the capital status of Jerusalem be qualified in the lead and infobox of the Israel article, and if so how?' That is the strictly limited scope of this discussion. Let's just stick to that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Well then, if there's no dispute regarding the fact that Jerusalem is the capital, there's no reason to qualify this in the infobox. So far we are all aware of the lack of formal recognition, but no one has presented any sources that support the notion that this is somehow relevant to Jerusalem's capital status. okedem (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
A few quick options if anyone is interested
  • I don't hate "(proclaimed)" but I see the concern. At least two other editors are against it.
  • I love "(most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv)" but this seems too long and could possibly only tell what not why.
  • I'm also a big fan of "(positions on Jerusalem)". Thoughts? Is it a cop out?
  • I suspect that "(disputed)" or anything similar (ie: "disputed by the international community")is a non starter.
  • Doing nothing seems to also not be an option for some even though I would not be completely against it since we already have an inline citation.
Cptnono (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I could also live with "(positions on Jerusalem)". Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
So could I; my initial choice for formatting the limited space would be: Jerusalem, positions vary. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I can't be bothered to get deeply involved in this long-winded, recurring argument. However, I think the issue is important enough, as evidenced by how several sources are reluctant to simply use "capital" unqualified, that the footnote should be clearly indicated as different from the usual ref. I don't care whether this is done through inserting "note" or using roman numerals or letter. Some of the other options mentioned by Cptnono above would also fulfil the purpose of making it clear that Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel is not unquestioned. (Positions on Jerusalem), Most countries... Tel Aviv, etc. Basically anything where a casual reader gets an indication that there is a question mark attached to the status. I think this accords with WP:DUE by reflecting how a significant number of reliable sources do qualify things. In short, I can live with anything other than the "nothing" solution.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If, by the 'nothing' solution, you mean just a linked Jerusalem, then I totally concur. I too can live with anything rather than that "nothing" solution. If, by that specific wording, you mean leaving the current ref'd[1] I also concur, because that symbolism is insufficiently DUE, based on the many varied positions of other RS'd sources, as Daily notes below. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Of those listed above, I'm only not comfortable with doing nothing or saying "embassies are in Tel Aviv" as that fails to connect to the dispute on Jerusalem's status as capital. The other suggestions are in my opinion OK. NMMNG, it does make a difference if your arguments are viable or not. If you're simply saying "no because no" or "no because only Israel's POV matters", you're not presenting reasoned objections, just objections. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have stated my policy based objections above. Several times. I don't know what you think your repeated requests for me to state them again exactly accomplishes, nor do I understand what you think misrepresenting my views where everyone can read exactly what I said is going to get you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, NMMNG, I don't see where you have done this. Looking over your comments, I can see a lot of debating tactics deployed. The one kind I'm having difficulty in finding is any policy-based defence of your position. Perhaps it is there, but it would be helpful if you could succinctly restate it. --FormerIP (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's try a different approach

I have a question for the Status-quoers: The lead now says "Jerusalem is the country's capital, seat of government, and largest city, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv." What does "capital" mean in this sentence? It apparently does not mean "seat of government", otherwise the two phrases would be redundant. So does it refer to Jerusalem's political status? to its historical status? or what? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It means the same thing as in "Amsterdam is the capital of Holland". You'll notice that the seat of government and foreign embassies are elsewhere, but Amsterdam is still the capital. I could not find any mention of international recognition of Amsterdam as the capital. Apparently, the Dutch get to decide what their capital is regardless of what other countries think or where they put their embassies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
If Israel's capital is not in Jerusalem -- regardless of where Israel itself says its capital is located -- then where is it? Is there reliably sourced information saying that Israel's capital is in Netanya? or maybe Yafo? or Eliat? Who has the right to say where a country's capital is? Does the PLO say where Israel's capital is? or maybe that decision lies with Hamas? or the United Nations? Bolivia has two capitals, maybe we should say "Jerusalem: Israeli Seat of Government and Wishful Capital" with the addendum "Internationally Accepted Capital: Location Unknown". Or maybe "Jerusalem: Palestinian Capital currently occupied by the Israeli seat of government & hopeful future capital". Or we could just put "Location Unknown due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT".
Seriously people, this is silly. We are trying to say a country's capital isn't its capital because some people don't like the fact that the country in question maintains its government there and says it is its capital. If you insist on saying that listing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a form of pro-israel bias or give undue weight to an Israeli POV, then you might as well say calling Israel -- well..."Israel" -- is exhibiting undue weight and pro-israeli bias...because it is... for the exact same reasons you are using to protest listing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. But, I dont see anyone clamoring to change the article to list "Zionist Entity" or "Occupied Palestine" as alternative names for Israel.
Btw: Why is Istanbul called Istanbul when for most of recorded history it was Constantinople, and who told Turkey they could move their capital to Ankara? -- nsaum75¡שיחת! 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Options again

I still favour the option "(proclaimed)", as put forward by Sean, with a footnote, or some variant such as "(proclaimed and seat of government)". This seems to me the perfect word to give an appropriate and accurate qualification. I would also note that it is the meekest form of qualification I can think of (when you think of it on the spectrum of what might be arguable). Any meeker and it becomes nothing, IMO.

The thrust of my own position is as follows. There are a number of well-documented POVs regarding the status of Jerusalem. It is not reasonable to ignore, for example, that one of these refuses to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that it is held by reputable organisations such as the UN, the BBC, a large number of national newspapers and every government in the world except Israel (the challenge has been put forward a number of times: "prove that these opinions are at all relevant" - I say this challenge is self-evidently absurd). Because there is clearly more than one valid take on the question, it is a blatant breach of WP:NPOV to present, anywhere in the article, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without giving some form of qualification, which must be inline.

As long as that is achieved, I don't mind very much what the actual form of the qualification is.

However, I do not think that the phrase "(see positions on Jerusalem)" actually contains a qualification. It just contains an instruction to look at a location where the non-Israeli POV has been hidden away.

Some variant of "see positions...", I suspect, could probably be satisfactory if it were adapted to include a qualification of some kind.

On the other hand, I fail to see what objection there can be to "(proclaimed)" or some variant of it. True, two editors oppose it, but these are the same two editors that oppose any form of clarification, and no clear reasons have been given.

Sean, even though I think your proposal is perfect, I think you've made a tactical blunder, because some people will always expect to be able to haggle, so there may be a mindset that we need to find a compromise that lies somewhere between this absolutely minimal proposal on the one hand and the status quo on the other. As far as I can see, there is no space in which such a compromise can exist. Tactically, Sean, you should have gone with the opening gambit of "New Delhi (official!)". That way is would have been easy to get "(proclaimed)" accepted as the perfect, neutral compromise it is. --FormerIP (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proclaimed kind of sucks. If disregards function. Not the worst of proposals by any means but if there is not even close to consensus on it I really don't see how it can work. Think about it, enough editors already poopey about it means that it more than likely isn't OK if looking at it from an alternative perspective. And keep in mind with (see positions...) we can back that up with prose and the quote parameter (which should be the bulk of this discussion since attempting to label something in the infobox speaks ill of all of us). It is the less abrasive from both views.Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Clarification already exists via the footnote. The problem is, does Wikipedia have the right to change the status of a country's declared capital, simply because some people in the world don't like it? Or are we going to contradict ourselves in the same article by going beyond a footnote and changing the essence of the meaning in one place while preserving it in another. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
But "proclaimed and seat of government" does not ignore function, and I don't perceive that anyone would be WP:Poopey about this other than those users who feel that way about any qualification whatsoever.
I should say that, even though I feel I should stick to my guns as far as "no Jerusification without qualification" goes, I guess the whole picture does count. If something like your previous proposal for the lead can be achieved at the same time, then that will certainly help. --FormerIP (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to my question "what does the word capital mean in the lead?", I think both No More Mr Nice Guy and nsaum75 gave clear answers. I will restate them here (please correct me if I don't get it right): Jerusalem is Israel's capital because Israel says it is, and the declaration of a country as to where its capital is overrides any other considerations; and that the word "capital" in the lead refers to Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as the capital (as distinct from the physical location of the offices of government).

Is that right? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a few other notes were raised in the discussion. One which comes to mind is that it is the actual sovreign power over the city. Yes? JaakobouChalk Talk 07:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Forget it. Editors have tried to find alternatives. Bent over backwards to find a resolution. If editors refuse to find a middle ground that is accurate and correct then screw it. My vote is ZERO change to the article until others can play ball. Stop fighting or go away. everyone who knows my editing style can insert fuck wherever they feel appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to point out that even the Arabic Wikipedia uses just "Jerusalem[1]" (in Arabic obviously) under capital in its infobox. Looking through the history, it seems to have been like that for quite some time. -- tariqabjotu 10:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think editors should focus more on the actual sources presented (arabic Wikipedia is not a source). In terms of assessing consensus, do we need to take into account editors who say "no because no", or can their submissions be ignored as disruptive? ((on talk pages) "disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus") I believe Ravpapa's point is that if "capital" in the lead reflects the israeli proclamation, then saying proclaimed capital would be exactly the thing - am I correct? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I like this. If the RfC you start doesn't go the way you want, accuse the people who disagree with you (who happen to be most of the people who commented) of being disruptive and say they should be ignored. Perfect.
I'm done here. If someone comes up with new sources, please let me know. In the meanwhile let me state again that as far as I can see, there is no consensus to change the lead, infobox or the way the footnote is marked in the infobox. By a wide margin. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with No More Mr Nice Guy, There is an element of this RfC in which some editors who are intent on revising facts based upon WP:IDONTLIKE, are dismissing those who disagree with them as being "disruptive". It is evident that there is no consensus for change and recycling the same position under different techniques is not going to change that outcome at this time. Just because the consensus does not go your way does not mean that you can dismiss or ignore opposing editors until you reach a preconceived outcome. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 07:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to underline that I wasn't calling merely disagreeing with a suggestion disruptive editing, to say that is a mischaracterization of what I wrote. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position; However that does not change the fact that some editors continually try to dismiss anything and everything that those who disagree with them say, regardless of how they try to spin the response - ie: either through suggestions of disruptive editing, ignoring the content of the comments all together, or trying to de-emphasize the points made by editors with differing viewpoints. Anyhow, this discussion is not constructive in regards to moving forward with the RfC, and should probably end now. We have more important things to do -- like getting back to discussing article content. Cheers. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, Dailycare, Arabic Wikipedia is not a source; must you be so impulsive in your responses? What I am saying is that the Arabic Wikipedia, which has a less broad readership than the English Wikipedia and -- let's be honest -- a readership more inclined to take issue with the Israeli stance on Jerusalem formulates its infobox exactly how we currently have it here. There seems little reason then (not, obviously, just for this reason) to go beyond that. -- tariqabjotu 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to note that the claim about Arabic Wikipedia does not appear to be true. The infobox in the Arabic article states "Largest city: Tel Aviv". Jeruasalem is not referred to in the lead. The issue is dealt with within the body of the article in a section titled "Dispute over capital". Looking at the article history, none of this appears to be any different in the recent past. (With thanks to Google Translate). --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
So, what: are you calling me a liar, an idiot, or both? Seriously, please tell me, because you feel compelled with your knowledge of Arabic coming solely from a misreading of Google Translate to declare that I would be so low as to completely make up an easily verifiable point. I myself am not fluent in Arabic, but I know more than enough to know exactly what it says in the infobox. The first line says العاصمة (capital) and adjacent to it القدس (al-Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem). Later on, under Section 12, entitled المدن الإسرائيلية (Israeli cities), it says -- in the first line --
(Jerusalem, the national capital of Israel). I understand that Google Translate makes errors sometimes, but even with me running the article through Google Translate, you should at least be able to see that Jerusalem is mentioned in the infobox. Please don't treat me like an asshole. -- tariqabjotu 19:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I frankly think that changing the text in the infobox is silly. The infobox is simply a quick way for people to find facts about a country, and not a place to pursue the convoluted pilpul of Middle East dialectics.

The lead, however, is another matter. Since the sentence in the lead is already being a bit picky ("... capital, seat of government..."), I would urge a change to make it palatable to everyone. How about something like this: "Israel has declared Jerusalem, the historic religious and cultural center of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, while Tel Aviv is the commercial center."

Since the proIsrs have pretty much confirmed that this is their intent in their use of the word "capital", is there a chance they might agree? Hmmm! --Ravpapa (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa, that wording could work towards a compromise while maintaining factual correctness. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The part of the infobox that identifies Jerusalem as the Israeli capital currently has a link to a footnote which explains that there are acknowledged real world issues/disputes regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The footnote does not say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, rather it provides some sourced information about the undeniable issues/disputes. This is NPOV, this is what Wiki does. However, the link to the footnote now displays as a superscript [1], meaning it is formatted exactly the same way as a normal source reference([1]). Recent suggestions by various Wiki editors were made that there should be a formatting adjustment to differentiate the link to the footnote -- to make it something like [nb 1] or [A] -- in order to make it clear that it is a link to a footnote, and not a link to a source reference.
These were simple suggestions about formatting for clarity. The suggestions were, however, strongly opposed by some very determined editors. It is difficult to understand how pro-Wikipedia editors would oppose formatting for clarity; unless perhaps they preferred that the link to the article's single footnote display exactly as if it were a link to one of the article's 287 source references. What would compel some editors to support this opaqueness? That is the matter that needs to be addressed here, and taken to the next level if necessary. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the vast majority of footnoted texts, including PhD theses, scholarly books, and, yes, Wikipedia articles, do not separate out citations from comments in their footnotes; rather, all the footnotes, whether citations or additional information that doesn't fit into the body of the text, are numbered consecutively. This is not to say that such numbering couldn't be done - it certainly could be done, though how much it would add to the clarity of the text is debatable. Anyway, I personally don't think this really marginal change in format is worth the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of words that have been spilt in this discussion. In fact, I don't think it is even worth the few dozen words that I have just spilt. So that's that for now. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:LEAD says that any notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead, so in my opinion if we mention the capital issue we should also mention non-recognition in the lead. BTW, it's also pretty controversial to say that Jerusalem is "Israel's largest city" since that assumes the view that Jerusalem is in Israel which, again, is not accepted internationally. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The lead does mention the notable controversy: "Some international borders remain in dispute". Do you consider the controversy over Jerusalem to be something other or separate from the controversy over borders? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me that the border issue might include non-recognition of Jerusalem as the capital, I understood that to relate to the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza. At least the last sentence does not convey that there is controversy as to whether Jerusalem is the capital, or is in Israel to begin with. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The border issue is the whole ball of wax. If Israel had not annexed the eastern half of Jerusalem, no one would object to Israel making Western Jerusalem its capital. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case, as at least the United States was was commenting already in 1952 that Israel should not move its offices to (West) Jerusalem and was warning other nations against situating their embassies there. (East Jerusalem was occupied in 1967) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we need to try to work out what the situation would be in a parallel universe, but Dailycare is right on the substantive point. WP:LEDE states that significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead. It does not state that significant controversies can be omitted from the lead if other significant controversies are included. --FormerIP (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I will agree that the lead needs to make reference to this specific controversy. Perhaps something along the lines of:
"Jerusalem is the country's capital, seat of government, and largest city, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv. This [[Status of Jerusalem|status]] is currently [[Positions_on_Jerusalem#Palestinian_position|disputed]] by some members of the international community."
This notes the position of Israel (that J'slem is its capital) and states that other countries/organizations dispute that status -- in addition to giving a link to the article on the Status of Jerusalem and an embedded link to the Palestinian position on the status of J'selm. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the version proposed earlier by cptnono:
  • Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as the country's capital. It is the seat of government, and largest city. Israel's main financial center is its second largest city, Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is not recognized by many countries as the nation's capital so most embassies are located in or around Tel Aviv.
--FormerIP (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up: Second "largest city" is from Wikipeida and not a source so I cannot say it is for sure.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this, merging elements from the versions above:
  • Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as the country's capital. It is the seat of government, and largest city. Israel's main financial center is its second largest city, Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is [[Status of Jerusalem#United_Nations_position|not recognized]] by other countries as the nation's capital and most embassies are located in or around Tel Aviv.
Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how many times you guys need to be told... you won't get consensus on any of this "proclaimed "declared" "tried to make" "wishes it was" nonsense. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If you use wording that brings any shade of doubt to that indisputable fact, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think your version is fine, Dailycare. --FormerIP (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a version with a direct, non-embedded, link to the status of Jerusalem article -- using the exact article name -- so that all positions are highlighted, not just the UN:

  • Jerusalem is the country's capital, seat of government, and largest city. It's main financial center and second largest city is Tel Aviv. Most countries have located their embassies in or around Tel Aviv due to international concerns regarding the status of Jerusalem, while the Palestinian Authority has named East Jerusalem as the future capital of the State of Palestine.

This version also plainly notes that East Jerusalem has been established as the future capital of the State of Palestine by the PA (via 2002 law signed by Arafat) bringing the dispute in the open w/o referring to it using embedded links. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 09:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This version won't do at all, because it states a matter of opinion as if it were a fact. This is a question of POV, and it should not be presented otherwise. Either of the versions by cptnono or Dailycare are fine by me. --FormerIP (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is POV to say that a country's capital is not where said country has established its capital. A number of countries, and the U.N. consider the Republic of Macedonia's name to be "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". While that position is addressed in the lead, the name of the country -- the name Macedonia calls itself -- is stated as a fact not an "opinion". Why? Because a sovereign nation has a right to decide its name, its capital, and laws in the area that it controls. You don't change the status of something simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, yet that is what a number of editors seem bent on trying to do. Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת! 12:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct, it would also be unacceptable POV to positively say that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital. We should not specifically support either POV, we should simply accurately describe the different grounds on which the different POVs may be held. We should not say (or give the impression): "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, even though some consider that it is not". Equally, we should not say "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel,even though Israel considers it is". We should combine the two POVs into a single formulation, which would basically say "Israel considers that Jerusalem is its capital, although some consider that it is not". --FormerIP (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that again denies the ability of a sovereign nation to decide internal policy. Using that logic one could also suggest we should change the article title to :"The land bordering the Med. sea, called Israel by the occupying political entity and Palestine by number of other nations", as its expresses the POV of both the govt currently controlling the land, the nations surrounding the land area, and a number of other countries in the world. ... However, I don't think there would be much support for that. It is possible, however, for both positions to be expressed in the article without denying or discrediting a fact established by the sovereignty of a nation -- unfortunately using "proclaimed" or "declared" does not satisfy that. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

tariqabjotu, if we agree that Arabic wikipedia is not a source, then can we agree to not use it as a source? Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, business as usual. When someone presents a point, especially one that tries a new approach, the opposition plays "I didn't hear that", reads only what they want to read, and then responds to that. Dailycare, you know exactly what I said and what I meant, but if you want to play that game, fine; I'm not going to waste further energy on defending a point against an indefensible counterpoint, especially if that counterpoint is supported by word games like this one. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not exactly a new point, and previously it was supported by sources (albeit only tertiary ones). I refer you to my post timestamped 13:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC) on this page for discussion of it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a different approach

Let's put all the stuff about the conflict in one place in the lead, and put the stuff about Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in another place:

In November 1947 the United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[1] Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,[2] and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
Many issues remain in dispute between Israel and its neighbors, including final borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the future of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel during the fighting. Nonetheless, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.
Israel is a developed country and a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage[3][4]. The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's legislative body. The economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, is the 44th-largest in the world.[5] Israel ranks highest among Middle Eastern countries on the UN Human Development Index.[6] Israel has declared Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the largest city, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv.[7]

--Ravpapa (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing exactly here, Ravpapa. Is it a proposed lead? --FormerIP (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It is, indeed. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Ravpapa, I like most of your re-write, especially the nod towards the PA and East Jerusalem, however I still disagree with presentation of J'slem as Israel's capital an "opinion". A number of countries, and the U.N. consider the Republic of Macedonia's name to be "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". While that position is addressed in the lead, the name of the country -- the name Macedonia calls itself -- is stated as a fact not an "opinion" -- ie: "it is" vs "declared to be". Why? Because of a sovereign nation has a right to decide its name, its capital, and laws in the area under its soverignty. You don't change the status of something simply because some external entities disagree with names a soverign nation has applied to itself and areas it controls. Its important to discuss alternate points of view and concerns, and I have encouraged that in my previous attempts to develop the lead -- as have you. Nobody is denying that the status of Jerusalem is disputed or that E. J'slem has been named the future capital of the State of Palestine, or that Israel's laws have created controversy; but there *is* an attempt to deny or discredit Israel's ability to name its own capital -- an UNDUE weight given to opposive viewpoints -- especially in light of the fact that is is an article about the said country. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 12:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The question you are pointing to here seems to be about whether national law or international law is more important when considering whether a city can properly be termed a capital city. I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question. I am not denying Israel's ability to name its own capital. I am questioning whether this translates into an undisputed fact that the city in question is a capital for Wikipedia purposes. I don't think it does. It just translates into a fact that Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, which is what we should report. --FormerIP (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget the fact that nobody has been able to provide a source that says non-recognition has any influence on a city's status as capital.
The minority that wants to change the long standing text keep claiming this is about "opinion" not "fact" because they can't find facts to support their opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Equally, no-one has been able to provide a source that says that the proclamation of a government has any influence on a city's status as capital. Neither would make any sense to me. My opinion is that there are two POVs at play here. The facts that support that opinion are clear - "here is one POV, here is another". --FormerIP (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you being serious? "no-one has been able to provide a source that says that the proclamation of a government has any influence on a city's status as capital"? Do I really need to respond to this or were you trying to be funny? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm being serious. I think we've been over that before. Demanding proof that Israeli law is relevant to to Jerusalem's status as capital would be absurd. Demanding proof that international law is relevant to the same question would also be absurd. Asking whether Israeli law makes international law irrelevant or vice versa barely makes sense as a question IMO and is outside our scope here in any case. We report facts, rather than making interpretations of law. --FormerIP (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are some facts: The parliament, president, supreme court, and countless offices are in Jerusalem. There are concerns from the international community on Israel's claim on some of the land. The capital is clearly gproclaimed and functioning out of the city. The asterisks that some editors want deserves little weight. There is an opportunity to mention it but keep it minimal since it really is little more than an asterisks. The real problem is Israel's claim to the city. Address it somewhere else where it is more appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
One important fact is that the Jerusalem Law was declared nul and void by the UN. That's not an asterix. --FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The UN doesn't designate a capital. The international community's feelings on the capital and Israel's claim to land is important but don't change what it is. It just doesn't work in the infobox. A solution might be possible but editors expressing disdain over Israel grabbing the city need to edit articles discussing it. At least we are one step closer to fixing the problem with an end in site on how to fix the lead just below!Cptnono (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What does that resolution mean, anyway? That Jerusalem is not the capital? Source please. The resolution certainly doesn't say that, nor does it address the previous 1952 law that made Jerusalem the capital of Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum: How about this: "Israel has selected Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the largest city, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv." This adds back in the seat of government. As we decided above, what the word capital means in the current lead, according to proIsr opinion, is that Israel has selected the city as its capital, and that is what makes it the capital. So I am trying to stick with your opinion here. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it for the most parts. Three notes not meant to delay any change: I prefer "chosen" over "selected" (minor), "most populated" over "largest (two different things when you are only looking at data), and more info on Tel Aviv would be good (another line saying it is a big city basically).Cptnono (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree "chosen" is better, or possibly "designated". I also don't see what was wrong with "declared" in the first version. On a completely anal point, I think "most populous" would be the correct English. There's quite a lot of info in there, so I can't immediately say that I know for a fact that it is all correct, but I think we know what the most contentious bit is, and the rest can surely be tweaked. --FormerIP (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Designated and populous sound great (oops!). I see no reason not to make the edit if someone has the balls to go for it. Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm also OK with Ravpapa's idea to bundle the Jerusalem issue with borders and refugees, and "designated" is IMO better than "chosen". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the edit, without the Tel Aviv part Cptnono mentions, another editor can fill that in. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, over 20 people have commented on this issue. Making contentious edits without giving people time to comment is not right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Chosen is not good enough. This is not an issue to compromise on. Jerusalem is the capital and that's what needs to be written. Chosen is misleading: some people will see it as "ok they chose it so it is the capital" but others will see "oh they chose it but its still not really the capital). That doesn't work. Breein1007 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing was agreed upon and the RfC has not been closed. Its in poor taste to make unilateral changes and calling them "agreed upon" when they're only "agreed upon" because you are choosing to dismiss anyone who differs with your viewpoint. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Bree, we cannot write in the article that "Jerusalem is the capital", that's a non-starter. WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (emphasis in the original). Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem the capital, and the UN has explicitly un-proclaimed it. This is what we must write, the exact wording makes no difference. I'm sorry if I misestimated the state of the discusion concerning Ravpapa's suggestion, however that remains to be seen. --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Israel made Jerusalem its capital in 1952. The 1980 UN resolution is about a specific law that the UN declared "null and void". Before the Jerusalem Law the UN did not make any resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, AFAIK.
Anyway, your opinion on what is fact and what isn't doesn't belong here. You have failed to provide sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel or that non-recognition has any bearing on a city's status as capital, so your claim that Jerusalem is not the capital has not even been established as an opinion from reliable sources.
The current text has been like it is now for over a year and you're going to have to get consensus to change it, not ignore what 14 other editors have said (or call them disruptive) or declare things as non-starters. You certainly shouldn't be changing the article on the basis of a couple of people who agreed with you from the get go agreeing with you again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The UNGA resolution doesn't refer to the 1980 law, but the issue of Jerusalem as capital. "My opinion" is WP:NPOV, which does belong here. Does yours? Warm Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion lacks WP:RS and thus fails both WP:NPOV and WP:V. Why can't you find a RS to back up your opinion? It's pretty weird for something so "obvious" not to have much written about it, particularly since it pertains to one of the most written about conflicts on earth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my idea, so I get to make the change. I'll give it another day or two, but try to keep the party polite until then. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Ravpapa, in light of the edits by User:Dailycare -- making changes without a clear consensus being reached yet calling it an agreed upon solution -- I am requesting that when the time comes to close the RfC, it be closed by an uninvolved third-party administrator, who will also implement any decisions reached in the RfC. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm opposed to any phrasing that omits the fact that Jerusalem is the capital. To say "designated", "chose", "selected", "declared", etc., is simply omitting the fact that it actually is, placing Israel's status in Jerusalem on the same level as that of the PA, who also "chose" it to be their capital - yet couldn't possibly implement their choice.
I saw that FormerIP tries to wiggle out of presenting any sources, using the absurd claim that Israel's designation of Jerusalem as capital is meaningless, but that's not even that relevant, and we shouldn't waste time on that claim. The designation isn't the main point here. The fact is, the word "capital", defined by any dictionary, means "seat of government". Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government; ergo, it is Israel's capital. No one has been able to present any sources supporting the notion that international recognition is in any way relevant to a city's status as capital.
Beyond this, I strongly oppose this attempt to make the lead more and more about the conflict. Despite what some may think, Israel is an actual functioning country, with history (not just military history), culture, geography, science, and an interesting economy. We already have an entire paragraph of the lead discussing wars, which is quite enough. This isn't some newspaper, which can't sell if not discussing war and conflict. This is an encyclopedia article, meant to give a wide breadth of information about a topic. If someone wants to learn more about the conflict, we have dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of articles about it. Don't turn this into yet another one-dimensional article, discussing a single topic. okedem (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"no-one has been able to provide a source that says that the proclamation of a government has any influence on a city's status as capital" That is irrelevant. The burden of evidence weighs on those who argue that a country can lay claim to a city within a unilaterally seized territory.Both the UN charter and Laws of War state that it is inadmissable to aquire territory by force.If a nation cannot possibly claim soverienty over a seized land then it cannot possibly claim a city within that seized land as it's capital.Mudder81 (talk)

Arab League and the most Islamic country no recognize "Israel" be soverign nation. In the stead those country, and many other, say it be Palestine under occupy by zionist government organization in violate of UN partition plan. This fact need be represent and take into account in lead paragraph. Too, since Jerusalem be lawful capital of Palestine as made by Palestinian Authority legislation, and since entity that current occupy Palestine be do so in violation of UN partition plan, then Jerusalem cannot also be capital of jewish state. Ani medjool (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm surprised no-one started an RfC about changing every occurrence of "Israel" to "Israel(proclaimed)/Palestine". Yet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that issue need be maked clear in article. Current article make little mention of substantial number of country that no recognize "Israel" as legitimate successor to Mandate of Palestine. Significant number of country and government organization in world recognize land be Palestine under occupy by "Israeli" government in violation of UN partition plan. This article and article name most represent pro-"israel" view. Ani medjool (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ani, then maybe you need to open an RfC to change the name of the article, but right now we're discussing Jerusalem. Please avoid straying from the topic at hand. --nsaum75¡שיחת!
I don't say that the Israeli POV here is meaningless at all, okedem. What I would say, though, it that it is indeed a POV and that its meaningfulness does not extend to it having the status of a universal truth. The proposition "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law" is not precisely the same as "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", and there are other factors which point in a different direction.
At the end of the day, I think this is about being pragmatic. The correct answer can only be "here is one point-of-view, here is another".
I don't think that the objection that Ravpapa's proposal fails to present the Israeli POV as if is were a plain matter-of-fact is a valid one in accordance with WP policy. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
WP policy says you need reliable sources to say stuff you want to put in the article. It's called WP:V. I suggest you read it.
Your "other factors that point in a different direction" is your OR that says that non-recognition has any effect on a city's status as capital. This is wikipedia. "pointing in another direction" doesn't really meet WP:V standards. You need a RS that explicitly says it.
Where is the reliable source that says Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? That's the piece missing in your OR puzzle. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
We've also been here before, NMMNG. Policies like V and OR apply to articles, not arguments set forward on talk pages. I haven't actually even edited the article page. As far as content intended for the article is concerned AFAICT everything in Ravpapa's proposal is sourced and conforms to WP policy.
I do not need to find reliable sources for statements I do not agree with and do not wish to see included in the article (eg "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel"). --FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you said that before. As if we're just shooting the breeze here rather than you making arguments for changes you'd like to see in the article. You won't get reverted for not complying with WP:V on the talk page, but you sure won't be taken seriously when the stuff you say is obviously your own personal opinion.
Anyway, if you don't think that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" should be included in the article (or to be more precise, you can't find any sources supporting that statement) there's no reason to not say in the article that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I'm glad we have that settled.
I know, I know, you claim there's some "other POV" (which you can't source) that you think is implied by non-recognition. That's the part that doesn't meet WP:V. Find a source that explicitly supports your argument and we can consider putting it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion has dragged on a bit, so you may have forgotten that large numbers of mainstream sources have been provided that differ from the Israeli POV and represent various shades of opinion.
Here is a selection: [2] (that Jerusalem is a procaimed "capital" recognised by virtually no foreign country - Le Figaro, their quotation marks); [3] (that Jersusalem is not to be used as a metonym for Israel, because it is not recognised as its capital - The Times style guide); [4] (that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel - the Candian Supreme Court); [5] (that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel - El Pais); [6] (that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel - The Japan Times); [7] (that Israel claims Jersualem as its capital, but that the UK Govt and international community does not recognise this - UK Government); [8] (that it is incorrect to refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - BBC statement).
Please note that the point is not whether any of these POVs represent the truth, it is just that they exist in a wide range of respected mainstream sources from around the world. --FormerIP (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you really believe style guides and editorials are RS, why not push to say that Tel Aviv is the capital? You should add that to the "Israel(proclaimed)/Palestine" campaign. The discussion has not dragged long enough for me to forget that a Japan Times editorial or the Times style guide are not RS while the CIA factbook and Columbia Encyclopedia are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
NMMMNG, in fact your memory has failed you and you should re-read WP:RS. News organizations such as the Times are prime sources, whereas encyclopedias are not. Ravpapa's proposal, which is what we're discussing and which appears verifiable to me, doesn't state that Tel Aviv would be the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Newspaper style guides and editorials are reliable sources only as to the opinion of the news organization, not to facts. You're the one who should re-read WP:RS.
If you really think these are reliable sources, why don't you want the lead to say Tel Aviv is the capital? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Simply because it is one of various POVs on the question, and WP should not support any particular one of those.
We are dealing exlusively in opinions here (because, per WP:NPOV, there is no such thing as an unbiased source). A style guide or newspaper editorial is perfectly good place to find an opinion. The opinions of governments, media organisations and even individual commentators may all be relevant. Per WP:RS tertiary sources such as encylopaedias may be used on WP, but are considered less valuable than secondary sources such as newspapers. In any event, it has been discussed previously that tertiary sources in this case do not agree amongst themselves.
I'd add that the volume of available sources in this case means that it would be a little futile to go through them one by one trying to think of policy arguments against them. --FormerIP (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken regarding the applicability of such things as editorials and "style guides" as RS. We can take it to RS/N if you like.
There's a reason it took you days to come up with an editorial and a style guide rather than the many many published academic works and books one would expect on such an issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I admit it did take me a while to realise that it might be necessary copy and paste the same sources from higher up the page yet again.
I don't think RSN would be the correct forum for this, NMMNG. The only answer I can see is "source x is an RS for the opinions of/contained in source x", which no-one disputes. If you see things differently, I invite you to go there.
The question you want answering, I think, is "are the following categories of sources capable of being referenced as containing a 'view' for the purposes of NPOV". This would be a valid question for WP:NPOV/N if you want to post there instead. --FormerIP (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The question I want answering is "are editorials or style guides reliable sources regarding anything other than their publisher's opinion". I believe the answer to that is "no", in which case none of them belong in this article or can be used to support "views" such as that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, which most people will tell you is pretty ludicrous.
I have to ask again, if you think these are RS and their views just as good as any other view, why don't you want the lead and infobox to say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the two sources you mention, the question turns on whether they reflect editorial policy in the respective organizations, and the answer is transparently yes. Of course, the argument that there is more than one POV to the topic of Israeli capital doesn't stand or fall with those two sources (contrary to what you claim) since we have several on record here. Ravpapa's proposal, which we're now discussing, doesn't say the capital is Tel Aviv so that's the end of that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't Ravpapa's proposal say the capital is Tel Aviv if you have reliable sources that say it is? What happened to WP:NPOV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You're like a stuck record, NMMNG. Because it would be a breach of WP:NPOV to state any of the various POVs on this matter as if it were a clear, undisputed fact. Write it down somewhere so you don't forget it again. --FormerIP (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't be upset because you don't understand the question. Why isn't the "opinion" that Tel Aviv is the capital mentioned in the lead and given due weight per the "reliable sources" you have provided? That would not only not be a breach of NPOV, it is required by it. Was that clear enough? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not upset, but that wasn't the question you originally asked several times. There does not seem to be any reason why the opinion that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel cannot be included in the lead if it is a notable opinion and the way it is included does not give it undue weight. What form of words are you proposing? --FormerIP (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It also need be clearly state in lead paragraph that "Israel" be consider by MANY country and organization to be non-soverign entity and illegitimate occupy power of land area that really be soverign nation of Palestine. It also need to specific state that government of "Israel" be create in violation of UN Partition Plan. It be flagrant violation of NPOV to NOT give equal mention of this fact. Right now article read like it be unquestionable fact that "Israel" be soverign and legitimate nation, when this actually be pro-israel POV OPINION which many country (islamic countrys, middle east countrys, arab league etc) dispute. There be reliable source that exist for all this so must be include as it important to balance opinion of those who side with "Israel". Ani medjool (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Funny; I was about to say the same thing, but just in a slightly more sarcastic tone. -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was asking. I did not ask about saying Tel Aviv is the capital exclusively, I was asking in the context of your "there are no facts only opinions" idea.
I am proposing that the idea that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel is absurd and that the sources you have provided that say this are not reliable sources. I am asking why you are not trying to get this into the lead and infobox, since you seem to think that you have provided reliable sources that say this and if that is the case, NPOV would require it. Do you think the infobox should say "Capital:Jerusalem/Tel Aviv/none"? If not, why not?
I'm trying to understand your way of thinking since we obviously read WP:V very differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Any statement about Tel Aviv in the article has to conform to WP:5P. This entatils conforming to WP:V and WP:NPOV. In addition, any statement should conform to WP:N. "Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel" conforms to WP:V because there is WP:RS material that supports this statement. I'm not sure if it conforms to WP:N or not. I would probably need to look at more sources and perhaps consider the arguments of other users. For argument's sake, let's imagine it does conform to WP:N. The real problem is that it does not conform to WP:NPOV, because it is a claim which is in diagreement with opinions expressed in a significant number of RSs (even though, as stated, there are also RSs that agree with it).
However, the statement "some media organisations consider Tel Aviv to be the capital of Israel" looks more likely to pass WP:NPOV because, although it can be denied that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, it cannot be denied that some media organisations consider it to be true. Provided this statement is also acceptable under WP:N (the media organisations might be relatively insignificant; or it may be the case that God says that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, in which case the media sources are made to seem insignificant and God should be cited instead), then the statement is includable in the article. But this does not necessarily mean that it has to be in the lead. This will normally be a matter of editor preference and talkpage discussion, always with reference to WP;NPOV, which is non-negotiable WP policy.
Similar tests can be applied in the case of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This clearly passes WP:V and WP:N, but fails WP:NPOV because it is a claim which is in diagreement with opinions expressed in a significant number of RSs. Howver, the statement "Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital" (as in the revised version of Ravpapa's proposal) passes WP:NPOV (the fact that Israel did this is not the subject of significant dispute), so that can go in the article lead.
Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes this be point i try make. To say Jerusalem be capital of "Israel" be not NPOV because many country agree it be capital of Palestine. Also to state as fact that "Israel" be soverign nation be in violate NPOV. This like why article title need be give (*) and it be make clear in lead paragraph that significant number of country and organization not recognize "Israel" as soverign legitimate nation and in stead many country and organization consider it to be "govement and military force" that be occupy soverign nation of Palestine in violation of UN partition plan. Reliable source exist for all this but it not neutral pov present as "fact" that "Israel" be soverign nation. Ani medjool (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"So and so does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is not precisely the same as "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". Since "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" does not pass WP:V, while "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does, qualifying the city's status does not pass WP:NPOV. It is your OR that non-recognition has any bearing on a city's status as capital and should prompt us to qualify the city's status in the lead and infobox.
Other than editorials and style guides, do you have a source that explicitly says that because it is not recognized as such (or for any other reason), Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? You need that in order to comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV if you want to qualify the city's status. Without those sources the view that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel is not "opinions expressed in a significant number of RSs" as you put it. It's your interpretation of what the sources say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You don't appear to be doing it right, NMMNG. "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" passes WP:V because there are RSs that say it. It fails WP:NPOV, however, because it is not an undisputed claim. This means it can't be included as a statement on WP. We don't actually need to debate the reasons for that, though, because we seem to be in agreement that it can't be included. So we can just ignore that statement forevermore. I don't need a source for it, because it is not something I am seeking to have included in the article. It is also not my interpretation of anything, since I am not claiming it and I am not seeking to put it in the article (ie it makes no sense to accuse me of OR because you believe something I am not saying is an interpretation of a source I am not using).
You seem to be quite hung up on this. Are you imagining that if it can be shown that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" fails policy then "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" must therefore pass policy? That's is not how it works at all.
The most relevant arguments here are about what can be included, not what can't. The statement "Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital" appears to pass all policy requirements, so it can be included. "Israel is the capital of Jerusalem" fails NPOV, so it can't. Those two sentences are really the crux of the whole thing.
I don't know how you can claim that qualifying the city's status fails NPOV, btw. Qualifying is an action, not a statement. Only statements can fail NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No one is denying controversial elements in Israel/Jerusalem/Palestine, and attempts have been made to broaden and include those differing viewpoints, however I am begining to think this debate is not about improving an article but instead is being used by several editors to make WP:POINT. There seems to be a concerted effort to de-emphasize, denigrate and remove concrete facts -- some of them drastic -- about Israel under the guise of WP:NPOV. The fact that attempts to insert changes into the article by declaring it "agreed upon", when the only reason "agreement" was reached was because editiors with opposing viewpoints was ignored, further concerns me.
This debate has gone on for some time now; RfCs are designed to seek out the consensus position amongst editors, not to keep hammering for a change until everyone either agrees to the change or just gives up...unfortunately, the latter seems to be the path this RfC is going down. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 02:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your reference to WP:POINT. Do you just mean that editors are trying to make a point? That often happens on talkpages. --FormerIP (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Several people here are repeatedly denying controversial elements and it's not helping. Several people like to argue repeatedly about what makes a capital a capital. It's like arguing over the exact value of Pi. We aren't trying to measure the degree to which Jerusalem is the capital of Israel based on sets of documented rules that define what makes a capital a capital. We're aren't going to put numbers in like 'Capital: Jerusalem (100%)' or (0%) or (50%) etc etc. We're trying to find a way to encapsulate the vast amount of text used by sources to describe this matter so that readers get a better understanding of the issue. We can't ignore the indisputable fact that sources routinely say the equivalent of 'It's Jerusalem but...'. We need to deal with the but. This has always been about improving the article. If people aren't capable of dealing with 'It's Jerusalem but...' in a sensible policy based way I really don't understand how they think they are helping by commenting here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The "but" has been dealt with, its how much weight we are giving the "but" -- are we going to give some vocal members of international community the same weight as that of the country whom the article is about? If thats the case, we are going to have to replace a number of instances of "Israel" with "Zionist Entity" or "Occupied Palestine", because only using the name "Israel" is giving too much weight to one side. Sometimes a NPOV article is not possible, especially on controversial topics like this one, where even the name and legitimacy of the country in question is disputed. Are we going to end up with everything being followed by parenthesis or notated with asterisks, just to ensure the opposing POV is clearly marked when a term or word they don't like is used?? --nsaum75¡שיחת! 04:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Could we stick to the issue being discussed, namely Ravapa's proposal? How much weight we should give the "but" is not something we judge ourselves but something we observe from reliable sources. We're seen that a huge number of reliable sources use "but" (in one form or another), which makes it something we not only can, but must include in the article (and in the lead, per WP:LEAD as it's a significant controversy). There is no policy stating that if we have dozens of RS saying something, we'd need further RS saying the dozens of RS make sense, so this case is a slam-dunk case. This discussion would have concluded already a long time ago, were it not for some editors who appear to object for the sake of objecting. I can understand that they may feel "patriotically motivated" in their actions, but they should realize they're not helping to improve this article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
nsaum75, I'm not sure what you mean by dealt with but as far as I can tell it hasn't been dealt with yet. When several perfectly reasonable editors consistently say that doing nothing, leaving things as they are isn't enough (including the infobox. please let's not forget that), provide plenty of sources and sensible arguments/suggestions, we haven't dealt with it. If we had, this discussion would be over. I take Ravpapa's point that changing the infobox is silly. I agree. It's very slightly more silly not to change though in my view. This article is viewed 300,000+ times/month. We should do our best to try to find simple pragmatic solutions and stop the partisan chatter. For example, nobody died when Britannica took the decision to use Jerusalem (proclaimed) in their infobox so at least we know that the world won't end if we put Jerusalem (something) or at least make a baby step towards openly acknowledging that it isn't quite as straightforward as other places. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
So, clearly, it doesn't matter what the consensus is, you'll drag the discussion on and on until everyone else just gives up. Got it.
Of course, again you choose to mention Britannica, the source that chose the most extreme treatment of the subject, and ignore the fact that the majority of such sources view this issue as much less notable, if they even mention it at all. I remind you, that news articles discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will obviously mention this issue, as it is central to the conflict, and so their choice is meaningless for our analysis here. okedem (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey now. I'm all about telling editors to knock it off when it looks like they are only complaining and not working to fix what might need fixing. There is a point that "(something)" isn't a horrible idea. Not saying go for it. Just saying it should be considered. If editors are going to debate the issue and not the content here then never mind. For now, SHL has a valid reason to bring it up and hasn't shied away from the content side of things. "Proclaimed" is not the best but doesn't mean that something similar is garbage.Cptnono (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I agree 100% with nsaum about there being a a concerted effort to de-emphasize, denigrate and remove concrete facts -- some of them drastic -- about Israel under the guise of WP:NPOV. This is not the only article this is going on in.
Second, if we all agree that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel then there is no need to qualify that statement with weasel words that make it seem less like a fact and more like an opinion. I would be glad to discuss the "but" part now that we're all in agreement that Jerusalem is the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
But it not complete fact that Jerusalem be capital of "Israel", it only opinion of "Israel" that it be it capital because other country claim it and many nation recognize other country claim. It not NPOV to promote pro-"israel" view at expense of view of Palestine and Islamic world. Ani medjool (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Once again, as editors we don't need to concern ourselves with what the capital "really" is. We do need to concern ourselves with what WP:RS say about the issue, and as discussed above the balance of them say Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem, but and Ravpapa's suggestion is one way to convey this in the lead (in a very gentle way, IMO). If editors feel uncomfortable with tension between WP:NPOV and Israel's official view, then Conservapedia may be an option, which I understand is less stringent on NPOV. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare be right. As long as alternate source exist that say Jerusalem be rightful capital of Palestine, then it total not acceptable to state as fact that Jerusalem be capital of "Israel". This not about fact, this about make sure that the "Israel" position be balance with that of Palestine and many other nation in world that a) not recognize Jerusalem as capital of "Israel and b) not recognize "Israel" as legitimate successor to Palestine Mandate under UN Partition Plan. Ani medjool (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The balance of the sources do not say what you claim. Most of the sources you provided talk about the annexation of East Jerusalem which is not the issue here. Some are not WP:RS (as discussed above). Many simply say Jerusalem is the capital but...
I also suggest that if you don't enjoy discussing things with people who disagree with you maybe it's you who needs to look for a different venue for your political agenda pushing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I know of number of source that say all of Jerusalem be capital of Palestine, but currently occupy by "Israel" and claim as capital. It not political agenda but state ment of differing fact and opinion. Also how we address issue that many source do not recognize "Israel" as legitimate nation but as occupy Palestine. NMMNG you seem avoid this very important issue. Ani medjool (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks, like your jab about Conservapedia, generally hurt, not help, a sinking argument. It's no different here. -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It be matter fact that Jerusalem not be capital of "Israel". How can it be capital of "Israel" when no country recognize it be capital of "Israel". Quite opposite, many other country recognize that Jerusalem be capital of Palestine but NO COUNTRY, not even precious world power United State, recognize so-call claim made by "Israel" government that Jerusalem be it capital.

Once more, the balance of sources (especially secondary sources) we've seen do qualify Jerusalem's status one way or another. To humour you, I counted the sources among the 43 I listed above that mention the dispute exclusively in terms of the "annexation" of E-Jer, and I counted only 13 so your claim isn't true. However even if it were the other way around and we'd "only" have 13 sources specifically qualifying Jerusalem's capital status as such, it would still be a well-sourced view that would be included in the lead. Even further, even if we only had sources qualifying the status of East Jerusalem, that again would be a significant view. Yet even further, if we had a majority of sources that didn't qualify, and a (significant) minority that did, the qualification would still be a well-sourced significant view. So your argument fails in four different ways. My comment on Conservapedia wasn't a personal attack, but a genuine suggestion. If an editor feels WP:NPOV is a "political agenda" then that venue might be just the thing, as it was founded for that purpose.
In terms of moving the discussion forward, what's your suggestion? I can think of a few: 1) Ravpapa's proposal, 2) Tag the article as "neutrality disputed" and agree to disagree, keeping the discussion active for new proposals to be assessed, and 3) Mediation. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say "exclusively about East Jerusalem" and I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar. What do you think these little jabs accomplish for you and your argument exactly?
What do you mean that the balance of sources "qualify Jerusalem's status in one way or another"? When the second source you provided above says "Jerusalem is not recognised internationally as the capital of the Jewish state", does that say Jerusalem is not the capital? Is the status being qualified or is that your OR?
Anyway, lets go to mediation. This is long past pointless. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(see below)RomaC (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No 3 party reliable source exist that say Jerusalem be undeniable capital of "Israel", while much reliable source from 3 party that state Jerusalem be capital of Palestine. 3 party reliable source also exist that state many other country support and agree Palestine capital be Jerusalem; however no reliable source whatsoever say that other country recognize Jerusalem as "Israel" capital. Ani medjool (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm...Is that so?? Can you produce WP:RS that states that? --nsaum75¡שיחת! 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In light of these ground breaking and enlightening points by ani medjool, I have reconsidered my stance. I think that to put this article up to Wikipedia standards, we should replace any and all mention of Jerusalem in this article (and in any other articles for that matter) with the explicit fact that the Zionist Entity has stolen Jerusalem, the capital of the sovereign nation of Palestine. Also, it is crucial to note that since Jerusalem is the officially recognized capital of Palestine (as decided upon by all other countries in the world, because capitals are chosen by the rest of the world and not the country itself), it is impossible for it to also be the capital of the Zionist Entity. Please don't ask me to find reliable sources for these statements; it is not my job to prove farfetched claims. It is YOUR job to disprove them. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Skipping ahead of some older posts here (can we move them up into chronological order?) to agree that this discussion is "long past pointless", and to second the proposal that the issue go to mediation. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I placed a POV-intro template in the article to list the article on Category:NPOV_disputes and to mark the dispute. --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Summing up

I am perhaps being Polyanna here, but I believe that, in spite of all the rancor and venom, we are not far from a practical resolution of this dispute. I am going to summarize the issues briefly, and make a revised proposal. What I would like is for all the combatants to respond to this proposal with "Support" or "Oppose", and no more than one sentence in justification of their positions. It is, I suggest, pointless to retread the paths that have been so thoroughly beaten. So just say "Support" or "Oppose".

The issues

There are two issues being discussed here:

  1. a change in the infobox, to include some indication that Jerusalem's status as a capital is challenged. This indication could be the addition of the word "(declared)", or, alternatively, changing the footnote from an ordinary footnote [1] to the format [nb 1].
  2. a revision in the lead, of the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital..." to indicate that there is a dispute over this designation. There is a proposal to change this wording to something like "Israel has declared Jerusalem as the capital" to suggest that not everyone agrees with this determination.


In favor of the changes:

  • The almost universal international contention of the designation of Jerusalem as the capital behooves us, in the name of accuracy, to refrain from a bald statement that Jerusalem is the capital.
  • The dispute over Jerusalem's status as capital - as well as other central disputes in the Israel-Palestine conflict - is an outstanding factor in any description of Israel, and therefore deserves a place in the lead of the article.
  • Because the lead currently says "Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and ..." the question was raised, what is meant by the word "capital" in this sentence, which is different from "seat of government"? The answer was that the information being added here is that Israel has designated Jerusalem as the capital. Since this is the intent of the word in the sentence, it should not be a big issue to make that intent explicit.

Opposed to the change:

  • The single determining factor in what makes a city a capital of a country is that country's determination. International opposition to that determination does not render the city a non-capital.
  • An infobox is not the place to attempt to deal with complex political issues. It is simply a place for casual readers to easily glean basic information about a country.
  • Adding the word "(declared)" or changing the format of the footnote adds no clarity, and, on the contrary, obfuscates. How many readers will see "Jerusalem (declared)" and understand from that that there is something fishy about Jerusalem being the capital?
  • A change in the footnote format is a deviation from the footnoting style used almost universally in scholarly publications. For the casual reader, it certainly will not make anything any clearer.

My proposal

(1) For the time being, I am not taking a position on the infobox issue.

(2) Change the lead as follows (starting from the third paragraph):

In November 1947 the United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[8] Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,[9] and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
Many issues remain in dispute between Israel and its neighbors, including final borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the future of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel during the fighting. Nonetheless, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.
Israel is a developed country and a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage[10][11]. The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's legislative body. The economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, is the 44th-largest in the world.[12] Israel ranks highest among Middle Eastern countries on the UN Human Development Index.[13] Israel has chosen Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the most populous city and seat of government, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv.[7]

Please state your support or opposition to this proposal below. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support or oppose

  • Support --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not just "chosen", but the city serves as capital; omitting this fact is a disservice to the readers. okedem (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    The proposals comprise no omission of facts, rather an inclusion of facts -- note that the proposals do not in any way say that Jerusalem is not the capital. RomaC (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that the proposal doesn't omit anything, but then state that by omitting the mention that Jerusalem is the capital (keyword capital) of Israel, the article does not necessarily say that Jerusalem is not the capital. It is indeed true that the absence of the word capital does not mean Jerusalem is not the capital, but the absence of the word capital also does not indicate it is. And that's the crux of the proposal. We're not stupid; we all know the aim of the preference of the term "seat of government" over "capital", and even though many in support of changing the article have said "seat of government and capital are basically the same thing, so why do people oppose us using seat of government?", they are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. If someone were to say, "how about taking Ravpapa's proposal and changing "seat of government" to "capital"?", I can guarantee you most of the people voting support now would change it to oppose. The whole issue here isn't about the word "chosen" or even "proclaimed"; it's the word "capital" by itself, and there's a clear division between people who are willing to accept that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and people who want to deny this fact and use evasive language such as "seat of government", "proclaimed capital", or "unrecognized capital" and disingenuously claim that it's basically the same thing. Again; we're not stupid. We understand the problem. It's the word capital. So, let's not play word games. -- tariqabjotu 12:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose You did a wonderful job summarizing each side's arguments, so I definitely want to give you credit for that. However, I disagree with your proposal for reasons similar to what okedem said. It's not just that Israel chose Jerusalem as its capital; the city functions as such in every sense of the word. There is no compelling reason to use such evasive language. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support (2) but (a) This is chiefly about NPOV, which is a non-negotiable policy, so a poll carries little weight; (b) my impression was that there was agreeement to change "chosen" to "designated". --FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The weight of the controversy around Jerusalem‎ deserves to be in the lead. Imad marie (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose + considerations - I oppose changes to the infobox and dilution of reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with weaselwords like: declared, proposed, chosen. A nation chooses its capital, not the international community, and there is abundant WP:RS from Israeli govt. documents and third party sources stating Jerusalem is the capital, in addition to it housing all governmental functions associated with capital cities. That said, I fully support detailing the extent of controversy regarding the city as well as inclusion of information about East Jerusalem being the capital of the future State of Palestine, links to the Positions on Jerusalem article, discussion on Embassies etc. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The word used by many sources and the UN is "proclaimed", but I might survive with "chosen" too. --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pantherskin (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose While I see merit in nsaum's conditions above, they would need to be brought up and discussed on their own. In this issue, attempting to marginalize Israel's legal right to effectively choose its own capital, and not only theoretically choose it but imply that this choice has not been implemented, is entirely inappropriate. What other country's articles state that they chose or designated or proclaimed their capitals? None - because it's ridiculous. If Israel chose Jerusalem as its capital, then it is natural that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Ergo, there is no substantive justification to avoid this clear wording that is consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The existing note regarding Jerusalem in the infobox is by itself a major compromise that was reached after extensive discussions. Jerusalem was not just "chosen" as capital. It is the capital of Israel, as overwhelming number of reliable sources state. As a sovereign country, Israel, and only Israel, can decide which city is its capital. Noon (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per okedem and Noon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • strong support - It be very important that make clear that Jerusalem be not unquestioned capital of "Israel". To say Jerusalem be capital of "Israel" support antiarab antipalestinian pov and not be neutral. Zionist entity that be occupy Palestine only be declared in 1948 and be inviolation of United Nation Partition Plan. Most of Islamic and Middle East country view "Israel" as Palestine under force occupation, so it be falsehood to state it be undisputeabel fact that country be name "Israel" and it be falsehood if article state undisputeabel capital of "Israel" be Jerusalem. Also arab league not recognize that zionist entity that occupy Palestine be country name "Israel". Jerusalem be recognize as capital of Palestine by all Arab nation and Islamic country, no one nation in world, except "Isreal", accept zionists capital be Jerusalem. Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC).
  • Support Israel did choose it. It is the seat of government. I assume someone reading the lines without any knowledge of this discussion would not jump to any conclusions. The line might need little tweaks but I don't see an overall problem.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
And I'll be against it if it turns into a 1000 tiny steps equaling one big one.06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Breein1007 and Noon. Any country can choose its capital and if many or all of its main government offices are locate there, then no special distinction is needed in the lead. --Shuki (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for reasons clearly enunciated by okedem, Breein1007, Noon, Shuki and Tariqabjotu. It is the capital. It is not the job of Wikipedia to give weight to those unhappy about that status, whether they be mildly displeased or rabidly hostile. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Do not see this as a question of whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but rather a question of whether or not the article should recognize a real-world issue: No country other than Israel recognizes Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Surely this extraordinary situation passes Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion and ought to be reflected, i) on first reference; and, ii) in a formatting-for-clarity edit to differentiate the present footnote (sheesh it's only a footnote) from the article's hundreds of regular source references. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - As FormerIP states, this is about compliance with non-negotiable policy. Any steps, including small and imperfect steps towards a more accurate, precise, policy compliant summary of the totality of reliably sourced information are welcome whether they are in the lead, the infobox or elsewhere. We are obligated by the sanctions to try to "provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Sean.hoyland - talk 05:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    As I've shown, encyclopedias like Columbia or Merriam-Webster don't have a problem with this. Are they not "encyclopedic"? Still, you have not shown any source to make the leap from the fact that the status is mostly unrecognized, to the claim that this means it's not the capital. okedem (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    This may clarify things. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support this very modest step toward NPOV per Sean.hoyland, Former IP, RomaC etc. The introduction still needs a lot of work to be in line with that non-negotiable policy, but at least Ravpapa's proposed changes bring the article a little closer to compliance. Tiamuttalk 05:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Caveat: Regarding "the most populous city" line, there is a section below where the incomplete and misleading nature of that statement is being discussed below. Tiamuttalk 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Thought long and hard on this one so even coming in late. I applaud Ravpapa's attempt at a compromise, and it is well worded. The problem for me is that Israel is not merely a modern state recently come into being, but a state with a long long history in the region and within the wider Jewish community. As part of that long history, Jerusalem has also always been the spiritual capital of Israel, and has been for centuries. In the context of this Israel article, Jerusalem is Israel's capital and the disputes with respect to it are amply dealt with in the body of the article. Stellarkid (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per arguments of Okedem and Noon. This seems to have just devolved into a power play to further delegitimize Israel and its claims to the city. Having Jerusalem as Israel's capital does not deny Palestinian claims to the city or the possibility that East Jerusalem will become the capital of the Palestinian people.Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - All due respect to editors pursuit of NPOV, Jerusalem is Israel's active capital and the language suggestion seem somewhat insulting. The leas should be conservatively written and the claim to Jerusalem by the Muslim world can't be addressed by making suggestions that Israel's "choise" is a whimsical wish. I also stated that the [nb] thing is redundant in this case and I am against it.
    p.s. presenting wishful thinking of conquest and delegitimisation of a people through a project of knowledge is not neutral, it is propaganda. Give it a rest. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been going on too long, what people refer to as international law does not have jurisdiction over what is a capital.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Great quote from WP:NPOV_dispute

The editor who wrote this essay put the issue of NPOV-dispute in terms that appear directly applicable to the present case: (my signature at the end doesn't mean that I'd claim to have written the quote)

"The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."--Dailycare (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But where are the sources that disagree with the first party? The first party's "fact" is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But what's the competing claim? That it's not? We don't have any sources saying that, so that couldn't be what is mentioned when the essay says "a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us". Or is the competing claim that the capital is unrecognized by the rest of the world? Plenty of sources say that, but even the first party acknowledges that so that couldn't be what is mentioned here. Your allusion appears to be inapplicable. -- tariqabjotu 16:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The essay's point is that if an editor thinks that something (say, "Jerusalem is Israel's capital") is a fact, it follows that stating it would be neutral. As we've discussed, at least 163 countries agree that Jerusalem is not the capital (source 14 above). I'd say that that means that not everyone agees that "something" is a fact. Think about it. The competing claim can be either "Jerusalem isn't the capital", or "Jerusalem is the capital, but..."--Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No, no, and no. How many times does this need to be said? Non-recognition, in any fanciful language, does not mean "no, that's not true". If you were to say, for example, that you didn't recognize his sexual advances (pardon the example; it's the only one I could think of), it means either one of two things: (a) you did not realize he was making sexual advances, when he in fact was, or (b) you realized he was making sexual advances, as he was, but you ignored them (most likely because you weren't interested). Neither one of these meanings suggests that the advances didn't occur. Part (b) is essentially what we have here; clearly Jerusalem is, and is treated as, the capital of Israel, but most of the rest of the world -- for punitive reasons -- has ignored and snubbed that. That doesn't mean Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. In fact, non-recognition requires that the point not being recognized be, in reality, true. -- tariqabjotu 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow this logic of yours Tariqabjou. You say "In fact, non-recognition requires that the point not being recognized be, in reality, true.". Let's suppose I declare myself the "Pope of Europe", make a point of getting some nice hats and printing some gilded stationary. Costa Rica and El Salvador recognize my claim, but the rest of the world does not. Does this mean that, in reality, I am the Pope of Europe?
Anyway, as has been pointed out many times, this is not about whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. Some editors who insist on trying to frame the discussion in those terms are making a straw man argument. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll accept that example and revise my point to say that non-recognition does not necessarily mean that the unrecognized point isn't true (or that the people not recognizing the fact don't believe it's true).
Anyway, as has been pointed out many times, this is not about whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. Not buying it. First off, Dailycare said that at least 163 countries agree that Jerusalem is not the capital. He's clearly raising the claim that countries do not believe Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; I'm not sure how you missed that.
Further, as I said somewhere in the mix of things, swap "seat of government" and "capital" in Ravpapa's proposal, and I would have supported it. But I'm also certain that several of the members of the current support contingent would have rejected it. If you truly don't believe that's the case, I think we have a winning solution. Pretty much everyone who rejected Ravpapa's proposal stated that the proposal simply says Israel chose Jersualem as its capital, rather than that it is the capital, and so the swap would meet their concerns. But, as I said, the smoke screen is rather transparent; the issue is with the word capital. -- tariqabjotu 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Well, folks, the results are in, and the verdict is: I have failed. There is no consensus. There doesn't seem to be even the whiff of a consensus.

This is not the first time I have failed, so I'm not taking it too hard. I'm just going to go into my corner and sulk for awhile.

Bibi for now. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Note: Post-mortem = term often used in the exploration industry for post-drilling assessment after a company has spent a pile of cash acquiring 3D/4D seismic data, processing it for subsurface imaging requirements, interpreting it together with all sorts of other data, carried out a hi-res check for shallow gas hazards, obtained approval for the well proposal etc all of which can take years only to drill a dry hole. This result is then often described as "a technical success" especially if no one was killed.

Someone should package this entire discussion up for analysis and publish some conclusions about how not to have this kind of discussion. Alternatively someone could rearrange all of the letters to make an article about the painter Pablo O'Higgins. I'll make some comments. Discussions here are impressively dysfunctional.

  • It should be easy to improve the quality of this process by simply being more careful about reading what people have written. For example. when someone says "the sky is blue and it has some white clouds" they mean that the sky is blue and it has some white clouds. If you think they are trying to say that the sky isn't blue you have misunderstood what they said. If you suspect that they are trying to say that the sky isn't blue you can ask yourself whether you have any evidence to support that view and you can simply ask them for clarification. If you respond to the statement "the sky is blue and it has some white clouds" by saying something like "there is a concerted effort to de-emphasize, denigrate and remove concrete facts about the blueness of the sky" you have not only misunderstood but you have misrepresented what they said and ignited a fuse that will trigger a self-sustaining chain reaction of inappropriate and counterproductive comments not connected to the "the sky is blue and it has some white clouds" statement that will help make consensus unobtainable.
  • There appear to be some problems with sampling and summarising information. If there are 100 sources that say "the sky is blue and it has some white clouds" in some form or another such as "the sky is blue. Note: it has some white clouds" or any number of permutations of that information it's not okay to just pick the bits that say "the sky is blue".
  • Next time we do this people should leave their emotions at home.

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I like the way you misrepresent the other side's view while at the same time accusing them of doing the same thing. There are people here who are unwilling to say "the sky is blue" without qualifying it. We never got to the "and it has some white clouds" part. That's the problem. Take your own advice and be more careful about reading what people have written. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • See above. You are once again misrepresenting the side you don't agree with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, people can stop raising this issue over and over again. This issue has been resolved in a multitude of ways and when it gets defeated for the umpteenth time, the defeated side again complains about how those supporting the current formulation are ignoring wiki policies, ignoring the other side, pro-Israel, etc., etc., vowing, in the process, to raise the issue again in three or four months' time. The people in support of changing this seem unwilling to be satisfied until they win. That's not how discussions work, and that's the real problem. -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Good luck fixing that problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Failure"? "Post mortem"? That's all a bit grim isn't it? I don't think either of those summations conform to WP:NPOV ;). I'd prefer to say "worth a try" and "what next?". --FormerIP (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Further honest attempts at policy-based mediation of course. Tariqabjotu, question please, whom do you refer to with "people" in your comment "People can stop raising the issue over and over again" and "The people in support of changing this seem unwilling to be satisfied until they win."? Also you appear to use the word "resolved" and "defeated" interchangeably in reference to this issue. Can you explain this stance please? RomaC (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As the archives show, this is not the first time this issue has arose and no consensus for change was achieved. I'm sure you know this since you participated in several previous discussions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, NMMNG, but I specifically asked Tariqabjotu about his comments. RomaC (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Further honest attempts at policy-based mediation of course. I honestly don't think so. It's beating a dead horse.
Basically what NMMNG said. I don't need to name names, but there are certain people in support of the change who use any Tom, Dick, and Jane's fleeting comment about Jerusalem to start this excessively protracted debate again. Obviously, there are people who come here for the first time and raise the issue. That's fine; I don't expect them to understand the years of debate surrounding this on Wikipedia, and that person usually receives a response rather quickly (pointing to the archives, etc.). However, then certain editors, who most certainly are familiar with, and were often participants of, the past debates, come out of the woodworks, as if on cue, to complain about this issue as if the fleeting comment is suggestion that there absolutely needs to be a change. Regarding the use of "defeated" vs. "resolved", there's a (rather obvious, albeit trivial) grammatical error that might be leading to some confusion. The issue is what is being resolved, as I said, but the opposition to the status quo is what is being defeated (what I originally wrote might suggest that the issue is being defeated). So... there... I'm sure you could have figured that out without me, though. -- tariqabjotu 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be more explicit. It seems to me that mediation is the way forward at this point. I can see from above comments that NMMNG and RomaC are already in favour of this. --FormerIP (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not... -- tariqabjotu 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood my comments about mediation. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy! Nooooooooo! I'm just screwing around. It was a nice attempt and I sill don't believe a terrible idea. Don't beat yourself up over it to bad, Ravpapa.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tariq, thanks, I understand this better now. One thing that concerns me, however, is your statement that "certain editors, who most certainly are familiar with, and were often participants of, the past debates, come out of the woodworks, as if on cue, to complain about this issue." I'd like to ask you, would you say there are also certain editors who regularly appear (I prefer not to use the derogatory "come out of the woodwork") to oppose anyone suggesting these sorts of edits? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course, but my problem isn't that there are people who follow this article and comment frequently. It's that there are people who raise this issue over and over again... as I said... I dunno... two comments ago. None of the people content with the current formulation are regularly bringing up the issue. They're responding to comments, sure, and participating in the debates, but they're not using fleeting complaints by readers to restart a debate it seems like we just finished yesterday. You do realize that the person who made the latest complaint about the Jerusalem issue has not commented beyond his/her first statement. -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

<- @NNMNG, I haven't misrepresented the other side's view because I haven't referred to 'sides' at all nor do I have any interest in the notion of 'sides' in the way you mean it. It's not a useful way of dealing with the information required to produce an article. People can either work towards improving Wikipedia or they can work against it. Why even care if someone says something that is patently false in the wiki-sense that it's contradicted by the vast majority of sources ? Why even respond ? People say things like that all the time in Wikipedia. Recent examples include, "Wait a minute! How about the second law of thermodynamics? That eats evolution for breakfast!" @Talk:Evolution, "Do you really think EVERYBODY agrees with these propaganda of massive gas chambers?" @Talk:Gas_chamber etc etc. It's rubbish. Ignore it. Just work with the editors who are make reasonable policy based arguments. There are many.
@tariq, reasonable people will raise this issue over and over again because they think the article can be improved. I personally couldn't give a damn about the nationalist politics of this issue but I'm pretty sure that there is some room for simple improvements that increase policy compliance in ways that benefit the reader. I even think they could get consensus if everyone would calm down and focus on trying to improve the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sean, you haven't referred to sides but have certainly argued for a certain side and criticized only one side. I gather you're not going to address what I actually said about your one-sided criticisms. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really. I suggested aligning the infobox with Britannica for a number of what I regarded at the time as simple pragmatic reasons and then went to look at some art in Singapore. I'm skipping details. My criticism, if you want to look at it negatively, is aimed at individuals not sides and it includes Ani medjool who made a number of very unhelpful statements that were quite spectacularly inconsistent with all sorts of policies. I don't have a problem with either 'side' and I'm not on a side (which is why I find people being upset by the entirely positive word 'proclaimed' quite amusing...although I understand the various objections). I just think there are some genuine issues with policy compliance that need to be dealt with somehow. I don't have strong views on how but I do think there are problems with the way people are talking to eachother and dealing with sources (which is just data to me) that could be improved. We're not supposed to be trying to solve or participate in the I-P conflict. Not sure whether that addresses what you wanted me to address. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have seen little evidence from that most of those calling for change have such simple motives. From this latest compromise proposal, we explicitly had several people saying that they supported the proposal, but that it didn't matter if it failed because the only thing that mattered was policy (which naturally supported their position). We had others say that they support the proposal, but that this was only the first step; even if it passed, they'd want even more. Consensus on a compromise? Not if people don't recognize the point of one (and some may argue that the footnote deal is already a compromise). -- tariqabjotu 14:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


NMMNG, RomaC, FormerIP and myself have above expressed interest in seeking a solution in mediation. Who else wants to be a party, and who wants to volunteer to initiate it? Any other ideas concerning it? --Dailycare (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pull the trigger or don't. A handful of editors don't see a problem as is.Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. You said you'd like to take it to mediation, I said go right ahead. I'm not interested in wasting more of my time on this. I think the way the article is now is fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Your words were "lets go to mediation", but you may of course change your mind. Are you (or other "no qualification" editors) willing to participate in mediation? An alternative way to proceed would be arbitration. --Dailycare (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to clear up your misunderstanding of what I was saying. Since I am for keeping the status quo, I'm not really inclined to take any active steps in relation to this issue. You do what you need to do and I'll see how I respond. I doubt any forum for arbitration will listen to the case before you tried at least a couple DR avenues, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Who else wants to be a party, and who wants to volunteer to initiate it? That's not really how it works. Select who you think is pivotal to the dispute, open a mediation request, and see if they all agree to mediation. The consent of all involved parties is necessary for a mediation request to be accepted, but you can't just say you're going to only invite those volunteering. If there is one editor, for example, who is a major party in the dispute, but s/he does not want to go to mediation, the mediation cannot go forward. You can't just say, "oh well, I'll just exclude him/her from the list of parties".
An alternative way to proceed would be arbitration. Not really. Mediation is the point of last resort for disputes regarding content and arbitration is the point of last resort for disputes regarding editor behavior. ArbCom does not rule on content disputes. Now, you could somehow say the content dispute remains, if you say, unresolved because of inappropriate behavior on the part of certain editors, but that will (a) probably not fly and (b) not do a whole lot about the content. -- tariqabjotu 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I can open a mediation request inviting the editors I mentioned above (and maybe a few more), although it'll be my first such request, which is why I was initially a bit reluctant to do it myself. I'm not pessimistic on mediation and consider it entirely possible that a workable solution can be found there. Concerning arbitration, I appreciate that arbitration concentrates on user conduct, however as you noted above, you feel the main problem to be that editors bring this issue up again and again. This is user conduct. For me, the problem is that some editors WP:Disrupt discussion aiming to change the article content to deviate even in very slight ways from official Israeli WP:Propaganda. This is a conduct issue. In light also of the fact that these discussions have been ongoing for a while, a decision from ArbCom would be useful if it brought closure. Of course, it's up to the arbitration committee to choose which cases they take up. Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
So, users who disagree with you are "disrupting", and are spreading "Israeli propaganda". Good to know that about you. okedem (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, that's (still) not what I wrote ;) --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If that's the way you see it I suggest you go directly to arbitration. There isn't much potential for mediation with such disruptive POV pushers. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Mediation is about finding common ground and "mediating" out differences, but when one side labels those holding opposing viewpoints as being "disruptive" simply because they disagree with them...or states that opposing editors viewpoints are just "propaganda"... well... there's not much to mediate. I suggest we stick to content and not criticizing other editors. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Nsaum, that's (still) not what I wrote. There are POVs around, including propagandistic ones, but mediation is aimed at improving the article. I do as a matter of course agree that we should concentrate on content. --Dailycare (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Israeli propoganda, eh? And that's why I said I don't want to participate in mediation. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Off topic but I've said this before and I'm going to say it again, the Zionist Movement has produced some superb propaganda posters over the years both before and after the establishment of Israel as a state and yet this fascinating topic isn't covered by Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Look at the quality of this stuff. Someone really ought to do something about that because readers might appreciate being able to read about this aspect of 'Israeli propaganda'. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely off topic. This isn't the right place to be bringing it up... if it's something you're interested in pursuing, go ahead and make the article. One point though... I hope you have some WP:RS that labels those posters as propaganda (which is defined with a characteristic of being misleading). Breein1007 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, I know I said I didn't want to participate in mediation -- and I'm still not particularly optimistic anything useful will come out of it -- but you were taking forever to initiate the request, so I created one for you (and, by doing so, assented to mediation). -- tariqabjotu 15:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tariq - I take it informal mediation isn't a compulsory step then before formal mediation? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that informal mediation is normally expected to be pursued first. I suppose that the case may be accepted if it is felt that informal mediation is unlikely to resolve the issue. Otherwise we will probably be asked to pursue that option first. --FormerIP (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get that impression. They just don't want people to run to the Mediation Committee anytime a dispute comes up; they want them to try to work things out themselves and through other channels first. Obviously, we have tried things ourselves. If the case is rejected, that most certainly won't be why. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the impression comes from "the MedCom will usually not become involved in a dispute that has not exhausted the methods detailed above", where informal mediation is one of the methods above at WP:Requests_for_mediation/Common_reasons_for_rejection#Failure_to_demonstrate_sufficient_prior_dispute_resolution_attempts. Tariqabjotu as a former mediator though knows these issues very well, I imagine so we're likely OK from this respect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
In the hidden summary it says: "If you haven't attempted at least article-talk page discussions and informal mediation, it is unlikely your RfM will be accepted". Maybe the practice is different - hope so. --FormerIP (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is still ongoing, as it seems to have gone to mediation, but here goes! Only real comparitive situation than sprung to mind when reading the dispute was that of East Germany naming Berlin as it's capital, despite the fact that Berlin was internationally recognised as a "free city" under the rule of the four occupying states. I understand that there are major differences in the history, background and politics surrounding the two issues, but East Germany declared that Berlin was it's capital, and established it's seat of Government there. France, West Germany, the UK and the USA all disputed their right to do so, as did a large amount of the international community. It is interesting to note, therefore, that Berlin is listed as the Capital of East Germany on it's wikipedia page. Not "proclaimed capital" or "declared capital" or anything else. Infact, none of the city was officially part of East Germany. There's no dispute on the East Germany page in relation to this, I think because the issue is 20 years old, and people aren't quite as sensitive about it as they are this situation. I think this probably supports the "status quo" it's not up to anybody except for Israel to declare there capital city. (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP, we have not reached consensus so the dispute remains unresolved. Your information on East Berlin is interesting, I suggest you bring up the relevant sources on the Berlin or East Germany articles and discuss there. --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Give the vast lengths of the arguments on this it should therefore go to mediation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Because we've failed to reach an agreement to mediate, I have added NPOV tags to the use of the word "capital" in the lead and infobox. --FormerIP (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to add an NPOV tag to your NPOV tag. I dispute the use of an NPOV tag on the word capital in a feeble attempt to trivialize the Jewish people's right to self determination. Breein1007 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I won't try to stop you from adding a second tag if you really want to. The tag is actually a feeble attempt to denote that there is an active NPOV dispute over the use of the word, which there is. --FormerIP (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the lead tag is redundant and a little obnoxious since there are two inline tags now. We should probably be trying to figure out a way to make it neutral instead of bickering over tags though.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the section POV-tag is sufficient and probably trumps individual tags. With the section tags in place, additional in-article NPOV tags could be taken as an attempt to WP:POINT#Examples. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If the mediation is rejected (assuming it will be) and immediate improvement is not made, it will be necessary to take this to Wikipedia:Featured article review since it fails 1.e and potentially 1.d. The good thing about this is that the content driven editors who focus on making the best of the best over there might have some ideas. The drawback is that seeing an article delisted (the worst case scenario) would be a sad moment.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It happened at Jerusalem, but I won't let it happen here. There it was maybe a paragraph, if not less, that resulted in the article being delisted (although other parts of the article were deteriorating). Here, it's maybe one sentence, if not less. That's no reason to delist an article. The article is not at all unstable so much as it under constant scrutiny. Annoying, perhaps, but not a reason to delist. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well we'll have to figure it out then. An article with multiple tags and people raising neutrality concerns doesn't exemplify the best work on Wikipedia. Hopefully we can do it here. If not, maybe some new eyes can help us figure out what to do. If the answer is "It is good as it is" then we need to find consensus to get editors to stop raising the issue (basically telling them "tough, you are wrong, get over it").Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Replaced the tag in the infobox beside Jerusalem, but for the record I would be fine with a simple differentiation of the link formatting so that readers would be aware there is a footnote with information on the issues about Jerusalem. RomaC (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree in part with Cptnono's suggestions above, but would ask if we might also need to find consensus to get editors to stop repeatedly opposing edits which address the issue. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
C'mon. Three tags to contest the same point? That's not simply saying there is a dispute over this point; it's saying this is wrong. You've now set it up so that, no matter what, those interested in changing the point have wedged their position in. We have two options: change what the article says about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel or keep all three tags in the article, which are, when combined, effectively negating the point made by the article that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Succinctly, the footnote does not say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. (Neither do I, but that doesn't matter.) I restored the tag on the infobox because I support clarifying the formatting of the link to the footnote only so that so that readers might be aware that it is a link to a footnote. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I know it doesn't say that. But the use of the POV tags in triplicate casts doubt on the validity of the statement, more doubt than is necessary. -- tariqabjotu 12:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This has gone on long enough. Your position has been heavily discussed, even though you completely fail to present sources to support your claim regarding the importance of recognition to the capital status. The conflict is already addressed in the article. Your position has failed to gain support. You cannot continue to hold this article hostage until all your demands are met. Eventually, we must come to a conclusion; it is abundantly clear that any phrasing here will leave some editors displeased, and we cannot leave tags on forever. To address these issues, a footnote was set up, but that is now presented as the favorite version of "pro-Israel" editors, and by at least one user as the "propaganda version" . No compromise will satisfy some here, because every compromise is just another step to reach the version you like. Enough. You've had your fun, you don't have support for a change. okedem (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Condescension is not helpful, please change your tone. RomaC (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No, this is it. You fail to present sources, fail to justify your position, and fail to gain support, and yet hold this article hostage, just because you don't like what's written there now. I don't like what written in plenty of articles, but I don't have the gall to try to force my position against consensus, and without sources. I am sick and tired of editors characterizing others here as "disruptive" just because they don't want to change the article from "Israeli propaganda".
As nothing short of full compliance with your demands will ever satisfy you, this is the place to draw the line. You've been given every opportunity to present sources and arguments, and yet fail to convince. Don't like the article - live with it. okedem (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, the discussion is continuing below I will respond there. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I would rather just leave it as "Jerusalem". Jerusalem is the defacto capital of Israel, and that which Israel enforces militarily and by law. The dejure opinion in reality is irrelevant and POV. While it is useful to mention these disputes in the article, the debate doesn't belong all over an Infobox. (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagine if germany won WW2 and made London its capital, it would be the capital of the germans but it wouldn't be recognised by the countries not OCCUPIED by the germans, the same thing applies to jerusalem. (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Post Mediation Attempt

Although mediation could not proceed, it is clear that issues remain with the lead and the infobox. Now, what can be done to improve the article? RomaC (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point in having a neutrality tag in the infobox. There are three possibilities: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel with certain factual reservations. None of these three possibilities involves problems with neutrality. Let's look again at the facts: (1) Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government (the presidential residence, the parliament, the supreme court, the central bank and the ministries HQs are all located there, save the Ministry of Defense which is located in Tel Aviv). (2) Israel declared Jerusalem officially as its capital and treat it as such for every purpose (3) Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is contested by some countries, and most countries do not recognize it as the Israeli capital (4) All foreign diplomatic delegations to Israel are located outside Jerusalem on purpose and per UN SC resolution, however the entire diplomatic corps attends official Israeli events held in Jerusalem (5) The Palestinian leadership demand that the eastern part of the city become the capital of the future Palestinian state. So, actually, the third option is the relevant here. Jerusalem can be said to be the Israeli capital with certain reservations, that should be described properly, and I believe they are already described. WP is about describing the facts on the ground. The current state of affair is that Jlm function as the Israeli capital, and this is not an issue of neutrality - like it or not, it's a fact. Greek Cypriots don't like the fact that Nicosia is divided, but it is. The Argentinian government doesn't like the fact that Islas Malvinas are called Falkland Islands and has affiliation to the UK, but this is a fact on the ground. Describing facts is always neutral. The reservations should also be present, since they are relevant, and as far as I can see they are described in the proper places. DrorK (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
For you to stop trying to force your views on the article, even though you don't bother presenting sources, and the majority is against change.
I really don't like being so blunt, but this kind of behavior brings it out. It's fine to raise concerns and try to work something out. But after incredibly long discussions, every few months, where claims don't gain support, there comes a time to admit - you are in the minority, others do not share your view, and the article doesn't have to change. Raising it over and over, with tags and all, is not productive, but is just an attrition tactic, hoping that at some point you'll manage to tire enough editors to have your way. There will always be issues; there will always be dissatisfied editors. You need to accept that. okedem (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As no one denies that there is a dispute over the infobox and introduction and that the dispute centers around one group of editors who view the current presentation as POV and another group who denies that, its clear that the article should remain tagged with NPOV tags until that dispute is resolved.
To answer RomaCs question, there are a number of proposals that were floated to deal with the POV issue:
  • Changing the footnote format to distinguish it from regular references so that the content of the foonote which explains that Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital is not recognized by most of the world is better highlighted.
  • Adding the words proclaimed, disputed, or unrecognized in brackets before or after the word Jerusalem in the infobox.
  • Changing the wording in the introduction from "capital" to "Seat of government", since no one disputes that it functions as Israel's seat of government at present.
I'm sure there are other that I have missed, but others should feel free to add them here for consideration and further discussion. Tiamuttalk 14:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no POV issue. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Who disagrees that? It does not say Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel or Jerusalem is widely recognized as the capital of Israel; it simply reflects the current state of affairs -- that Jerusalem, regardless of whether anyone (you, Israel, Syria, China, the UK, the US), likes it or not. There have been no reliable sources presented that conflict with that statement.
Several people, including you, have persistently presented the statement as an issue that must be addressed. In your mind, it seems, there is no debate here: the article will change, and the only question is by how much (and how quickly!). You are unwilling to hear the arguments of those who oppose you, and we have had others -- perhaps you as well -- say quite clearly that no matter what any RfC or discussion concludes about this issue, unless it supports changing the article, its results are invalid since, after all, consensus cannot trump policy (as interpreted by you). No wonder people were hesitant about mediation; this is not a climate for discussion and compromise. -- tariqabjotu 15:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Stating that "there is no POV issue" because that's what you believe to be true doesn't make it so. In the list of sources presented by Dailycare, not only were there sources that qualified any statements of Jerusalem being Israel's capital with notes on its lack of recognition or embassies being situated in Tel Aviv, but there were infact sources that directly contradicted that notion. (eg. 22 ("Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital") and 26 ("Capital: Tel Aviv" in an infobox on Israel. (El Pais))
Your second point is one I could parrot right back at you, but I won't because I don't think it will help us to make any progess toward resolving this issue. If you don't respect the people with whom you are discussing, there is little hope for forging an agreement. You might want to work on that. Tiamuttalk 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say "There is no POV issue. Period." I said there is no POV issue because there have been no sources to suggest that another side disagrees with this point. We've heard a lot about non-recognition, a point no one here contends, but nothing about Jerusalem not being the capital of Israel. Those sources that directly say that are very, very few and far between to the point of being a minority viewpoint that warrants no mention in the article (are we, for example, going to include the claim in El Pais that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel?). The ynet source, despite what the headline says, does not say that Canada has stated that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. According to the article, it says that the court ruled that Jerusalem is under dispute and therefore it is not appropriate to say 'Jerusalem, Israel' on a Canadian passport. Frankly, I'm not sure why ynet even mentioned the capital aspect.
I mentioned nothing about respecting you. I simply said that you are unwilling to listen to opposing opinions, as you are so convinced they go against policy or otherwise are flat-out wrong. I heard your side -- I've been hearing it for years now. And, unfortunately for you, it has never gained consensus. Even after all this time, I'm still asking you to present sources and still commenting on the merits of your sources. If you still think that, despite that, I don't respect you, fine; I really don't care. -- tariqabjotu 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Canada does in fact list Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel (see here). nableezy - 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry the mediation didn't go forward, because I think it would have been an interesting test of whether peace could reign among the warring Wikipedia camps. But, since it is now a dead issue, I would just like to point out how colossally insignificant these proposed changes are.

Consider the suggestion to add the word "(declared)" after the word "Jerusalem" in the infobox. What do you think this would mean to the approximately 32,000 readers that look at this article every month?

  • 15,000 of them don't look at the infobox.
  • 16,000 will look at the infobox and not notice the word "(declared)"; or they will notice it, but will have no idea what it is supposed to mean and will not care.
  • 800 will think that it means that Israel's capital is in some other, undetermined location, but that Israel has declared its intent to move the capital to Jerusalem in the near future.
  • 170 will think that "Declared" is another name for "Jerusalem" (as in "Istanbul (Constantinople)").
  • 30 readers will understand that the word "(declared)" is an oblique reference to the fact that there is a dispute over Jerusalem's status. All of these readers will already be fully informed about the dispute; 15 of them will be Wikipedia editors who have been involved in this discussion.

So, you see, by making this change we have informed no one, we have confused a few, and we have not stricken a blow for righteousness, accuracy or clarity in any way.

And so for the lead. What will readers understand if we change the sentence "Jerusalem is the capital" to "Israel has chosen Jerusalem, historically the cultural and religious center of Judaism, as its capital"? Even an exegesist with the skill of Rashi could not figure out that that second sentence was somehow suggesting that Jerusalem is not the capital in the eyes of some.

Friends, the insistence on these changes represents the triumph of ideology over sanity, and the refusal to make, or even seriously discuss, these changes is a pigheadedness borne of a childhood under the thumb of a Yiddishe Mame. And our failure to amicably resolve this ridiculously marginal dispute over semantics is a telling statement about the state of Wikipedia's Middle East editing community.

Respectfully, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I believe those are the most relevant proposals ("proclaimed" is used in sources more than "chosen"). In terms of policy, the issue is very simple and boils down to a few points:
  • is it a reliably sourced, significant view that the capital status of Jerusalem is not accepted internationally? (I believe there is no disagreement on this: yes)
  • Is it a "notable controversy"? If so, then per WP:LEAD it must be mentioned in the lead (we have WP:RS saying it is) Saying "proclaimed" and "the status of Jerusalem remains in dispute" in the lead, not necessarily even in the same paragraph, accomplishes this. These are small and non-offending edits.
Failing to agree on those changes, or others that would resolve the issue, here leaves us with a dilemma - per WP:NPOV it is a non-negotiable policy, which I understand to mean that each article must comply. If this one can't be edited to comply, then (I guess) logically the article would have to be deleted. My vote is to edit, not delete. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If this one can't be edited to comply, then (I guess) logically the article would have to be deleted. We don't need any more ultimatums, especially one that ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Ravpapa. Though I appreciate your attempt to solve the problem, your suggestion values vagueness over clarity, and sacrifices accuracy to appease. This is the way to write an election platform, not an encyclopedia.
Tiamut, there will always be a dispute, until you have your way. Enough. Stop holding this article hostage. The majority opposes change, so this ends now.
Dailycare, since you think to disagree with you is to be disruptive, and that those opposing the changes are for the "official Israeli propaganda", I see no possible way to discuss this with you. okedem (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So, when it comes to Jerusalem we can deal with words like largest and the notion of largeness in a calm and rational way but we can't deal with a word like capital and notions of 'capitalness'. Yup.
Wikipedia can profit from this. I suggest that the next time someone makes a classic statement like "I dispute the use of an NPOV tag on the word capital in a feeble attempt to trivialize the Jewish people's right to self determination." or "You cannot continue to hold this article hostage until all your demands are met.", amusing as they are, has to upload a picture from the Library of Congress to Commons. Start with this aerial image of Jerusalem from 1931 with no known rights restrictions. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, don't misrepresent what I've written since that at least doesn't move this discussion forward. Also, instead of discussing the NPOV tag, let's concentrate on resolving the dispute, shall we? After all, once the dispute is resolved we can all agree to remove the tag. --Dailycare (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
And since you won't accept the fact that you don't have support for a change, the dispute will go on forever, and the tags will stay on forever - unless users like me finally give up, and let you have your way. You simply can't accept that you have failed to convince. And don't claim you didn't write it, we can all read it - you claimed this article is "official Israeli propaganda", and that there are users who are "disrupting", though you didn't bother to present a shred of evidence for that claim. okedem (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okedem writes: Tiamut, there will always be a dispute, until you have your way. Enough. Stop holding this article hostage. The majority opposes change, so this ends now.
Wikipedia doesn't work by majority rule. It works by WP:CONSENSUS aimed at ensuring our articles comply with WP:NPOV. I'm not alone in my concerns here either. I count at least three other editors participating in this discussion who share them. So please stop personaliing the debate, pretending there is no debate by reverting out POV tags on the article, and using emotive language, and instead, please try addressing the issues raised and the specific proposals being put forward to deal with them. 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
What I see here is a minority of editors trying to push their views. You act as though we have to change the article. I discussed every single proposal and issue here, I addressed every point you or anyone else here raised. Stop pretending I (and others) haven't. We addressed them - we simply don't agree with you. Accept it. okedem (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
What I see in this section is three editors telling five editors that they are in the minority. I also see some stonewalling and the evasion of sources that are presented that directly contradcit the claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I won't accept being treated as though I am being disruptive for insisting that we continue to pursue dispute resolution of an issue that has not been dealt with to the satisfaction of a number of a editors. I don't have to accept your position as the gospel truth Okedem, nor do I have to accept that because you are tired of discussing it, everyone else should stop raising the issue for discussion as well. If you don't want to engage substantively on this issue anymore, stop participating in the discussions. Otherwise, I expect that you will cease disaparaging those who disagree with you and trying to sideline their position and take up the discussion of it with due seriousness. Tiamuttalk 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
How can anybody discuss this seriously anymore? The discussion is over. It was over a long time ago. It's hard to take you guys seriously when you argue a simple fact that a country chooses its own capital. The thing is, you don't even argue that fact... you ignore it and repeat over and over again that the world doesn't consider Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. That has absolutely nothing to do with what the capital of Israel is. Recognition is not a prerequisite. I'm done with this. There are no new ideas being brought to the table, and there haven't been for weeks. And for the record, there are a lot more than 3 vs 5 editors involved here. You know that. Breein1007 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can't discuss it seriously, don't discuss it. No one is forcing you to participate. OR discussions about how capital's don't need to be recognied by others are a distraction from the subject at hand. Sources have been presented that directly contradict the claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (though they are only a few) and tens of sources have been presented that say that capital claim is contested and unrecognized. NPOV requires we represent all signifcant viewpoitns, not just the ones that some editors like. So let's start discussing how to do that. Tiamuttalk 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
"What I see in this section is three editors telling five editors that they are in the minority." - you know full well that's false. The discussion isn't limited to this very second, but includes the extremely long discussion we had above, along with an RfC, in which your position was in the minority. Don't pretend it didn't happen. okedem (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sean, we dealt very calmly with this, with an incredibly long discussion, RfC, and what-not. We've presented sources, explained what "capital" means, explained how Jerusalem is the capital. You've failed to show anything to explain why international recognition is so important. It's over. Your position did not gain support. Please accept this, and move on. okedem (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of the word calm is a bit different from mine. If editors continue to sample the bits of the sources they want to sample (e.g. the bits that say 'Jerusalem is the capital..') and seek to bury the inconvenient complexities (e.g. the highly notable and almost universally agreed bits that come after the 'but..' ) this will never end. It shouldn't be any more difficult for someone to deal with information about the population size of West Jerusalem and occupied East Jerusalem combined as it is to deal with the capital status of West Jerusalem and occupied East Jerusalem combined. It's the same Jerusalem, made up of bits that are in Israel and bits that are not in Israel from the NPOV/DUE perspective and yet somehow we are meant to simply accept that saying 'Jerusalem is the largest city' is not quite right, possibly a bit misleading etc but simply saying 'Jerusalem is the capital, move along, nothing to see here', is fine and dandy. The way I look at it is, Jerusalem incorporates East Jerusalem -> East Jerusalem is not in Israel from the NPOV/DUE perspective -> we have a problem for both largeness and capitalness which is reflected in the sources. So no, it's not over. My position is and always has been that we should find the simplest and most pragmatic way to deal with this. It should be easy. I really don't care much about what we do but doing nothing and pretending that the word Jerusalem represents a unified Israeli capital city would be the wrong approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking along the same lines as Tiamut, it sounds odd that an editor would try to forbid others from discussing how to improve an article. "Forever" (used above) is a forward-looking statement, how do you know that we won't find a solution tomorrow? --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see things as they stand: One side will not be happy until language is inserted that casts doubt on Israel's sovereignty to name its own capital within territory it controls; the other side insists that Israel is a sovereign nation with the ability to choose its capital within the land it controls. Given the black and white nature of this, I'm not sure a compromise can be reached. Until some sort of binding decision from ArbCOM (or whomever is in charge of such things) is created that defines what comprises a nation's capital city, then this article will be a constant bone of contention with editors. Each side will keep rehashing the same arguments and "facts", trying to gain the most supporters to push their particular viewpoint so that they may ultimately "win", while not really solving anything ie: victory via fiat.

After being threatened regarding voting in the mediation, I really don't care to be part of this anymore. Maybe that is what was the ultimate intention of the threat, maybe not...but I do know that this: I have better and more constructive things to do here on Wiki than get involved in pandora's tinderbox aka the status of Jerusalem and/or Israel. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, in the last 24 hours, Okedem has been attempting to shift attention away from the issues with the article and onto some editors. I disagree with this tact, and with the incivility of tone, but I'm left with little choice but to address Okedem's accusations against me and other editors. I will try to be brief here, can compile and list all the quotes, diffs, edits and details at a later point if required.
Okedem's accusations are largely misrepresentations. Check the places where Okedem paraphrases the comments of an editor he disagrees with; then look through that editor's comments to see if they actually said what Okedem claims they did. Most of the time, they did not, what they said has been twisted into a different meaning. Some might not see this as honest.
While supporting edits that opposed the official Israeli position, DailyCare used the label "propaganda". This outraged Okedem, who has since spat the word back at DailyCare six times, in an apparent attempt to tar him. However, before DailyCare laid down the "P-word," the official-Israeli-position-tending editor Jaakabou had already launched it, right here on this Talk page, and this caused Okedem no apparent concern. Some might wonder about selectivity, and neutrality.
The last point may be the most important one. Okedem is and has repeatedly framed this situation as a problem involving a stubborn group of editors, a small and obsessively dedicated cadre that comes out of the woodwork every few months to disruptively push their POV on this issue. They swarm the article tirelessly, but the majority position finally prevails.
But look at the evidence (an archive of discussions on the issue from 2003-2009. Scores of very different editors have brought up this issue and suggested edits. If there is a small and obsessively dedicated cadre using Wikipedia as a battleground, might it actually be those who are stubbornly supporting only the official Israeli position? The name "Okedem" appears 166 times in this archive. Far more than any other editor's. Some might see irony here.
Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
To anyone reading this discussion - RomaC has made very serious allegations against me. Despite repeated requests (on the talk page, again, and on his talk page), he flatly refuses to present any evidence to support his claims. This constitutes a personal attack, per WP:NPA ("What is considered to be a personal attack?...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."), and is indeed a very low tactic intended to bias editors against myself. The refusal to present evidence implies the lack of such, making RomaC's claim nothing but libel. okedem (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I prefer not to be combative, but I can do that too. To anyone reading this discussion - okedem has made very serious allegations against me. Despite my appeals to civility, he has used this Talk page to make allegations that I am a hostage-taker-making-demands This analogy to terrorist tactics, especially in a discussion relating to an Israeli-Palestinian issue, constitutes a shameful and unacceptable personal attack, per WP:NPA, and is indeed a very low tactic intended to bias editors against me. As I have said, a Talk page is for discussion not for personal attacks, take this to the appropriate place please and I am fully ready to cooperate. RomaC (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If you can't accept a metaphor in a discussion, that's too bad. I have made no allegations against you, but characterized your behavior in a way you do not like. Do you feel my supposed rudeness gives you the right to spread libel? Is your accusation nothing but retaliation? Your continued refusal to present a shred of evidence to support your claims only furthers my belief you simply made them up out of whole cloth. okedem (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I see, you think your firing terrorist metaphors against other editors is ok, merely "supposed rudeness", and it's "too bad" if the other editor takes it differently. By the way, while you are making these personal attacks I have suggested compromise positions on two points at issue. So how does that fit your claim that "nothing short of full compliance with your demands will ever satisfy you"? Diffs please. Truth is, I have moved much more than you have on this issue, my friend. So please, enough with the threats, take your gripe to a NPA claim if that is what you want. The olive branch: Or, get back to the discussion, and if you don't get personal I won't respond in kind. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I see you're trying to spin this in my direction, but - "holding X hostage" is a common metaphor (just a few examples: Don't Hold Bank Reform Hostage, Democrats’ threats to hold healthcare reform hostage dominate the debate, BROWNBACK TO COLLEAGUES: DON'T HOLD EDUCATION REFORM HOSTAGE, CBC holds financial reform hostage as Congress gets angry with Obama over economy, Science Held Hostage; I can find thousands more) , and is used without any allusion to terrorists. If that's what worries you - rest assured, I had no such connotation in mind, nor any wish to imply you're using terrorist tactics. Clearly, this is an oft-used metaphor in the English language, long parted from the terrorist connotation.
I'm not here to discuss if you are willing to compromise or not. Of course, for me (and others), the footnote was already a compromise, that you're now using as the starting point for more concessions. But the issue is your claim that I attributed to people things they didn't say, or twisted their words. You claim to have evidence. By refusing to present it, you're making your claims nothing but libel. I hold that you are lying; if you want to prove me wrong - present your evidence. okedem (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You're not here to discuss if I am willing to compromise or not, why did you claim, here, that I am unwilling to compromise ("nothing short of full compliance with your demands will ever satisfy you")? Where did I say that "nothing short of full compliance with my demands will satisfy me"? Diffs please. Or was this your attempt to bias editors against me? RomaC (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Cute, but I never said that you stated "nothing short of...". It is only my impression from these discussions. And in case you didn't understand it, my comment didn't refer to this single discussion, but to the tactic. Over time, old compromises are used as a starting place for new concessions; you ignore the results of discussions (like RfCs) that you don't like, and keep pushing until you get what you want.
Clearly, you don't actually have the evidence you claimed to have, and are fully lying. At this point, the NPA route is redundant. The most you'll get would be a warning, but I think you destroyed your credibility thoroughly enough right here, not to mention embarrassing yourself with this clumsy piece of libel. In fact, from this discussion we can learn that your accusation was a sort of retaliation for what you erroneously believed was an accusation of "terrorist tactics"; instead of discussing that, you chose to make a false allegation against me. When I pushed you for evidence, you realized you don't have any, and tried to spin the discussion about me, to make everyone forget your lack of evidence. Won't work. You've been given every possible chance to defend your allegations. You chose not to, and the only conclusion left is that you made it all up, and are too ashamed to admit it. okedem (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Can I just say I find it amusing when you use "we" as a personal pronoun? Anyway as I wrote in response to your first personal attack, I see misrepresentations in your paraphrasing of the comments of editors you disagree with. Calling me a liar doesn't change that, nor will it wind me up. I know you know that a Talk page is for discussing content not contributors, so I want to apologize to other editors for this inappropriate little back-and-forth.
I remain perfectly willing to address this in the appropriate place, you said (threatened that) you were going to call me out on NPA policy, please do so and we can go from there. Otherwise, if this goes to RfArb or to an uninvolved admin under the general sanctions provisions then we can proceed in that way. Until then, take care! RomaC (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, as you have decided to go after me, I expect to see detailed diffs of myself making false claims about editors' comment, or "twisting" them into different meanings. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
Jaakobou's use of the word "propaganda" was very different, and I don't see much of a problem with it.
It's become about the editors because you guys refuse to accept the fact that you haven't managed to gain consensus for changes. It's okay to raise objections, discuss things, open RfCs. But it seems that their results are meaningless unless they support your wishes. There comes a time to accept that your position hasn't been accepted, instead of trying to tire everyone else. You seem to think that discussions must go on until you're satisfied; they don't.
The claim regarding the various editors bringing up the point is wholly meaningless. I can promise you that if the article said "Capital: Tel Aviv", or "Jerusalem (declared)", etc., you'd have scores of editors coming in to complain that it's wrong, and Jerusalem really is the capital. Of all the people reading the article, only people with complaints will show up - obviously people who think everything is fine won't say anything, and these can be the majority, without us knowing.
You characterize me as as "stubbornly supporting only the official Israeli position" completely ignoring the fact that I've backed up this point with plenty of sources (including the most simple one - the dictionary definition of "capital" as "seat of government", which none of you have managed to come close to refuting). It's interesting that my involvement in discussions is used against me. Perhaps in the future I should try to avoid making lots of detailed comments, and just make one comment per claim - "you're wrong". That way my name won't show up quite that much, and you wouldn't have such silly claims to make. okedem (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, I'm still waiting for evidence to support your claims that I've ascribed to editors things they did not say, or "twisted" their words. okedem (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I am very surprised at the radical change en-wp has undergone into a kind of post-modernist project which aims at creating reality by using certain words and phrasings, rather than acknowledge reality and write about it. Perhaps it is not redundant to remind you that even people like Ahmadinejad who wish to see the disappearance of Israel, still need to have information about the actual state of affairs. It reminds me that someone once told me that Israel was not a real state, and I thought to myself, I should have this statement in writing and present it as the income tax office next time I visit there. I am invited to a parliamentary hearing on Tuesday, and believe me, I could benefit a lot from the moving the Israeli capital to Tel Aviv. It would save me about 90 minutes of driving up the mountains and a significant amount of fuel. I would change the infobox immediately if it were helpful to move that hearing closer to my home, but unfortunately, I don't think en-wp has so much affect. On the other hand, if someone really wants to know in a glance where he could find the Israeli capital, he wouldn't benefit much from a statement "Tel Aviv per the Canadian Foreign Ministry", or even "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" (okay, it is proclaimed, but where do I find the presidential bureau?). There is no argument that the international debate and the Palestinian claim over Jerusalem should be mentioned, and yet don't try to change reality by words, and don't abuse the principle of verifiability. Verifiability is not contradictory to common sense, and bringing sources is not a remedy to every problem - I can find sources suggesting the existence of the Monster from Loch Ness, and there are even contemporary sources still suggesting seriously that the Sun rotates around the Earth. DrorK (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, using sources has to be done with care. This fact-sheet from the Canadian Foreign Ministry [9] leaves the capital slot empty, rather than mentioning Tel Aviv. The infobox about Israel in Al País includes some inaccuracies, e.g. Arabic is an official language of Israel beside Hebrew, at least 16% of the Israeli population is Muslim (yet Islam is not mentioned among prominent religions in Israel). DrorK (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that no matter how long an argument there is on the talk pages, the main article ALWAYS says whatever the heck okedem's PERSONAL OPINION is. Vive la Wikipedia.

Not that it matters what I or anyone else, heck the rest of the world thinks, but it seems to me that Jerusalem IS Israel's capital. It was declared as such by the country, and that should be the last word on that topic. It would be interesting, though, if the increasingly laughable United States of America actually does not block the creation of the "facts on the ground" Swiss cheese Palestinian "state" and Palestine declares its capital as Jerusalem.

According to Okedem, that would be the final say on the question of where Palestine's capital isAt the end of the day, we seem to have NOT an objective definition of this term by wikipedia's own policy of reference to reliable sources, but reference to okedem's POV that it does not matter what secondary sources say, but what TERTIARY sources say. But, as I said above, no matter what anybody else thinks, okedem's POV WILL remain on the main article. It has set a precedence that literally throws out the most hallowed wikipedia modus operandi, but these things matter no more to okedem than the opinion of the rest of the world. He merely creates "facts on the ground" at wikipedia. Vive la okedem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

SIGN YOU COMMENTS (I can use caps too). Can you word your above comments in a way that isn't an attack on various things so it is easier to figure out what you are getting out (sort attention span and all). Being serious not silly.Cptnono (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to have the incredible power you ascribe to me; however, it seems that the majority of editors on all discussion here agree with me. okedem (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just leave that line out of the infobox? At least as an interim solution. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead 2

Brackets around a clarifying word, "highlight"ing it in the infobox info by giving it a note, and adjusting the miniarticle in the reference are all things that have gone nowhere. The lead is the one thing that should be relatively easy even though we very well might get stuck if editors go too far or others don't want any change. I would be interested in what suggestions people have for the lead.Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I cobbled this together from other Wikipedia articles. This is a chance to get a little more info on Israel's cities as well as pointing out that the capital is disputed parties. I'm no in love with it but there are many points we can address if we are making a change:

On December 5, 1949, the State of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The Knesset (the legislature), Supreme Court of Israel, and executive branch of the government now reside in the city. Many embassies are in or around Tel Aviv since most nations do not recognize Israel’s claim. Tel Aviv is also the country’s a major economic hub, and it is a major performing arts and business center. Israel’s only stock exchange— the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange— is there.

We could also add "Other major cities include..." and maybe even a mention of East Jerusalem.
Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
East Jerusalem is not in Israel. nableezy - 05:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it was. Since it has come up in discussion on this page I thought it would be something to consider clarifying. Fine we won't mention it. Do you have anything constructive?Argh... poopey history. Seriously, anything else? We could leave the lead as is as well but I assume that is not OK for some editors. Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the sort of paragraph that can appear in the Jerusalem article, not here. Too much details for one small point. No one has managed to present any sources about the importance of recognition a city's capital status. All sources we have indicate that the capital is the seat of government, so why don't we just say Jerusalem is the capital? okedem (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally understand why there might be hesitation on adding more info. Here's what I tried to do (and I hope everyone can do the same): We have a Featured Article. We have a Featured Article on a nation. Featured articles require such drama mentioned in the lead. Nation articles in any given tertiary source (bust out your encyclopedias and almanacs) give weight to major cities. We can easily provide information on the two major cities in the country and this dispute. I could care less if my draft is no good but do want some info added to the lead.Cptnono (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The "drama" is already covered in the third paragraph, and the two major cities are already mentioned in the last sentence. I haven't seen evidence to indicate the importance of recognition the the city's status, so I don't see a reason to cover it in the lead. okedem (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
How about agreeing first on something that may have consensus? Taking the start of Ravpapa's proposal, above, and modifying only "many" to "several", we could edit the lead thus and then discuss the "capital" issue further. This only adds mention of the dispute concerning Jerusalem and refugees, which should (knock wood) be a non-contentious edit per WP:LEAD. Suppport/oppose?
In November 1947 the United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[14] Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,[15] and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
Several issues remain in dispute between Israel and its neighbors, including final borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the future of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel during the fighting. Nonetheless, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.
--Dailycare (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
If it's helpful in any way, here's the statistics published by B'Tselem [10]: "At the end of 2005, the population of Jerusalem stood at 723,700: 482,500 Jews (67 percent) and 241,200 Palestinians (33 percent). About 58 percent of the residents live on land that was annexed in 1967 (45 percent of whom are Jews, and 55 percent Palestinians).". The Israeli Bureau of Statistics give slightly bigger number for the total number of residents on 31 December 2008: 763.6 thousand. Some Arab Jerusalemites have Israeli citizenship (most of them only have permanent residency in Israel), so Jerusalem have approx. half a million Israeli citizens. The number of residents in western Jerusalem is more than 300 thousand. There are 392.5 thousand residents in the Tel Aviv-Yafo municipal territory (per IBS, 31 Dec 2008). I think it is still fair to say that Jerusalem is the biggest Israeli city, even if we don't accept the Israeli definition of the city's municipal borders. There are more Israeli citizens in this city than in any other city in Israel, even if we exclude the Palestinian non-Israeli residents, and even if we exclude the Jewish neighborhoods located far from the city center to the east, north or south. DrorK (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Again too much detail, Dailycare. The lead is supposed to be a summary. It's okay to say that some matters remain in dispute (this is basically said already in the lead), but we don't need to enumerate what those matters are. People can read about them in more detail in the article and the many other articles on them. -- tariqabjotu 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a lot of detail for the article on Israel, not Jerusalem. Personally, I think if there is any chance the article will be changed, it will have to include the point that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (not the proclaimed, chosen, etc., capital or simply the "seat of government"). To be honest, I think that's the part supporters of the currently formulation are most tied to, especially, as I said earlier, there are very few sources that contest it directly (several, it seems, who opt for the bizarrely inept point that Tel Aviv is the capital). If those supporting changes are able to accept that point, we may get somewhere by succinctly (again, succinctly) including a bit more information about the controversy alongside the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (so long as it doesn't suggest that non-recognition cancels out the fact that Jerusalem is the capital). For example:

Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub, home to Israel's only stock exchange, and/but Jerusalem, although not widely recognized as such, is the capital of Israel.[a]


Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub, home to Israel's only stock exchange, and/but Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is the capital of Israel.[a]

But if I'm wrong that those opposed to the current wording are simply asking for more details about Jerusalem's status (i.e. that they really want to eliminate the statement that Jerusalem is the capital), then never mind. If that's the case, there would be very little room for compromise (it's either a yes or no, and in this case I'd stand firmly with maintaining that Jerusalem should be mentioned as the capital). It's still unclear to me at this point what people want, and I'm also sure that some people want to avoid calling Jerusalem the capital altogether, while others are content with just including more details. Comments and clarifications would be appreciated.
Note that I don't think it matters much how The Footnote link is formatted. I think using letters, like [a], would be a good middle ground (especially as they're commonly used on articles that separate "notes" from standard references). The item that is currently Reference 120 (In the 1990s, direct elections for Prime Minister...) could also be separated out if that route is chosen. But, as I said, I think that matter is trivial. -- tariqabjotu 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Of the two suggestions, I think the second one better (proposed by tariqabjotu) reflects the sources. If that were adopted, along with the formatting change for the footnote that you have proposed (i.e. (a)), my concerns regarding the article's lack of NPOV on the way this issue is addressed in this article would be alleviated. Tiamuttalk 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The intent for this part of the discussion was to be devoid of the other shenanigans. The lead. What makes the lead better? The opportunity to discuss the difference between capital and commerce (see NY:DC or other examples that I can't be arsed to provide) plus the opportunity to encapsulate the "drama"/boo-hoo parts in a single paragraph is fantastic and easy enough. This is a featured article. Act like it.Cptnono (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Who are you responding to? And what shenanigans are you talking about? -- tariqabjotu 12:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
For consideration:

Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub, home to Israel's only stock exchange. The seat of government is Jerusalem, which functions as Israel's capital although it is not internationally recognized as such.[a]

RomaC (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal avoids calling Jerusalem the capital. It's not that Jerusalem is the seat of government, but merely functions as the capital; it's that Jerusalem is the capital (with, of course, all that jazz about other countries not recognizing it as such, locating embassies elsewhere, etc.). -- tariqabjotu 12:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think RomaC's proposal is more NPOV than tarqiabjotu's, but I doubt it will gain consensus. Tiamuttalk 13:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Screw my proposal. Can you word it to call it the capital? I am happy saying it is the capital and would love to see the lead say that while also addressing the other issues.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops. As self centered as I am I failed to realize that another way of wording it came on to the table. By shenanigans I mean shit. It really is all back and forth shit. I really just want to find consensus on a lead that doesn't get people on their heels and doesn't suck. "Capital. It claims and functions. International says poop. Another big city is over there. That other city has big buildings"Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, what I wrote is not exactly a proposal as something for consideration, mindful of editors' point that a part of Jerusalem is not in Israel at all; and of other editors' point that it is nonetheless under Israeli control and generally does what a capital does, ie. function as the seat of government. I would support having it stand as "Capital" in the infobox with the link to the footnote subtly re-formatted as suggested ([a]) but without any "declared" or "proclaimed" qualification. I hope we may be moving toward something that can improve clarity and be NPOV. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to say forget about the footnote. This isn't a game where we negotiate. This is the lead of an article. How do we make the lead FA quality. The infobox can get fiddled with later. This isn't about forcing a compromise in the guise of consensus. It is about making an accurate and informative article. The lead needs to address the sticky point (per FA standards) and should also let the reader know what's what with the capital and major metro areas.Cptnono (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to remind you a few things, if indeed we are in search of objective knowledge here: (1) Tel Aviv should not be mentioned, as it has no status for this matter. The US's main stock exchange is in NYC, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are the main economic hubs of Brazil, Russia has a economic and cultural hub in St. Petersburg beside Moscow, it doesn't make these cities capitals or even eligible to be called "de facto capitals". Haifa is also an Israeli major economic hub as it has the biggest harbor, and yet it is also not "a capital" of Israel. (2) You can't get away without mentioning that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. This information is too important. As I said, Nicosia is divided between the Rep. of Cyprus and the TRNC, and this information is too important even if many Greek-Cypriot would prefer we say simply that Nicosia is the capital of the Rep. of Cyprus. (3) If we have to avoid footnotes in the lead, then we could write: "Capital: Jerusalem (internationally contested)", which more or less gives the idea of: if you are looking for the Israeli capital, try Jerusalem, but know that many foreign governments are not happy with this situation. DrorK (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
What and why Drork?Cptnono (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Er... Tel Aviv is already mentioned in the article alongside Jerusalem. No one is suggesting that Tel Aviv's economic status makes it a de facto capital or a second capital or anything of that sort, no less than anyone would say New York is the de facto capital of the U.S. (although, I mean, if someone personally thinks that New York and Tel Aviv should be de facto capitals because they're economic hubs, it is their prerogative). The article would say pretty much what it says now; Tel Aviv is the economic hub, but Jerusalem it's capital, but with the non-recognition point. Read what you want, but most are simply going to read what it says.
The rest of your comment seems contradictory to what has been said in the progress of this thread. -- tariqabjotu 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The details are there since they are notable controversies relating to the issue, so per WP:LEAD they should be mentioned. How about this:

In November 1947 the United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[16] Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,[17] and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Several issues remain in dispute between Israel and its neighbors, including final borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the future of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel during the fighting. Nonetheless, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.

Israel is a developed country and a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage[18][19]. The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's legislative body. The economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, is the 44th-largest in the world.[20] Israel ranks highest among Middle Eastern countries on the UN Human Development Index.[21] Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange, while Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is the capital of Israel.[a]

Whereas this isn't perfect, it's IMO a clear improvement. --Dailycare (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dailycare's suggestion merits consideration for sure, as I have said I am not against identifying Jerusalem as the capital, but a qualification needs to be there to reflect acknowledged real-world issues. I don't presume to speak for other editors though. Suggest a tweak in punctuation and word order: Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange; while Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is its capital city.[a]
Also would trim this possibly weaselly passage which ascribes to Israeli efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians. While these efforts may or may not be genuine it cannot be assumed that they are universally regarded as such, and so the passage does present a POV that is not needed in the lead. So suggest downsizing from Nonetheless, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success. to something like Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, but remains in a state of conflict with its Palestinian neighbors.
RomaC (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Both of your proposed changes are fine, save for the introduction of that semi-colon. "While Jerusalem... is its capital city" is not an independent clause, so a semi-colon is not correct. -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
True, we could drop "while" or else make two sentences. Anyway we'll see what other editors think. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
If you're asking me, I would obviously say no because I think the enumeration of the issues is unnecessary. At the very least, though, you could remove the paragraph break between the first two paragraphs of your proposal (as they discuss the same thing).
Regardless, until this point, the focus of this discussion has been on the capital of Israel aspect and I see no reason to complicate the discussion further by introducing this proposal regarding a paragraph no one has been talking about. We can deal with the capital issue now, as it looks like we're getting some agreement here (you, Tiamut, and I seem to all have okayed one particular sentence), and then move on to your desire to change the third paragraph later. -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This is very confusing, so please make it clear - which part of this discussion relates to the lead in general and which of it relates only to the infobox? My remarks refereed mainly to the infobox, although they might be useful for the lead in general. DrorK (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Um... none of it has been about the infobox, except for the change of [1] to [a], which is part of the lead text as well. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Why can't this just be about the lead? Why are you bringing the infobox or notes in?Cptnono (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll just join here - the question here is how much weight to give the non-recognition issue - and this is relevant to all those parts. We can go one by one - they're all interconnected. If we give lots of emphasis on this issue in one paragraph, we don't need to discuss it in the other. If we discuss the problem in the lead, we don't need a footnote.
But I have a question, following the bad experience with compromises - if we find something we can all agree on - will editors give their word of honor that they will not come back in a few months and try to push things more towards their preferred phrasings? This includes the case in which some new editor mentions it - will editors commit to supporting the compromise even then? okedem (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I would. nableezy - 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't commit to never bringing it up again ever. Political developments or new srouces could make changes necessary again in the future. However, I can commit to not supporting the reopening of the discussion of this particular issue at this article for at least one year. Given how protracted the discussions tend to be, I'm pretty sure I'll manage to avoid it even longer than that too. Tiamuttalk 18:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't look at it as a compromise. It is about making the content of this article better. I am happy with the lead saying how it is and nothing else. I won't be screwing with it or trying to take advantage of others good faith though. I also see no problem with people bringing up the infobox since that is a whole new ball game (of goodness hopefully). I will of course say yes as needed. Nableezy and I are on poor terms but I think he would vouch for my thoughts on good form and bad form.Cptnono (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really. nableezy - 18:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind then. Maybe I'll bring it up maybe I won't. I'll make sure to do it nicely.Cptnono (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I can also agree to not re-open, and to not support another editor re-opening, this issue for a long time if we reach an agreement around this proposal, including the [a] link in the lead and infobox. (Barring some fundamental change in the international situation, such as international recognition of Jerusalem as the capital) --Dailycare (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Similar to above. I forsee no reason at this point to reopen the matter. Okedem, do you agree with the proposal (the change in the sentence, and the change in the footnote format)? -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the proposed text. I've only dropped into this series of threads as I am quite frankly bored by the whole matter. I therefore cannot foresee myself being the one to raise the amtter agian.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The crux of this is that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a political statement, and representative of only one significant POV. The article cannot contain this statement because it would be a breach of NPOV. Juxtaposing other statements which cast doubt on the POV statement does something to mitigate this breach of NPOV. However, NPOV is something that the article should seek to achieve, rather than mitigate towards.

I agree with Tariqabjotu that the main issue here is not about including a full historical overview. On a practical level, trying to settle the issue on the basis that the whole lead will remain stable from here on in is unrealistic. Also agree with Cptnono that compromising in an "I'll have my way here, you have your way there" style is not appropriate. Nor is it likely to work - the article is bound to be edited sooner or later in a way that would upset such an uncomfortable compromise.

In my view, Roma C's proposal "The seat of government is Jerusalem, which functions as Israel's capital although it is not internationally recognized as such" is faultless. I think we should focus on this formulation or alternatives, rather than the whole lead in one go. Propose complete versions of the lead if you want, but I'm only really going to be looking at one sentence. --FormerIP (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Any statement can be interpreted in a political way. Saying homosexuality is/isn't a psychiatric condition can also be interpreted in a political way, and it indeed provoked a debate at the time, even though it was supposed to be a purely medical-scientific debate. And yet, we cannot avoid using certain terms or phrasings just because they might be unitendedly interpreted in a political context. WP is about conveying knowledge, and "capital city" is a term with a defined meaning in the English language. It is used here in the Wikipedian context, i.e. in the context of conveying knowledge and no more than that. Anyone who reads WP should be aware of that, and interpret the text in this context alone. DrorK (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
We've heard this argument before, and it's been rebutted before. We have many sources saying that Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel, a point that is included in the proposal, but we have very few sources explicitly saying that Jerusalem is not the capital or that the capital of Israel is something else (e.g. Tel Aviv). Despite this knowledge, you may believe saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is unacceptable (based on, it seems, your interpretation of neutrality). Conversely, others say there is nothing wrong with saying that by itself and adding additional information about Jerusalem's status waters down a clear fact. But this is the point of compromise; people will agree to something that doesn't fit perfectly with what they desire in the interest of coming to a calm conclusion. I would be happy with the article the way it is now, but I'm conceding that adding more info about non-recognition is fine. Tiamut said she thought RomaC's proposal is the best option of the ones here, but said that she didn't think it would pass and so accepted this proposal. I understand your position -- I've heard it many times -- but I'm asking you be a bit more pragmatic. That does not necessarily mean agreeing with my proposal (although that, of course, would be great), but it would be helpful if you avoided rehashing the firm rhetoric that makes compromise impossible.
In light of that, I don't think RomaC's proposal is faultless; it leans too much to one side, as it avoids calling Jerusalem the capital, a point that, as I said, has been less rejected than qualified in reliable sources. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
FormerIP, I agree with your point regarding NPOV and that the proposed wording is not NPOV-compliant since it asserts a POV as a fact. However, it's much better from an NPOV perspective than the present wording and, importantly, it's something that it may be possible to agree on. --Dailycare (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the reservations, we are at a crossroads it seems. At this point seems we could go with Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange. Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is its capital city.[a]
Alternatively, we could go to a RfArb to address perceived conduct issues by some editors; or see if an uninvolved administrator will use the existing Discretionary Sanctions for I-P articles procedures to stop such behavior by editors. I can live with the first option but if other editors are up for it could assist in looking back over this issue's talk page history and then proceeding with the second or third option. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
RomaC is acting in unacceptable ways. A couple of days ago he made very serious allegations against me, claiming I ascribe to other editors things they did not say, or that I twist their words. I asked him for evidence, on the talk page, again, and on his talk page. Today he replied, flatly refusing to present his evidence, saying he'll only do so for ArbCom. This is completely illegitimate. When you publicly accuse someone, you have to back it up, or retract. To do otherwise is an outrage. If you want to file a complaint against me, go ahead, and back up your claims them, but don't do a hit-and-run on me on the talk page, shamefully refusing me the chance to defend myself, and other editors the chance to judge the evidence for themselves.
You claim there are conduct issues here, but you have clearly now performed the worst aggression. I'm giving you this one last opportunity to present evidence, or withdraw. Otherwise, I will pursue this as a personal attack case, per WP:NPA, "What is considered to be a personal attack?...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.". okedem (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, how do you feel about the suggested text? (Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange. Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is its capital city.[a]) --Dailycare (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. "only stock exchange" - to me, that seems like a rather minor thing to highlight, and feels like filler text. I don't think the physical location of the exchange is that important (especially considering it's all computerized, so you don't have a bustling trade floor like in New York, for instance).
  2. I don't like the reverse sentence structure ("Jerusalem, although ... is..."). It seems like poor prose to me; I see no reason not to present the fact first, qualify later - that way people know what you're qualifying - "Jerusalem is the capital, although not recognized internationally as such."
  3. If you're already presenting the international recognition issue in the lead text, the footnote (both there and in the infobox) becomes redundant. People looking for further details can read them in the article's body. okedem (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. The point here was to present an example of why Tel Aviv is Israel's economic hub. An example of something else would work just fine.
  2. Yes, it sounds a bit better that way, but I thought that order would make the qualification sound like it nullifies the "Jerusalem is capital" point. But now that I read it again, it doesn't sound any different. It also makes the footnote better-placed...
  3. I don't think the footnote would be redundant. It's a reference, an elaboration, etc, for a point that, to the uninitiated, sounds quite bizarre. I think it's fine.
-- tariqabjotu 12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, you made hostage-taker-with-demands allegations against me, I asked you to change your tone, you refused, so I responded. Now an NPA threat? Ok, if you want to dance, go ahead and start the music, but this talk page is not the place. If you want to participate here, I request you comment on the discussion not on the editor. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I characterized the general behavior of some editors here as "hostage taking", and I stand by it. But that's a characterization, not a factual claim. You, on the other hand, made a very clear, easily provable or refutable claim against me, and you made it on this talk page. Don't like my tone, fine; you can say I'm being rude, uncooperative and pigheaded (I'm sure someone has already said it). But don't try to take revenge by making false claims. If you want to make a claim against me - go ahead; but be prepared to back it up with evidence, otherwise we might all assume you simply made it all up. I think we've all learned something about you and your libelous tactics. okedem (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
No. You made specific hostage-taker-with-demands allegations against me. There you go again. Anyway now you have threatened to pursue a NPA case against me. Go ahead, or stop the sabre-rattling already. Oh, and I don't presume to speak for other editors, but I have definitely learned something about you. I'll let you have the last word, then can we return to the discussion, please? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the difference between a characterization of behavior, and factual claim. I view your (and other editors') actions here as akin to holding this article hostage, by refusing to accept the results of discussions and RfC that are not to your liking. This is not a factual claim to be proven to refuted by evidence. I'm not making any factual claim against you - I'm saying how I see your behavior. You made a factual claim against me (attributing to people things they did not say, or twisting their words), claimed to have evidence, but are denying me the right to present any meaningful defense against the claim. By this you are trying to bias editors against me in a very unscrupulous manner.
I'm trying to understand how to continue with the NPA thing, don't worry. okedem (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the stock exchange or the sentence structure are key elements here and they can probably be modified as you suggest. The footnote, however, is a key part as the [a] link is used from both the lead and the infobox to present the more detailed information available in the footnote. As you know, several editors are offering a significant olive branch by agreeing to this compromise text in terms of both the wording and agreement to not re-open the issue anytime soon. --Dailycare (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I brought up the stock exchange is because I saw it at the Tel Aviv article and thought it was interesting. Figured the paragraph could encompass interesting stuff about both cities instead of being based on the capital dispute alone. My train of thought was summarizing some too much stuff in four paragraphs to meet WP:LEAD. It looks like it was more than we could chew though and I personally have no problem removing the stock exchange thing. I would love to see some general not conflict related info in the future but we can tackle the poopey stuff first since it is already a challenge.Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The talk page is getting out of whack timestamp wise so I'll put this down here. The footnote is not needed. We have prose to do that. We also have at least two other articles for explanation. If it can be put in a foot note then it can just as easily be put in the main body. Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The footnote is needed at least to provide something to link to from the infobox. If there is a way to link from the infobox to a passage in the body of the article, then I don't think there is a problem with moving the contets of the footnote to such a passage. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I am comfortable with the suggested change if the definitive statement "Jerusalem is the capital" is included before the international recognition bit. Qualify facts, don't pre-empt them with trivialization. Also, the current wording sounds awkward (the 'as such'). Maybe "Jerusalem is the capital, but this is not recognized internationally". I don't have an opinion on including info on Tel Aviv... it doesn't suggest that Jerusalem is not the capital as long as it SAYS that Jerusalem is the capital. In terms of the footnote, once we insert the information into the body, it becomes superfluous. I strongly oppose to keeping both the body and footnote when they say the same thing. This is WP:UNDUE weight. Breein1007 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
But that be the problem. No country in entire world recognize Jerusalem be capital of "Israel" but many country recognize Jerusalem be occupied palestine territory and be capital of future palestine state. So it be infactual and POV to say definitive "Jerusalem is the capital" because, quite frank, it not. Ani medjool (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, I feel obligated to remind people that things like countries or capital cities do not come into being solely upon declarations and recognitions. This is only one aspect, and not necessarily the most important. The fact that countries tell Israel: "we don't like the fact that you maintain your capital in Jerusalem", or "move your capital to Tel Aviv", does not make Jerusalem less of an Israeli capital from the factual point of view - it is still where you would find the Israeli center of government. Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that most countries recognized Jerusalem as a Palestinian occupied territory. The UK, for example, like many other countries, maintains that Jerusalem cannot be said to belong to any country for the time being. The EU recently published a vision in which Jerusalem is the capital of both Israel and a future Palestinian state. The PA itself recently published a plan (the "Fayyad Plan") in which it explicitly stated that East Jerusalem (and not all of the city) should become the Palestinian capital. DrorK (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Wrong on multiple counts. The UK explicitly says that it considers E. Jerusalem to be occupied territory ([11]). The EU also considers E. Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory ([12]). Most governments in fact do consider E. Jerusalem to be occupied territory and I added a source that makes that clear. The source is written by Adam Roberts and published in the American Journal of International Law. If you would like, many many more sources can be provided. nableezy - 14:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my speculation, but I think Drork was illustrating the complexity of the issue in response to the somewhat black-and-white comment by Ani medjool. I think if we are going to move this forward we have to accept that there are many different ways at looking at this issue, and avoid entrenching positions which only polarize the discussion. In the "On the Table" section we may be seeing some willingness to find a phrasing that may not say everything a given editor believes to be correct, but at the same time doesn't say anything they'd regard as incorrect. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Tariq, could you explain the reasoning behind this edit? I thought people wanted the dispute mentioned somewhere prominent. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't my talk page. Anyway, the latest round of discussion does not read that way at all, and it has never read that if you consider the body of all editors interested in this article rather than just the set of editors who want something changed. But even the set of editors who have generally wanted something changed has moderated its position a bit. Under #Lead 2, Tiamut said "If that were adopted, along with the formatting change for the footnote that you have proposed (i.e. (a)), my concerns regarding the article's lack of NPOV on the way this issue is addressed in this article would be alleviated." Similarly, RomaC said "I would support having it stand as "Capital" in the infobox with the link to the footnote subtly re-formatted as suggested ([a]) but without any "declared" or "proclaimed" qualification." Under #On the Table, Dailycare agreed to most of the proposals, all of which either included the footnote at [a] or have no footnote at all (he didn't directly address the infobox issue, but it seems heavily implied that all of the proposals include no change to the infobox except a change in footnote format). Obviously, those editors (and, as you can see in #On the Table, there are many of them) who prefer no change at all would prefer the change in formatting over the lengthy explanation you added. So, I think it's safe to say that the footnote format change is better than what you had. If there is any revert on the horizon, it most likely is not going to be back to your proposal, but back to what was there before ([1]). But I hope people will get over that relatively minor issue. -- tariqabjotu 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I know this isn't your talk page. It's to discuss the article, which is what I'm doing. :)
I don't know how you can call what I added a "lengthy explanation." It was 13 words -- "the city's status as the capital is disputed, including by the United Nations." I won't push the issue, but it seems odd not to qualify the lead or infobox, given that people are complaining. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The article had a cryptic blurb in the Conflicts and peace treaties section about a Security Council resolution "reigniting the controversy" without so much as a summary of its contents. I added a summary and citation there to the majority viewpoint that Israel's actions are illegal. If you think that belongs in another section of this article feel free to move it. In any event it can now be included in the summary of the lede. harlan (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that we remove the line from the infobox until we can find a reasonable solution. Nobody responded then but maybe the discussion had moved on from that section. As far as I'm concerned, an infobox is no place for nuanced information. If it was, we wouldn't need the articles. It isn't an ideal solution, even as an interim one but the status quo seems worse in my opinion. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I can live with the infobox simply having a clearer link to the footnote ([a] instead of [1]), so long as the first reference to Jerusalem (in the lead, as it stands), includes a brief NPOV qualification of the issues/disputes, something like the suggestions above. This could then be detailed in the body of the article. I don't particularly like this lead-infobox linkage but am prepared to see what happens with the suggestions for fixing the first Jerusalem reference. Of course, if an editor prefers to de-link the discussions or believes that is the proper way to proceed, then they might want to replace the infobox tag. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I support the current version, with the [a] link. We had a long discussion earlier about the format of the link (yes...) where I suggested [Nb 1] as the link, to elucidate that it leads to a footnote and not a reference, but [a] also makes it clearer that it leads to a footnote. I'm also of the clear opinion that the sentence in the lead must include the qualification. --Dailycare (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why there is resistance from Tariq (or whoever is resisting it) to clarifying the Jerusalem issue in the lead and infobox. It would only take a few words. As it stands, the lead really isn't neutral, in my view, for two reasons:

1. The Jerusalem issue is a major one, yet is not mentioned. I'm not suggesting we say it isn't the capital -- it clearly is, as a matter of fact -- but we also need to say this is not recognized by the international community, in just a few words, without labouring the point.

2. The second lead issue is that we are a little "side of the mouth" regarding how Israel acquired some of its territory. It wasn't simply that Arab states invaded and consequently Israel controls certain territory. There were massacres and there were forced expulsions (which no historian disputes), and they didn't all have to do with war; indeed some of them occurred before Israel declared its independence (e.g. Deir Yassin massacre) . Again, I'm not suggesting the point be laboured; the lead should not turn into an attack on Israel. But a few words about those issues seem (to me) to be needed per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit peeved that you would claim that I'm "resisting" clarifying the point in the lead. Your naivete regarding the progress of the discussion, as evidenced by your parenthetical piece, doesn't excuse you from doing the simple task of scrolling up just a couple sections (to the section I referenced repeatedly) and seeing you're wrong. You asked me about my reversion of your change to the infobox, and I explained why I did it. Some of the people who I even named in my explanation came here to corroborate my point. So, what's the problem? I changed your addition to the infobox, based on the discussion you're not following? Please don't extrapolate that to "resistance" to changing anything. Further, I should say your view is merely a drop in a bucket containing opinions made by many over the years, and the course of the article isn't going to change on a dime due to your input. And, as I have suggested, if you look at the sections above, you'd see you're a bit late to the party; save for your second point (which hasn't been raised much before), we're already on our way to doing what you had in mind. -- tariqabjotu 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe SlimVirgin has looked through the discussion? There is not so much to see really, this Talk page and the archives of this discussion, long as they are, show that basically the same "oppose" argument has met any and all attempts to have the article reflect real-world issues/disputes when it introduces Jerusalem as the Israeli capital; to wit, (1) It's simple, Jerusalem fits the dictionary definition of capital; and (2) It doesn't matter what sources or other countries say, because of (1). But, maybe, now we are moving past that. Maybe. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
And your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point. I can't speak for anyone else who has, in general, opposed changes to the last sentence of the lead (or the infobox), but I have never, even until now, backed down on either of the points you mentioned. Yes, Jerusalem is the capital, because it fits the dictionary definition, and regardless of what other countries have to say about it. And none of the proposals I supported under #On the Table say otherwise. In the past, it appeared people were primarily in support of proposals that used weasel words like "declared capital", "proclaimed capital", or the solitary "seat of government" term. It appeared, as many of the supporters, including myself, have said, that the issue was primarily with the word capital, and despite beating around the bush, it was clear the million-dollar question was whether the article should say Jerusalem is the capital or not. As can be seen under #On the Table, some people have made it clear that they would accept the article saying Jerusalem is the capital so long as it's adjacent to something else mentioning the lack of recognition. But, as you can also see, there are others who hold firm that the only "neutral" wording is the one or two that do not call Jerusalem the capital, and there are others still who have held that there should be no changes at all, for reasons like undue weight. But I'm in the first group -- the group of editors who have advocated a solution that includes the capital fact and the lack of recognition. And I have been okay with that since Day 1. -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Tariq, I'd appreciate it if you could answer the question, rather than going meta. Do you object to clarifying these two issues in the lead: (a) the Jersalem issue, and (b) the issue of how Israel came to acquire certain territory. And if so, why? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 13:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, my respect for you is increasing waning. You never asked me any questions -- you merely wrongly accused me of resistance -- so why did you expect me to give you answers to them?
I'm not going to answer your second question for the moment, because I'd prefer we deal with this one at a time. We're on the first question, and despite a bit of back-and-forth at the moment from a few people, I still think we're at the cusp of a resolution that will keep just about everyone happy. Still, however, I'm not going to answer your first question again here. My position has been made known many times before, in far more detail than I would desire to give you now. And, given the discussions I linked to, there has been no point in the history of this article where it has been made clearer than it is now. It's quite simple; if you want to read the ongoing discussions, you should be able to find your answer very quickly. If you don't want to read the ongoing discussions, you're probably not going to understand my position. But, if you prefer not to brief yourself on what has been happening over the last several days, you really have no business participating in the discussion, and so there's no reason for me to enlighten you (further) anyway. -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Tariq, I oppose articles being taken to FAR to settle content disputes. I regard it as out of process and unfair. But that means content disputes have to be dealt with on the talk page. It doesn't mean opponents must have their own way—you are the primary author of this, and I respect that because it almost certainly means you've done more research into this than others have. So the assumption of good faith is massively in your favour, as far as I'm concerned.
But you do need to at least address the issues and reply to reasonable questions, and not with ad hominems. Again, I am asking you to explain at least the first issue: do you object to explaining the Jerusalem issue in the lead, and if so why? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't deflect this or bring me into it. FAR wasn't based on content. It was based on edit warring and a lack of consensus over an argument that has been going on since 2003. Figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, we've been at this discussion for weeks now. Tariq doesn't have to repost his position over and over whenever someone decides to join in. He and many others, with various opinions, have explained their positions in detail, and you're free to read them above and in the archives. okedem (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
That's the way Wikipedia works, Okedem. New people arrive and ask the same questions. They're referred to the talk archives, and if they can't find quite the answer they're looking for, they ask it again, and it really needs to be answered. This is especially true when the article is up for featured article status, or where that status is under review. Surely someone can explain in just a sentence or two why there is any resistance at all to explaining the Jerusalem issue in the lead (briefly). SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Most definitely not. People don't owe you answers on command, because you can't be bothered to read the discussion. Specifically, this discussion began around here. It continues on this talk page. You'll find everyone's very detailed positions in the discussion. okedem (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't respond with an ad hominem. This section, titled "Infobox", should have begun and ended with the question of the infobox. I explained to you why I replaced what you added with something else, and others have corroborated that point. So, that's done. The capital point, including my position, is mentioned above in an ongoing thread. I don't have to respond to you personally, especially when you don't think it's important to read what others have already said. Don't expect anything else from me down here. -- tariqabjotu 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You have done nothing but respond with ad hominems, in fact. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On the Table

1) from Tariqabjotu:

(a) Jerusalem, although not widely recognized as such, is the capital of Israel.[a]

(b) Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is the capital of Israel.[a]

2) from RomaC

(a) The seat of government is Jerusalem, which functions as Israel's capital although it is not internationally recognized as such.[a]

(b) Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is its capital city.[a]

3) from Okedem:

Jerusalem is the capital, although not recognized internationally as such.(remove footnote)

4) proposed but later withdrawn by Breein1007

Jerusalem is the capital, but this is not recognized internationally.(remove footnote)

5) (adding) from Ravpapa

Israel has declared Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital.

It appears these are the specific suggestions right now. (I have omitted the mention of Tel Aviv so we can focus on the Jerusalem phrasing.) RomaC (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Support: Tariqabjotu B, RomaC A&B (Best: RomaC A). Okedem's and Breein's suggestions are OK, if the footnote's contents are included in the body of the article, and linked to from the infobox with [a]. --Dailycare (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding 5) above, believe this is the sentence from Ravpapa's proposal that corresponds to the above phrasing options. RomaC (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not on the table anymore. We already had an RfC on it and it failed to reach consensus. -- tariqabjotu 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to prefer (2-a) because it is phrased in the most informative way, but it lacks the fact the Israel also declared Jerusalem as a capital de-jure (beside placing its center of government there de-facto). DrorK (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I support any of the options except for (2a), although I think at least a reference (source) is needed if some want to do away with the note. -- tariqabjotu 10:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Clarification: I don't support Ravpapa's proposal either. -- tariqabjotu 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support 2a, would also support 5. I'd point out that all the others are essentially the same, apart from the issue of the footnote, so we are really choosing between four options. --FormerIP (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not as emotionally invested in this as some other editors seem to be. So I think most the proposals would be fine. Although I don't care for Ravpapa's suggestion. I haven't read all of the discussion here but I think we'd have been better off tempering the two extremes rather than just fusing them together. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support 2a ~Believe it doesn't say everything everyone wants it to say and doesn't say anything anyone doesn't want it to say. RomaC (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support 2a, though I can live with 2b or 1b (though proposed by two different editors, they are the same, right?). 3 & 4 are unacceptable, primarily because they do not have footnotes. 5 is off the table for me now. Its POV in that it stresses only the Jewish people's historic ties to Jerusalem and ignores its importance to Muslims and Christians. It also doesn't address the foonote issue. Tiamuttalk 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Would you mind, then, also including a sentence or two about the Christian importance of Istanbul on the introductory passage there? Or maybe a paragraph or two about the now-extinct Jewish communities of Mecca and Medina in their respective articles? Leifern (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Leifern, those examples are not parallel to this situation. 35% of the current population of Jerusalem (when it includes East Jerusalem, as it does when it referred to in this article) is Palestinian and most of them are Muslim. There is also a large Christian presence, both Palestinian and non-Palestinian, in Jerusalem to this day. I don't see how mentioning the importance of the city to these groups is any way offensive or inappropriate. Indeed, it seems to be what NPOV is all about. Tiamuttalk 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 1) is blatantly offensive and beneath contempt. I think that it's only fair that the issue of international recognition is unique in human history, and that by denying Israel the right to establish its capital in the city of its choice, even in (supposedly) non-disputed areas, is a gross violation of sovereignty. Anything else is hopelessly biased. Leifern (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • What is blatantly offensive, and how? -- tariqabjotu 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly, none of the above suggestions should be adopted. Certain editors are pretending that there is a consensus to include a completely unprecedented qualification.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not pretending. Simply hoping. However, as usual, people who did not bother to participate in the discussions, come in at the last minute solely to register their opposition, thus holding up any progress toward an NPOV version of the article. These proposals represent a compromise forged by editors interested in making one. Those not interested, must be content to live with NPOv tags in perpetua. Tiamuttalk 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose all per Moshe Constantine and Leifern. The long preceding discussion did not bring any new information to light. Jerusalem still remains the capital, and this still does not require any international recognition, which is irrelevant to a city's status as a capital. The previous long-standing version (capital + footnote) was factual and still gave weight to the opinions that only "West Jerusalem" is the capital, or the fringe opinions that Jerusalem is not the capital at all. Anything else is blatantly POV to the point of absurdity. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that it is not really a fringe view, since it is held by the United Nations and all major governments. You might not think these are important, but they are not fringe. --FormerIP (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
UGH. Still??? This point has been answered countless times, including to you specifically. Ynhockey even said in his comment, "this still does not require any international recognition, which is irrelevant to a city's status as a capital". Where again do we have evidence that non-recognition usurps a city's status as capital? Or, at least where do we have evidence that most countries that do not recognize Jerusalem as capital are saying Israel has no capital at all? As was said earlier in this thread, we have evidence that Jerusalem fits the definition of capital as Israel's government is based there. And we have evidence that most countries in the world do not recognize it as the capital of Israel. That's why those two points are in most of those proposals. But we have very little evidence that the latter invalidates the former or that the latter implies those countries think Israel's capital is somewhere else or non-existent. What is it that you don't understand about this??? -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Double UGH. That answer didn't make any sense when it was given the first time. That international recognition is irrelevant to identifying a capital is an opinion. Conversely , that international recognition is relevant is also an opinion. That there exists a test by which Jerusalem might be identified to either be or not be a capital city is wrong. The idea that such a test might involve simply asking whether it was a seat of government is false (consider the example of Amsterdam).
My main point is that any yes/no answer to the central question here can only possibly be an opinion. It's about understanding logic. It doesn't make sense to demand verification of opinions in the same way you would for facts. There are divergent mainstream POVs on the question and no one political viewpoint should be presented as factual.
Incidentally, I also wish that editors could take note of arguments such as these in a way that meant the same ground din't have to be repeatedly gone over. --FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Amsterdam is a unique situation as the Netherlands has proclaimed one city as the capital, and treated another as its seat of government. That is not an issue here. And there is something that might identify Jerusalem as the capital or not: it's called a dictionary. -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Amsterdam is not unique, it is just a well-known example. Yamoussoukro and Porto-Novo are others (I expect that's not the end of the list). There are exceptions and there is no basis on which we can be sure that Israel is not a case in point. My OED defines capital (in the sense we are concerned with as "the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative centre" (my italics). I don't think it is too controversial to suggest that there are unusual factors involved in the the situation viz Israel, which mean that there is at least the possibility that it is not typical. --FormerIP (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this further again. It's been said enough times already, and I'm tired. -- tariqabjotu 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Former has a point. There are several ways that we can identify a capital. One is the state's declaration. Another is the de facto placement of infrastructure. And the third is the much discussed international recognition. Our line or two should have all three. Jerusalem is the declared (Yamoussoukro) and de facto (Abidjan) site that Israel has chosen. So I would tone done the definitive "is the capital" statement to something like "Israel has placed its capital in Jerusalem" which would reflect both. And then the second sentence could explain the non-recognition. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To expand on that, I think we should identify what we are looking for. In my mind there are four elements that we should address. Israel has (A) declared Jerusalem as the capital and (B) made it the de facto place. We also need to say that (C) there is not international recognition of those but (D) that it is pending a division or shared sovereignty with the Palestinian state. I think that any statement missing one or more of these elements is at least a little bit misleading. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
JGGardiner, I think you missed a step there, with "And the third is the much discussed international recognition.". We have many, many, sources saying that a capital is the seat of government (like Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Encarta, and others, too many to list, just see here). Several of them say that it's "the official seat of government of a state", which adds the de-jure aspect of a country's laws. Clearly, Jerusalem fulfills that definition. One dictionary, Oxford, adds the "usually". Not a single one of them, nor of any source presented in this or other discussions, says a single word about international recognition. Not "the city international recognized", not "the seat of government, as long as it's recognized", nothing. I looked up "capital" in several encyclopedias, but it didn't have an entry (in the political meaning), implying this really isn't that complicated. The claim that international recognition affects the city's status as capital remains unsourced. Can you present a source to support this notion? okedem (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Well obviously. But there are capitals and there are capitals. International recognition is meaningful and can by itself create meaning (just ask the Pope) so it needs to be noted. A capital that is not internationally recognized might still be a capital but it is a certain kind of capital; it would be deficient of us not to note that. The other side of that coin is the type of non-recognition. We shouldn't merely say that recognition has not been forthcoming like this is some Bantustan, we should note that it is a particular kind of non-recognition, pending a settlement of the issues, like Telaviv1 has suggested.

Wikipedia: Is Kim Il-sung the head of state of North Korea?
JGGardiner: Well he is and he isn't.
Wikipedia: It's a simple question JGG -- yes or no?
JGGardiner: Well I understand that the North Koreans have designated him to a position that would probably qualify. Hey, you know I was reading this article about those card stunts that they do over there, you know like in that big stadium, right? So apparently they get these--
Wikipedia: --Answer the God-damned question!
JGGardiner: Well okay yes he is. Buddy, relax.
Wikipedia: Jesus, it's like pulling teeth from you editors sometimes.
JGGardiner: But I really think we should at least note that he's long dead.

You see my point is that we don't need to let Wikipedia abuse us like that. We should really have some discretion to explain these things to the readers. Cause it's really about the readers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Won't anyone please think of the readers?
But - basically, you reject the need for sources by claiming... what exactly? That it's obvious? That it can "create meaning"? Why is it so difficult to present a source explaining that (and why) international recognition is important for a city's status as capital? okedem (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, as seen in the archives of the discussions on this issue, over the last two years you have invariably framed this issue as a matter to be decided not by editors, but by dictionaries:
"'Capital' is a simple word, found in every dictionary." -Okedem 08:26, 21 April 2008
"You can open any dictionary, and look up the definition of "capital." -Okedem 14:02, 7 June 2008
"open a dictionary" -Okedem 20:47, 18 April 2009
"Capital = seat of government (open a dictionary). That holds true for Israel regarding Jerusalem." -Okedem 20:37, 3 August 2009
"Open a dictionary, and look up capital." -Okedem 21:14, 3 August 2009
"A capital is a seat of government, as any dictionary will tell you." -Okedem 21:16, 3 August 2009
"Open a dictionary/encyclopedia, and read what a capital is." -Okedem 14:14, 4 August 2009
"No OR here. Just a simple dictionary definition" -Okedem 16:44, 4 August 2009
"any dictionary will tell you" -Okedem 09:10, 5 December 2009
"Jerusalem...answers the definition of capital (open any dictionary)" -Okedem 17:29, 14 December 2009
"Open a dictionary, see what it says about capital" -Okedem 17:29, 14 December 2009
(There are more...)
Frankly, this approach seems more dismissive than cooperative. Okedem, the moderate proposals presented here do not say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Rather they seek to clearly reflect in the article the acknowledged and widespread real-world disputes and issues regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, in accordance with Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view and due weight.
I believe we should be looking for a phrasing may not say everything everyone wants it to say, but won't say anything anyone doesn't want it to say. Otherwise we remain at an impasse. I hope a cooperative and constructive atmosphere can continue to develop here, with your participation, so that we can improve this article for Wikipedia readers. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm consistent! And I take pride in your "accusation" there - yes, when using "words" one generally finds "dictionaries" to be a useful source. Indeed, this is what our policy of Verifiability is all about - using sources, not our personal opinions.
Your speech in favor of cooperation is misplaced; your very own list at the top of this section carries a phrasing attributed to me (a bit inaccurately, since I didn't actually submit it as my proposal), the result of some constructive comments I made regarding other suggestions.
If you don't understand what I'm saying or why, you can ask for clarification. My comment here was in regard to JGGardiner's claim about the importance of international recognition ("There are several ways that we can identify a capital... the third is the much discussed international recognition"), not as a direct objection to any of the proposed phrasings. okedem (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and I agree you are extremely consistent. It's the emphasis on dictionaries as sources I find problematic. Dictionaries are tertiary sources, they were not written about Jerusalem. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources such as respected news organizations or peer-reviewed academic papers. At the top of this page Dailycare provided 43 topic-specific secondary sources. Unfortunately, you summarily dismissed all of them. I suggest they deserve consideration. On catch-all definitions -- when Plato defined "man" as a "featherless biped", Diogenes produced a plucked chicken: "Here is Plato's man!" Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
We've also seen various sources specifically designating Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, both dictionaries and encyclopedias. Dailycare provided a long list, mixing news articles specifically discussing the conflict (like building in East Jerusalem), which would naturally give lots of emphasis to this, and official government positions (Canada, EU, etc.) which no one disputes. So we know what (1) a capital city is. It's a word in English with a clear definition; and (2) there's no international recognition. What has not been provided is the crucial link - why 2 changes 1. Why, when no source discussing a capital says anything about international opinion, this should be so important just for Jerusalem. I've used dictionaries to define "capital" because this is the first place to look when discussing words. I tried encyclopedias, but they don't seem to have entries on "capital city". I'm not limiting you to these - please, go ahead, find an academic book discussing capital cities, and show me that international recognition is so important. okedem (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, it doesn't seem to me very reaosnable to say "open any dictionary" and then when I open one to say "er, well open a different dictionary". There are a number real world examples where the capital of a country is not its seat of government. This would seem to me to indicate that that the OED is correct to use the phrase "usually the seat of government...", and that any other dictionary which may omit the word "usually" is simply inaccurate. --FormerIP (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I never said anything of the sort. The word "usually" is ambiguous, and for me means it just depends on the country's choice, e.g. it's the seat of government, unless the country chose something else. You claim international recognition is so important for a capital - please provide a source for that assertion. okedem (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that this whole conversation is a good example why there is an I-P problem on Wikipedia in the first place. Editors will see their perspective, usually a legitimate one, as is Okedem's here, and see it as the only relevant one. The problem here is that the dictionary only gives you the dictionary definition. The precising definition(s) are a different matter and important as well. So Okedem and others find only the lexical definition to have meaning and some other editors find only the other meaningful. And each excludes the other perspective.

Incidentally, the first dictionary I open up is usually the Wiki one. It actually gives one of its examples, Cardiff, a claim it notes is contentious: "The Welsh government claims that Cardiff is Europe’s youngest capital."[13]

The challenge of editing Wikipedia, and the main reason that I do it, is because it opens your mind to these other perspectives. Entrenching onself in notions already thought to be true is just boring. I'd rather waste my time on PokerStars. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
JGGardiner, I'm not discounting alternative definitions - we simply don't have any. The lexical definition is the only one supported by sources. The whole notion that international recognition is important for capitals has been brought forth by editors, but we've yet to see even a single source (e.g. book, academic paper, etc.) to support this. As such, we have a well sourced definition on one side, and editors' personal opinions on the other side. okedem (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think that you misunderstand the nature of our sourcing policies. We use a source to substantiate a fact. In this case that fact is that most states do not recognize Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital. It is a simple Rankean process -- we need to know that the sources say that but we don't need them to show their math. We do not require a second source to validate that the first source's observation is important or legitimate. It seems to me that's what you're asking for.

Secondly, the non-recognition is not a function of Jerusalem's status as a capital per se. It is the non-recognition of the incorporation of Jerusalem (the Corpus separatum) into the jurisdiction of the Israeli state; the capital designation is merely one potential form. If Israel instead made its capital in Tel Aviv and incorporated Jerusalem as a region, that would also not be recognized but it would just be less important, like the incorporation of Jerusalem as part of Jordan. Thus we would not have to mention it in the lead necessarily. Jerusalem is probably unique here as the only national capital which has its status questioned where the rest of the state is not also questioned generally. The only other divided capital I know is Nicosia but the whole TRNC state is not recognized as well so there's no need to mention it in the lead of that article. Although it is noted in the lead of the city's article. It is also noted in the articles on East and West Berlin, the only historical example I can think of.

And just case you're wondering, I'm not going to be the one to blink and outdent our conversation. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand - are you backing off of your previous assertion, that international recognition is part of a capital's definition ("There are several ways that we can identify a capital. One is the state's declaration. Another is the de facto placement of infrastructure. And the third is the much discussed international recognition.")? This is the comment I was addressing. Please clarify - is international recognition a criterion for "capitalhood"? If so, we need sources. It seems to me that what you're saying now is different - it's that, completely separate from the issue of capital, Jerusalem isn't recognized as part of Israel, and when we mention Jerusalem, we should mention that. Or are you saying that for a city to be capital, it needs to be fully recognized as part of the country's territory?
Oh, and outdenting is for cowards. okedem (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, we don't need to be legal scholars or determine "what makes a capital". It's sufficient for us to determine if a certain view is notable and reliably sourced. If it is, it's in. If it's also a notable controversy, it's also in the lead. Do you disagree about any of these three points relative to international non-recognition? --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That's true. The cowards part. Just between you and me, I once saw that Nableezy guy outdent a conversation when there was still like a 130 character space left. I swear to God. It was crazy. And I didn't say anything cause I'm polite but I was thinking like "dude, why are you even here?"

Anyway back to Jerusalem. I don't think I am backing off. To answer your last question first, yes and no: an unrecognized capital is a distinct category that it is often caused by a non-recognition of the ownership of land it sits on. It can however be caused by other things. The Western states recognized that East Berlin was in the East German entity but they felt that the city was awaiting a finaly disposition and was thus inelligible. Most often it is caused by a non-recognition of the government. So China had competing governments for a time but Nanjing was recognized as the capital when government recognition shifted to the KMT. Most often it is cause by a non-recognition of the state as a whole. So most states do not recognize Sukhumi (like Nicosia) but they don't recognize any acts of the Abkhaz state.

I don't disupute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Actually I should say that I don't personally agree with most of what I say, I just play the Devil's (NPOV) advocate here. But like I said, there are capitals and there are capitals. Ottawa is a capital. Victoria is a capital. But they are different sorts of capitals. Victoria is a provincial capital, Ottawa is a national capital. But Quebec City is also a national capital. So says Quebec City anyway. But it is a different sort of national capital than Ottawa. Looking up the dictionary definition of "person"[14] I see that I'd qualify, as would, I don't know, Ljudevit Posavski. But I am a living person and he is a dead person. Different kinds of people. He's still a person -- of sorts. But he's not the same kind of person that I am. So this is where precising can be useful.

I will concede your point that international recognition alone is not usually a way to identify a capital. I can't really think of a situation where is has occured. On the other hand, if it did it would surely be noteworthy: "Washington is the capital of the US but for some strange reason Indianapolis has been internationally recognized as such." I'd hate to think that some editors would want to ignore that. But even in combination, it is a meaningful quality. It doesn't undo the de facto or declared nature of a capital but it does limit their finality. So Jerusalem is the capital. But it is a kind of capital and I think we should say that. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
JGGardiner, I understand your position. However, at this point, it is just your position. Personally, I disagree with you; for me, if they call it the capital, and it looks like the capital - it is. No disrespect, but unless you happen to be a respectable political scientist, we are going to need some sources backing up your position. Specifically, that lack of international recognition changes the "kind" of capital, that it's important and notable (remember, no one here is suggesting removing this information from the article - it's there; we're just discussing notability for the lead of this article. In Jerusalem the topic gets a whole paragraph in the lead). Surely some work was written on this subject, if this is the case. okedem (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you guys aren't up to this, so I'll have to outdent. Okedem, we appear to be making progress here since you're now OK with having the material in the article, we just need to determine if it goes in the lead. Per WP:LEAD "notable controversies" go in the lead. Do you agree that this is a notable controversy? After all, the UN Sec. Council denounced the capital status and many countries went to the trouble of moving their embassies out of Jerusalem in protest. --Dailycare (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. There was half the page available!
Anyway - "you're now OK with having the material in the article"? Have you been reading my comments here? I've always been for having this in the article; when others claimed that users are trying to "omit" this information, I pointed out that's it's already in the article's body, and rightfully so.
It's notable for Jerusalem, which is why it's in the lead there. The general state of conflict and disputed territories is notable, which is why it's in the lead here (by the way, I was the one who added a section on the territories in this article - no else bothered to, and it was obviously important enough). The capital issue is just a part of the general territorial conflict, and not the most important one - for instance, no one is really suggesting that Jerusalem would cease being the capital of Israel, under any future settlement. If something isn't notable, it won't be in the article at all. We can't write every notable piece of information in the lead, and this one is quite minor (with regards to the whole country, which is the subject of this article, not the city). okedem (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Well the material was in the footnote, not so much in the article. Anyway, WP:LEAD says that notable controversies go in the lead, and the one about Jerusalem's status qualifies as notable since reliable secondary sources often comment that Jerusalem isn't recognized as the capital, and looking at the websites of several Western countries' foreign ministries, (Positions on Jerusalem) they also make a point to note it. The point I made about moving embassies away, and several UN resolutions, also remains on the table. If we mention Jerusalem in the lead, then this should be mentioned as well. If we don't mention Jerusalem in the lead, then the argument that the issue isn't notable is stronger. Is it a major point that Jerusalem is the capital? If no, we can omit to mention it in the lead entirely. If we do mention, then the qualification should be there too. --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The information is in the article, under "Occupied territories".
We list Jerusalem in the lead because it's standard to list to capital in the lead of a country article. The dispute and conflict is already mentioned, in paragraph three. The Jerusalem issue is part of the conflict. Your justification for this being a "notable controversy" is not convincing. There are controversies about everything. We write the notable ones in the article. It's important for Jerusalem's lead, not Israel's. okedem (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Believe Okedem's suggestion that the Jerusalem issues are not notable enough to go in on first reference is not convincing either. The issues are more than notable, they are extraordinary: "No major foreign government has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (New York Times), and there are 42 more such sources at the top of this Talk page -- can you point to another country-capital issue on earth that even comes close? I agree with Dailycare if Jerusalem were not in the lead we could hold off mention of the issues until lower in the article. Okedem, your reasoning against this possibility is incorrect: there are number of country articles that do not name the capital city in the lead, Canada and Poland for instance. But, I support having Jerusalem identified in the lead with a mention of the non-Israeli POV, as communicated in the On the Table options below. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"extraordinary" - let's not get carried away. You can say it's unique, but many other things, about every country, are unique, and we don't mention them in the lead. It has nothing to do with the "Israeli-POV" as you call it. The fact that other countries don't recognize it, and don't like it being the capital, doesn't mean it isn't. It means they don't want it to do; it means they think Israel's actions are not legitimate. But they can do nothing to change the fact that it is the capital, and you've never presented a single source that says anything about international recognition and capitals, meaning - international recognition is irrelevant for a capital. okedem (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me present a hypothetical, Okedem: Israel takes over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are declared new mehozot in an "Eretz Israel" law defining the area from the Mediterranean to the Jordon River as Israel's eternal and indivisible territory. No other country recognizes this and the UN screams bloody murder.
Now, would you also have this article introduce Eretz Israel as an unqualified fact? And present Judea, Sumaria and Gaza as administrative districts, unqualified? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a false analogy. If you'll remember, I didn't object to having the "largest city in Israel" title removed, as too many of the resident are in EJ. There are enough sources explaining the status of territories and their legality. You haven't presented a single one regarding international recognition and capitals, leaving us with only the simple, dictionary definition. This means international recognition is just another, quite minor, detail. okedem (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Okedem, it's not an analogy, it's a hypothetical. Humor me. RomaC (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought my answer was clear from the largest city thing. Anyway, I'll explain it further - even if there were such a law, I would still be for presenting the dispute over those territories. However, Jerusalem isn't the capital because of the Jerusalem law, as I've been saying for a long time, but because it is the seat of government. The location of the seat of government is purely factual (it's there, or it isn't), and questions of legality are irrelevant to it. okedem (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Nah I didn't get the "largest city" thing maybe I'm not as sharp as I used to be. Anyway thanks for explaining, Okedem, and helping me understand your position. I'm heartened that you say if Israel were to take over the West Bank and Gaza, and declare Judea, Sumaria and Gaza as new administrative districts (and the UN and all other countries rejected this); you would support qualifications when the article introduced all this. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I thought you stubborn, that is a reasonable position. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I don't think that you (Okedem, this outdenting sucks) do understand my "position". Actually it looks like when you use the term, you're wrongly bundling together my opinion on the matter with the edit that I advocate. I should say that my opnion happens to be more like what you've suggested. But I'm trying to write the article from a neutral point-of-view here so I've suggested an edit that does not reflect my personal opinion, at least not exclusively.

We have two groups of opinions here. Some say the thing is X some say it is not X. You can't just say that one opinion is valid and the other is not. Wikipedia doesn't give us that right. We have to represent all opinions according to their weight. In this case, I don't think that one opinion predominates over the other. You've suggested that we ignore the actual facts of what people say and use a "duck test" to determine a rival opinion. Even if we do that and all of us agree on the answer, we can't just ignore that many, perhaps most people believe something else and ignore them because of their supposed faulty or obscure logic.

Now, as an olive branch, I suggested that we could say that even if Jerusalem is not the capital, as the non-recognizers do, we might still say it is something like the de facto capital. The non-recognizers do not say that -- they simply say it is not the capital. But I thought it might not be inconsistent with their position to say that Jerusalem still operates as the capital so I offered that as an incentive so that we could go some way to toning down what both sides here considered offensive. I would like a definitive "is the capital" statement toned down to say it is de facto and declared but I'd also like the non-recognition toned down, as per Telaviv1 to note that it is pending a peace settlement. Ultimately this is a weighting issue. The two positions both seem to have enough support that they should both be included. I'm just suggesting that we do our readers a favour and explain them as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
JGGardiner, when I say "your position" I mean the position you present regarding the edit you want to make. I don't know your personal opinion, and have no real interest in it (don't take that as hostile or anything - it's just not relevant).
If you want to say it's the de-facto capital, you need to present a sourced definition of such a thing. I haven't seen any definition of that, and Jerusalem does fit the definition of "capital", sans qualification. We judge these things by the sources - it fits the definition of capital, it is named as capital by many respectable sources. That's quite enough. We work by sources, not by people's personal views. okedem (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to say it is the de facto capital. I was just explaining that the olive branch I'd offered preserved something like that. If we're going by sources, NPOV demands that we note both. From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Your proposal would suspend the proportionate facet of NPOV in the lead. I agree with you that we have many sources that say it is the capital. But we also have many that say no so we have to say it is not. NPOV demands that we not pick one of these sides over the other.

Dictionary definitions are unimportant in this equation because your interpretation is subjective and inherently OR. Other editors might say it does not fit the definition or that other things are important. Wikipedia didn't want to let half-wits like us decide the truth over the external sources. You might think that the facts obviously support your conclusion but if they did, then the sources would all agree. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the proportion of sources saying it isn't the capital is minuscule. They either say it's the capital, or say it is, but unrecognized. okedem (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the proportion of sources that say something like "Israel claims it's the capital" is large. Anyway, I realized that one of the sources I collected above (#20) says that Jerusalem's status is one of the "central controversies" in the Middle-East, which clearly meets "notable controversy" mentioned in WP:LEAD. I assume that the issue is now settled - this does go in the lead, and just the wording remains to be selected. For example TA's second formulation is, as noted, OK by me. I also located another source, which discusses the very issue of Jerusalem's capital status:
  • Link1 "Jerusalem must not be used as a metonym or variant for Israel. It is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital, and its status is one of the central controversies in the Middle East." (The Times)
  • Link2 "Perhaps no issue in the long Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more sensitive than Jerusalem, to which both sides lay claim." (New York Times)
--Dailycare (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It's an important controversy, sure. But as your second quote says - it's an important issue of the conflict. We will not turn this article into one about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Your first link is their style guide. They can make whatever choices they want, for various reasons (for instance, they might choose this position to help their reporters work in Arab countries). okedem (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the aspect I have never understood. Jerusalem is the capital, the term "Jerusalem" includes occupied East Jerusalem when people use that word (correct me if I'm wrong if that is not what people here mean by "Jerusalem" is the capital), therefore "Jerusalem" is directly related to the conflict and the conflict is part of Jerusalem in a quite literal sense of real people and places living with conflict. The sources deal with this spatial/recognition conundrum in various ways after they've said 'It's the capital' but it seems that we are still having trouble facing up to this complexity. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The style guide reflects their editorial policy, in that sense it's even better than individual articles. Concerning your other point, are you suggesting we not mention Jerusalem's possible capital status in the lead? I mean, if we say that Israel claims Jerusalem as their capital (or use the present wording), then we've brought that into the scope of the article and we can't not mention the controversy, per WP:LEAD. --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
If Jerusalem were an oil field it would be distinctly odd not to mention in the development plan, prominently in the introduction, that not all of it is in Israel, that a joint venture would be required to develop the field and that there's a bit of conflict over who owns the oil. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

Might I make a late proposal? "Jerusalem is the capital, however the city's final status awaits future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority". (I copied this from List of national capitals) or "Jerusalem is the capital but because of issues over the status of East Jerusalem, foreign embassies are usually located in Tel-Aviv." or "Jerusalem is the capital however the status of East Jersualem and the Holy City remain the subject of dispute"

Tiamat is right that I'm coming in a bit late here but maybe one of those statements can be acceptable to everyone.Telaviv1 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal Telaviv1, commenting on it there may be a WP:V issue since it gives the impression that non-recognition is due to the status of East Jerusalem whereas it's actually due to the partition plan and the corpus separatum. I do however agree with the point that a deal with the Palestinians would in practice resolve the non-recognition issue (not to mention a host of other issues as well).
Suggestion on the footnote: One way to deal with the footnote issue is to remove the footnote, but retain the [a] link as a link to the Positions on Jerusalem page, like this: Jerusalem[a] (in lead and infobox, combined with 1B or 2A). --Dailycare (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC) --Dailycare (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think that leaving it open (re a final status deal with the Palestinians) is both NPOV and non controversial so I would go for that. Telaviv1 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose all Jerusalem is not capital of Israel, to say other wise be violation of NPOV and express anti-Palestine POV. After all, whole world recognize east jerusalem as occupy Palestine territory and whole world recognize east jerusalem be future capital of Palestine.
Maybe this option work: "Israel claim Jerusalem as it capital but this not recognized by international community. International community recognize East Jerusalem as capital of future Palestine state."
I try reach middle ground here, because i not believe Jerusalem as capital at all, but I will try compromise with above option. Maybe other see my attempt and join me. Ani medjool (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
But E. Jerusalem isn't in Israel.[15] Cptnono (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
But Israel say East Jerusalem be part of Israel and it say it capital be ALL of Jerusalem not just west part of city. It also say Jerusalem be undividable. So must make clear that East Jerusalem not recognize as part of Israel and that whole world recognize East Jerusalem as future capital of Palestine, but none of world recognize ANY part of Jerusalem as claimed capital of Israel.Ani medjool (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the difference provided above if you haven't had the chance.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong preference between 3 and 4. Those don't have the footnote so I like them. A link to the positions on Underused page as mentioned is fine. A line in the main article is also necessary.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like any of the initial offerings. I think Telaviv1 is onto something interesting, though I'm not sure I like the exact wording of his/her suggestions. IronDuke 00:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose all initial suggestions. The simple fact is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and any other description would be misleading to the readers. Tons of reliable sources state this simple fact, and the ongoing debates regarding this issue are astonishing. The recognition by other countries has no bearing here, as Israel, as a sovereign country, is the only country that can choose its capital. The recognition issue, as a minor issue, may be addressed in the article, but definitely not in the lead. Noon (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong Noon. 3 and 4 clearly sate is it the capital. I think there might be a weight issue if editors still don't like it. If there is a weight issue, what is the best way to present it (assuming some alteration is necessary)? Cptnono (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
So do 1 and 2b... basically every one except RomaC's first proposal and Ravpapa's proposal that was already rejected. -- tariqabjotu 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose all as currently written, per Noon. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. Upon further thought, I withdraw my suggestion above. You can keep it up there in case somehow consensus decides it is the best one, but I do not support it anymore. Upon reading WP:UNDUE again, I have realized that it would be inappropriate to phrase the lead in this matter. The issue of recognition should be covered in the body, but it is clearly NOT suitable for the introduction to the article. Breein1007 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Breein, If we applied WP:UNDUE like that, it would be the minority view (Jerusalem is the capital) that would be left out, not the majority view (The proclamation of Jerusalem as capital is null and void). But we're supposed to include all significant viewpoints. --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No, because recognition (or lack thereof) is a minor issue. The major issue at hand is the identification of the country's capital. This is seen time and time again on other country's articles here on Wikipedia. Giving this minor issue major status by including it in the lead is a violation of WP:UNDUE, in favour of a minor issue that doesn't belong in the introduction. On the other hand, if we IGNORED the issue altogether in the article, that would violate UNDUE the way you said above. That would be an issue because it IS a viewpoint, and therefore DOES deserve mention within the article itself. Past that, I'm not arguing this point with you any more, because we are repeating past discussions. I have made my vote and explained my opinion. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If, as many editors have come here to say, only the Israeli POV matters on this issue, then the appropriate phrasing would be Jerusalem is Israel's eternal and indivisible capital. RomaC (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I must admit that my preference would be to explicitly state that the Israeli position is 'Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel' so that it is absolutely clear what the word Jerusalem means when we use it in the article as the name of a capital city and what it is that is not recognised by the international community, described as being null and void/against international law or whatever. Maybe it's just me that finds the undefined and ambiguous nature of the term Jerusalem troubling. Telaviv1's suggestion seems to be the only one that tries to directly address this ambiguity. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I had hoped that not accommodating a footnote would take away some of the weight concerns. The cute highlights show that all clear say "capital" but it now looks like it is an overall weight concern for some editors. Is there anyway to make a mention of the international community's feelings on this in the lead? If "no" say so now so we are not wasting time. If yes, what would not give the disclaimer too much weight?Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Israel's consensus?

After reading the entire set of conversations above I gave an NPOV wording a shot:

  • While still generally unrecognized by the international community, in accordance with the Jerusalem Law, the city of Jerusalem is Israel's capital and seat of government, and the main financial center is Tel Aviv.[1]

And in the infobox:

(Since the POV template has been placed in both the lede and the infobox, it seems prudent to address both at the same time.) As I expected since this appears to be an extremely controversial issue, and probably not just among several editors, but also among most general readers as well, my edit was reverted and the POV templates restored. I thought my edit was at least on the right track to being more NPOV than before, but it seems that the reverting editor at least would like to have "the whole ball of wax" before any changes are made. That editor, Okedem, cited:

  • "capital from long before the law, and that's not the only thing making it capital anyway (seat of government)"

To this I would say that the Jerusalem Law inherently recognizes the antiquity of Jerusalem as capital and is the consensus of the duly authorized representatives of the people of the democratic state of Israel. This is not my opinion, for not my opinion nor that of any other editor is at stake here. This is purely and simply a notable and controversial state of affairs that belongs in the lede. The part about the lack of international recognition does not mean nor even imply that such recognition is required for Jerusalem to be the capital city of Israel. It does, however, add to the controversy by way of certain actions taken by the international community to show its "concern" regarding the Jerusalem Law.

The only question that I have would be regarding the footnote. It certainly gives much detail about the notability and controversial nature of that last sentence of the lede and the infobox entry for "capital". I personally don't have a problem with lede references if kept to bare minimum, but I think in this case it can be avoided. The information that a reader zips down to when clicking on the [1] should be added to the text in the body (not the lede) of the article, shouldn't it? This way, the lede wets the reader's whistle to read more, to read on. It's just too much detail for the lede, even when put in footnote form.

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

— WP:Lede

Frankly, this should solve the NPOV problem if we remember that it is the article that must be NPOV. Since the lede is just an intro and summary, there will often be cases when the lede seems POV with NPOV balance coming later in the article.

So if this satisfies everyone, then I shall revert the lede back to my suggested wording soon. If someone remains dissatisfied, then of course I shall help to work this issue toward consensus before altering the lede.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this doesn't satisfy. We have a long discussion here, feel free to join it.
The city's capital status is from long before the Jerusalem law, from the 1949 decision to make it the capital (realized in 1950), and from it being home to Israel's government. To say "in accordance with the Jerusalem law" is very inaccurate. okedem (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome, Paine_Ellsworth. Impressed that you took the time to read through the discussion, thank you. It is my hope that the article will benefit from the fresh perspective of a hitherto uninvolved editor. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, nice to have some new NPOV eyes on the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
On the fence if I liked the edit but nice work going for it! I just opened up an FAR based on the tag being back and forthed again along with the quest for consensus becoming bogged down and a few other issues. Hopefully additional perspective from some others will help. The other issues mentioned should not be too hard to address within two weeks.Cptnono (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, I'm very disappointed that you opened a review with complaints you've never bothered raising here, about dead links, "alt text", etc. All articles require maintenance, and if you can't do it yourself, you can raise it on the talk page. okedem (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we delist JPost as an RS to punish them for moving to their new dysfunctional .NETASP site ? I've already repointed a number of refs at cached articles (not here though) but there must be hundreds, possibly thousands to be fixed. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are taking it that way Okedom. The transport, edit warring, citation needed tags, neutrality tags, and sync tags are all things I brought up. Adding additional criticism on the alt tags, nonbreaking spaces, and dead links were all just additional things I noticed. I also brought this up on the 29th[16] and there was not improvement while edit warring continued. The current discussion in the lead has turned into several "strong oppose" so I did not see it getting fixed. The point of the FAR is not to delist the article but to improve it. After a review period (which has already resulted in another editor bringing up the image description concerns and external links), there may be an opportunity to voice any thoughts on if FA status should be removed. For now, we should focus on not edit warring and cleaning it up. As I have said over there, I do not think it would pass an FA review right now. I also will be working on getting the article to par so it isn't me giving anyone here the finger or trying to screw it.Cptnono (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Most featured articles promoted more than two years ago would not pass an FAC today, but they aren't all sent to FAR. If problems are long-standing -- e.g. they've been raised a few times and continually remain -- or if the article is just downright bad (a point you haven't even tried to argue), yes, they go to FAR. All of the issues you raised would have been fixed within days if you had made it known that you actually cared about alt text, image descriptions, and the like. The only time you have mentioned FAR is when you have said (to the effect of) "if you don't resolve this capital issue now, I will bring this to FAR". And if that is the impetus of the FAR, you chose a bad time. -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well this one was. There are several issues. The capital thing is a big part of it but the edit warring was even bigger. I also disagree with your take on the ongoing discussion. It appeared to me to be digressing so the timing seemed right. The article isn't stable and there are several tags. Apologies if it hurts your feelings. The intent was to improve the article and that appears to be happening so I am quite happy with how it is turning out. Like I have repeatedly stated, the goal isn't to delist the article.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, your "On the Table" contribution is:

Jerusalem is the capital, although not recognized internationally as such.(remove footnote)

Apparently you don't feel the need for mention here of "The Jerusalem Law" in support of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel. Nor do you seem to support the mention of Tel Aviv. I truly do not understand why you would not be in favor of the brief mention of the Jerusalem Law, which is the culmination of all that's happened from 1949 to now. It actually supports your thoughts about Jerusalem! Why would you be against its mention?
On a separate issue, I still do not see the need for the footnote, but if it remains, shouldn't it be placed in a section separate from the inline citations?

 a. ^ The Jerusalem Law states that . . .


My thought as regards the info in the footnote is that it would be much less distracting to readers if that info were placed as a subsection in the "Government and politics" section. This can be done in a way that would remove confusion between Jewish law and the Jerusalem Law. We might use two hatnotes, such as:

===The Jerusalem Law===

This would be far less distracting and confusing than the use of a single footnote. Also, be gently reminded that, if the trend is moving toward use of these older footnotes and making more of them, if I remember correctly, they are not automatically sequenced as are the {{reflist}} citation notes. This can become complicated for future editing.
These are my objective thoughts as an editor who's been "uninvolved". Thank you Okedem, RomaC, Sean.hoyland and Cptnono for your comments, thank you very much! This article is in good hands, and I'm certain that consensus can be reached in order to maintain this article's FA status.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... You keep saying "Jewish Law", but surely you mean the "Jerusalem law"? The one saying Jerusalem is the "eternal undivided capital"?
NOTE: Instances of "Jewish Law" when "Jerusalem Law" was meant have been altered by Paine.
"Nor do you seem to support the mention of Tel Aviv" - Not I, nor anyone else here objected to the mention of Tel Aviv ("... is the financial center..."), and so it's not being discussed above. The conflict is about the Jerusalem sentence, not Tel Aviv.
Now, if when saying "Jewish law" you mean the Jerusalem law, I'll explain why I don't support mentioning it. This law is from 1980; Jerusalem is the capital from 1950. The law merely reiterates what already was, with the emphasis on the undivided part. Both the declarative aspect of Jerusalem's "capitalhood" does not depend on it (government decision, Dec 1949), nor the factual aspect (seat of government from 1950). So - it's really not very important here. okedem (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, so sorry, as I started out using the correct name of "Jerusalem Law" and then became confused when I read about the religious "Jewish law". I now understand that your omission of the part about Tel Aviv in your "On the table" contribution did not construe objection to the financial center's inclusion.
So if there is no mention in the lede about the Jerusalem Law, this seems to satisfy you? In fact, by asking for "no footnote", it seems that you feel that no mention of this law should be included at all? I can understand your thinking that the title of "capital" for Jerusalem does not depend upon the JL, however I still cannot reconcile this thought with any need to completely omit information about the JL. And since it's still surrounded by significant controversy, it probably should be minimally summarized in the lede. So it is my feeling that your objection must go deeper than that. How can you be so adamant about absolutely no inclusion of the JL? It seems to me that including info about the Jerusalem Law is more NPOV than omitting it. I could be wrong.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  09:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I objected to this edit, which seemed to say that it's the capital because of the law. As I explained, that's not true. The Jerusalem law itself is of little importance; it is covered in the article, and I see no reason to waste space on it in the lead. Even before the JL Jerusalem's status as capital wasn't recognized. It was just that the JL was sort-of "in your face", so the UN specifically addressed it. But it's really to the most important thing here. With Israel, everything is a significant controversy. It's a controversial topic, and a controversial article. The lead cannot possibly cover all of it. okedem (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Reuters in today's news: Citing biblical roots to the city, Israel regards all of Jerusalem as its "indivisible and eternal capital," a claim that has not been recognized internationally. This seems a phrasing that acknowledges both Israeli and Palestinian/World positions, we could look at it per an apparent new flexibility from some editors who have thusfar opposed clarification/qualification. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Okedem in that the Jerusalem Law isn't central in itself, since Israel considered Jerusalem to be it's capital already before it, and the world also rejected Israel's claim already before the JL. The main points are that Israel claims Jer is the capital, and that the world rejects this, and if both are mentioned in the lead, I'd be OK. Okedem, are you proposing that we just omit the mention of Jerusalem fron the lead? I'd be OK with that too. --Dailycare (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No, RomaC suggested this, and I objected and still do. okedem (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Okedem when I asked above if you would have the article qualify a hypothetical Israeli annexation of and declaration of new administrative districts in Gaza, Judea and Samaria; you said "I would" and so I thought this discussion was getting somewhere vis à vis your assumed veto power on edits to this article (on which I think editors have been very patient and accommodating). But now it seems you are saying that the international Jerusalem-as-capital positions are minor and not noteworthy, but the Israeli position should be in the lead. As you displayed such a reasonable position in saying that you would support the qualification of Gaza, Judea and Samaria as declared administrative districts, I don't get it. Can you please explain. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as in most discussions on the topic here, my position was supported by a majority of editors, your accusation that I have "veto power" is nonsensical, and you know it. I don't feel like explaining any further to someone who makes such claims against me. okedem (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit)I was asking you a question -- what gives? You would support qualifying the Israeli-declared administrative districts Judea and Samaria; but opposed qualifying the Israeli-declared capital of Jerusalem? The exact same arguments could be made against either, ie. "Where is a source that says international recognition is required for the borders of states, provinces or administrative districts..." Anyway, I see that finally a qualification was made on the introduction of Jerusalem, and the footnote link was formatted for clarity -- and this earth-changing edit only took what three years? Peace.RomaC (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


re this revert, if there has "never been a consensus" I daresay the default option is to lay out the facts such as they are. If this isn't acceptable to either camp, the article will have to be tagged as {{NPOV}} until reason prevails. I am sure I have no opinion on the Middle East conflict, but I do have an opinion on upholding WP:NPOV on Wikipedia.

Saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (footnote: under Israeli law. The UN and most countries disagree and consider Israeli control of East Jerusalem illegal)" is not honest. The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is a disputed city, de iure under UN administration, but de facto under Israeli control since 1967. It isn't anti-Israeli or anything to state this, as it is simply a matter of fact. After stating this, it is still possible to add that Israel emphatically does consider Jerusalem its capital. And no, it is not an internal affair for a country to claim as its capital a city that isn't recognized as part of its territory in the first place. We might as well claim that Beijing is the capital of the Republic of China.

I have no wish to impose any particular revision, but any neutral observer will need to agree that the current revision is not neutral. I suggest we amend this, but if this isn't possible within reasonable effort, I will just insist that this article must be tagged as biased. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the edit summary accompanying that revert. There has "never been a consensus" for the other wording. The existing wording and structure result from numerous and lengthy discussions involving many editors; see, for example, "Archived Talk about Jerusalem as capital of Israel", highlighted in red near top of this page. A parallel discussion recently at Talk:Israel resulted in similar conclusions. Many, if not all, of your points above have been previously discussed and negotiated, repeatedly, on these pages. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I agree fully with Dbachmann and must say that Hertz1888 has left out that the last discussion on this issue once again ended in no consensus (for either the current wording format or that proposed to replace it). Should either one of you be interested, a mediation request has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel in order to come to some sort of resolution regarding this issue. Cheers. Tiamuttalk 11:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying any information in the article is false. Jerusalem is, of course, the Israeli capital, under Israeli law. I am saying it is patently deceptive to put this as "Jerusalem is the Israeli capital [footnote: under Israeli law]". You want to address this point of presentation instead of rehashing the futile debate whether Jerusalem "is" the capital of Israel, which is basically an ontological discussion on the value of the copula. It is, under Israeli law. It is not, according to everyone else. I have no issue with that. The point is that both views are equally valid and deserve equal presentation, and it is not arguable to hide away the view which is apparently less welcome to the majority of editors here in a footnote.

This should be no argument at all, because it is not a point on "truth" in the Middle East conflict but a question on how to arrange undisputed information that is already present in the article. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify (and have) that it is not so much the wording that it is at issue, but rather the format (i.e. way it is presented), as you have laid out above. Tiamuttalk 12:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
No one has ever presented a single source to say that international recognition is relevant to a city's status as capital. Capital is defined as "seat of government" (open any dictionary, that's the definition you'll find); Jerusalem answers this description for Israel, Israel controls it, and has designated it the capital. Thus, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
The lead already has an entire paragraph discussing the conflict, which is way more than it should have, in my view. This was a serious compromise, and it's a shame (though not a surprise) it is not respected. okedem (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and to claim Jerusalem is "de iure under UN administration" is simply false. This was a plan for it, not its current legal situation. okedem (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jerusalem is, of course, the Israeli capital, under Israeli law. Ugh. This never ends. As much as you want to sideline the "Is it or is it not the capital?" issue and focus on something else, statements like this one indicate the importance of that question. You frame the pitfall of the lead as an omission of "several views in an international dispute" and a delegation of "povs you do not like to a footnote". Aside from the latter point being a baseless presumption (you don't know what I believe about the political status of East Jerusalem, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't base your comments on uninformed conjecture), your rhetoric ignores the points supporters of the status quo have been trying to make for years. That is, there is nowhere in the definition of a capital city that requires the international community to accept it. Israel terms Jerusalem as its capital and the city functions as such; those two points are enough to say, unqualified, that Jerusalem is the capital. Obviously, the controversy vis-a-vis Jerusalem is important, and so it is rightfully mentioned not only in the footnote, but in the third paragraph of the lead and again, in greatest detail, under the "Political status" section. But no more. We don't need to pound this controversy into the heads of readers to the point where our statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", a fact that is hardly debatable, sounds like a farce.
We had a lengthy request for comment regarding this issue as recently as August. Proposals to change the lead were soundly rejected for the umpteenth time, but again we have this issue brought up with the same sort of extortionary tactics. Just some of the ones that have been used over the years and/or at present: Well, if you're not going to succomb to our demands, we'll demote this article from featured status. (Done.) Well, if you're not going to succomb to our demands, we'll tag the article as not neutral. (Done.) Well, if you're not going to succomb to our demands, you'll be demonstrating that you don't care about NPOV. (Understood.) And, most pertinently, Well, if you're not going to succomb to our demands, we'll be back in a few months to bring this up again. This is disrespect at the highest degree. You have presented no new information. You have presented no new proposal. You are simply bringing up the same point as before and implying that your proposal would have been in the article ages ago if your opponents weren't so fucking blind about what WP:NPOV says and what the world outside Israel has to think. With that misguided attitude toward how discussion works, this matter will never be put to rest. I suppose I'll see you in June. -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you think that you enjoy some kind of exemption from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF tariqabjotu. Its practically impossible to engage in any kind of constructive dialogue when all we have is name-calling, mutual recrimination, and cursewords to contend with. No wonder these discussions never go anywhere. Tiamuttalk 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Tiamut, you have it all figured out. </sarcasm> -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that smug self-assurance contributes little toward the building of a collaborative editing environment, I try to check my ego at the login page. You?
About the article, I've restored the POV tag that Okedem deleted. Considering that there are tens of editors who have expressed concern regarding the way we represent the different POVs on Jerusalem, the POV tag both here and at Israel should remain in place until we can reach some sort of resolution. I'm quite sure I'm not the only who is tired of being made to feel like a problem editor for asking that our articles comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The tags might encourage people to avoid farcical discussions characterized by stonewalling, verbal abuse and derision to instead seriously address the issues being raised by their fellow editors. Here's hoping. Tiamuttalk 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
And what is your definition of "resolution"? The RfC in August concluded with more than 70% of editors involved saying 'no', not to a specific proposal, but to the overarching question, "Should we highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel?" That there are people who still drop by and make comments about the article does not necessarily indicate there's a problem with the article; no matter what we do, given the nature of the subject, we will have dissenters. The question is whether editors who are familiar with the back history, even if they did not fully agree with the results themselves, will respectfully tell those people that, unfortunately, his or her position was already discussed at an earlier date and that it was decided that we would go with something else. Obviously, considering we're still getting comments suggesting that those who agree with the current formulation are refusing to comply with policy or are otherwise stonewalling, thus delegitimizing their position, that isn't going to happen -- at least, it appears, until what you want gets put in the article. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that in this article, an entire paragraph of the lead discusses the conflict, and the word "capital" has a prominent link to a footnote, using a different format than references, this issue has more than enough space.
This issue will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. However, the current phrasing has been in the article for a very long time, and was the result of extensive discussions. No new sources have been presented (or sources at all), and many respectable sources use the unqualified "capital" designation, without even a note. We have a note, and an entire paragraph of the lead, including an entire section.
This strategy cannot continue. Time and again we have this discussion, with claims that users need to "seriously address the issues being raised". The issues have been addressed and discussed, with the result being the footnote, lead paragraph and entire section in this article. More than enough. Raising this again and again, with no new developments or sources is nothing short of disruptive. I'm removing the tag. There is no justification for this "try, try again" tactic. The issue has been discussed, and your position did not gain support. okedem (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We are in mediation now over this issue. Obviously, its not resolved. It is true that sometimes when the issue is raised, we move one more millmeter away from a version that states one POV as fact and sidelines others. Other times, nothing happens. The person raising their concern is just shouted down and told we have already reached consensus (when in fact we have not). Consensus is not immutable. Discussion can be difficult and recur often, particularly true when addressing intractable conflicts and in this case, one of the central unresolved issues in that conflict. The NPOV tag is warranted given the level of dissent with the current version. Removing it is disrespecting the views of those challenging the current version. Trying to tell us all that we are being disruptive for welcoming further discussion on this unresolved issue is a thinly veiled threat that isn't going to work here. Please restore the tag. This is a first step towards acknowledging that there are people who legitimately disagree with your position, which is essential to any effort toward finding a genuine resolution, however temporary or ephemeral, as most things are in modern life. Tiamuttalk 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The mediation is primarily about the Israel article. Again, what is your definition of a "resolution"? When will this be "resolved"? -- tariqabjotu 06:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Its also about this article, as you yourself have stated there. As I said above, when there is consensus that what we have is acceptable, it will be resolved, for a time. Nothing in life is permanent. Everything changes. If you are not willing to coountenance changes to your preffered version, you shouldn't be editing here. Tiamuttalk 08:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
So, basically, until your position is accepted, you'll hold the article hostage with the tag. Doesn't work that way. Your position has been rejected, live with it. okedem (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Your refusal to acknowledge that there is a good faith dispute is noted. Tiamuttalk 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Tiamut, I will not restore the tag. Nothing has changed, no new information, no new sources. No reason to change the current phrasing, which got wide support. Your position for changing the lead has been discussed extensively, and failed to gain support. Raising it again and again, just a few months apart, is an attrition tactic, and isn't legitimate.
I will also quote myself, from a previous discussion, so maybe you'll understand that the current version is by no means the "pro-Israel" version you make it out to be:
"Actually, the lead is unbalanced - but against Israel"
"Some users don't seem to realize that the current state of affairs isn't the "pro-Israeli" user's dream, but a compromise position. You see, in the lead we mention a fact (that could be seen as Israel's side) in a single sentence: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and its largest city...". Then we spend an entire paragraph talking about how disputed it is (also mentioning "disputed East Jerusalem" in that first sentence). We say it's a "core issue", talk about the condemnation of the annexation; embassies leaving; Palestinian aspirations. We never mention Israel's position here - I'm not talking about the simple fact of Jerusalem being the capital or its size; when we say the annexation has been condemned, we fail to present Israel's defense to that - Jerusalem was territory without a sovereign, captured in a defensive war. Its status in the partition plan isn't different from West Jerusalem - the city was to be internationalized, but the Arabs rejected the plan and captured half the city, etc. I don't want to start a discussion about the validity of those claims, but we don't even present them. We say Israel annexed EJ, and that many condemned that, but don't give Israel the right to defend its actions, leaving the reader with the clear conclusion that it's "wrong". Already the conflict gets undue weight in the lead, one out of three paragraphs. An entire section of the article is devoted to "Legal status"."
okedem (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I will restore the tag myself then. You didn't even bother to engage me in further conversation, but instead simply copy pased one of your earlier comments here. I've already seen that thank you. I don' consider it a satisfactory or substantive answer and proably have already replied to it, and so won't bother doing so again. Clearly, you are having difficulty accepting that people can disagree with you in good faith about what NPOV looks like. There is a dispute. Burying your head in the sand and saying "No, there isn't," won't make it go away. I suggest you treat the mediation process with more seriousness than you have people's comments here. Tiamuttalk 08:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut, your position has been considered in multiple discussions, including the RfC in August, in which the large majority of editors opposed changes to highlight the conflict even more. I copied an earlier comment because your current complaint is just a re-hash of the old discussion - no new information or sources (by the way, you never bothered replying to it back then). It's clear to me that you will never consider this issue "resolved" until your position is accepted.
Please justify your new attempt to change this - is there a change in the situation? Do you have any new information, not previously considered? What is your justification for dragging us back into a discussion that was held (and concluded not to your satisfaction) just a few months ago? okedem (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, its not like I am the one bringing this up every time a new discussion ensues. Each time, the discussion is initiated by a new editor. Funnily enough, each time, their complaint is that the text fails to saitisfy NPOV. That is my position too. And when I see an editor making a good faith attempt to reinitiate the discussion, it is my opinion that it should be reconsidered. There is no need for new information or new sources.
This text has evolved over the years and it will continue to evolve, as does the whole of Wikipedia. As we get greater and greater input with the years, issues will need to revisited. WP:CONSENSUS can and does change. It is not disruptive to reconsider an issue that was last discussed months ago. Particularly when so many editors are dissatisfied wih wha is there presently. If you don't like revisiting the issue, no one is forcing you to be involved. Tiamuttalk 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There will always be users who disagree, but this means nothing about overall opinion. If the article didn't say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, you'd have users complaining on the talk page too. To claim you're not the one bringing it up is technically correct, but still misleading. When someone tries to change some compromise phrasing, in Israel's favor, I revert them and explain on the talk page that the phrasing is a compromise, and we should respect it. I've done this plenty of times, even when I don't like the phrasing. On the other hand, you latch on to every such complaint, to restart the argument, hoping that by chance this time your position will prevail. Respect the opinion of the community, and accept that you're in the minority on this one. okedem (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Being in the "minority" is not an effective argument for dismissing someone's concerns, particularly when the conern they have is related to NPOV. What is most disconcerting in this article, is that it is Israel alone that consider Jerusalem its capital (i.e. a minority of one). While the rest of the world rejects this claim, our article posits this minority position as fact, while using convulated formatting and language to describe the majority position of the international community. That this has gone on for years now is an example of how successful some editors have been at intimidating others who come to complain about this into silence. Not happening this time Okedem. You've agreed to mediation too, so you must recognize there's a dispute, or else what are you particiating for? Let the tag go up on this page to reflect that. Tiamuttalk 13:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut, the incredible amount of text you and others sharing your views have poured in various talk page regarding this issue shows how ridicules your claim of being "silenced" really is. The intimidation claim is even more idiotic - did someone threaten you? Or is the mere fact that others disagree with you intimidate you? Come on, you can do better than such patently false claims. The capital issue is one of the most discussed ones on Wiki, and you know it. No one is being silenced here.
Your concerns have not been dismissed, but discussed Ad nauseam, as anyone can see. We will not rehash the entire discussion again - nothing has changed from the previous discussions in August. There's no information, and no change in reality. Thus, we could simply copy and paste all of our previous discussions here. The result will still be the same - your position did not gain support. You need to accept this, instead of trying again and again, hoping for some random majority. Clearly, for you the issue will only be "resolved" if the article is changed to your liking. That's not how this works.
And our mediation is not about this article, so it's an irrelevant claim. okedem (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The dispute has had its day in court. Many, many days. Nothing new is being said or offered in evidence, but the discussion goes on and on... endlessly, it would seem. Is the tag going to reappear every time someone new comes along and remarks on the so-called POV statements or their formatting? A compromise means that all parties will be dissatisfied to a certain extent. That may be as close as this matter will ever come to "resolution". I do not see the tag as serving a constructive purpose. It threatens to become a permanent presence, inviting ever more fruitless discussion. Time for it to go. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We are currently in mediation over this issue becasue many editors feel the text is not NPOV as it stands. As such, it is highly inappropriate to remove the tag. It is a denial of the fact that there is a dispute, and disrupts the dispute resolution process by failing to acknwoledge that. Please restore it. Tiamuttalk 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
We are not "in" mediation. Mediation was proposed. Your using the mediation process as an excuse to put tags on this article is not exactly what mediation is supposed to achieve, as far as I understand it. You don't think changing the status quo on this article is disruptive to the resolution process? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No. This is an open encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Change is part of what Wikipedia is all about. "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." And yes, we are not yet in mediation, as we await your approval and that of Nsaum75. However, most of the editors have already agreed. I hope you are not planning to derail the mediation process by withholding your own approval. Tiamuttalk 13:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I am still considering what to do regarding mediation. Since you pretty much say you'll return to this issue until you get a result you like, I'm not at all sure I'm going to be wasting my time on mediation you'll just ignore if you don't get what you want. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not threaten mediation participants, Tiamut. Mediation is 100% voluntary and both he and nsaum75 have every right to reject the mediation for whatever reasons they want. And considering what both of them have said on their own talk pages, they have legitimate concerns. Your comments above are further legitimizing them, and even legitimizing the reservations I still have, although I still have hope that our mediators are steely enough to keep similar degrees of stubbornness at bay. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not threatening anyone. If you read a threat in my comment, its only because you have failed to assume good faith. Tiamuttalk 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut, we are not in mediation over this issue. We are in mediation over the Israel article. Two separate articles. Similar disputes -- that's why I mentioned this article -- but two separate articles. And if asked about this article in the course of the mediation, I will point them back to the August RfC and say, confidently, that's it's been resolved and that there's nothing further to discuss, except perhaps how to stop people from raising this issue again and again. If you're just going to use mediation, and various parties' agreement to it, as leverage to bolster your position on this article, or anywhere else, we don't need mediation. You're obviously not ready for it. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever tariqabjotu. You are not a disinterested party when it comes to me, as proven over and over again in your comments. Tiamuttalk 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Okedem is right in that the link format in "capital" is different from refs. This was a point of contention in the Israel article and having it here may provide an opening for progress in the mediation. I'd like to encourage the editors who haven't yet consented to the mediation to do so. In terms of time used, well, editing Wikipedia is a sure way to spend a lot of time. We spent a lot of time discussing the issue on Talk:Israel and without the mediation, we're likely to do a repeat performance soon. If mediation succeeds, we may have something that people can live with and be spared a two-week session on Talk:Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Source for Jerusalem capital

Since I know this discussion will come up again in the future, I just wanted to record this source that states unequivocally that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. [17] Breein1007 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Is there a reason we can't just use the same, agreed upon, language as the Israel article? nableezy - 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is - the lead of this article dedicates an entire paragraph to the conflict (and there's a nice big footnote on the word "capital"). More than enough. okedem (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
But what does that paragraph have to do with the unqualified statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"? nableezy - 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, why cant we just say "Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital, with both making laws to that effect. The status of Jerusalem remains a heavily disputed issue within the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The entire city is under the control of Israel, with East Jerusalem recognized as occupied territory."? nableezy - 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Good idea! I'll change. (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support anon, but that isnt quite how things work here. nableezy - 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We've been over this. Claims are nice. Reality is what's important; in this case - Jerusalem is the seat of government, thus it's the capital. An RfC not that long ago, suggesting we put more emphasis on the dispute in the lead, failed with a margin. Respect that. okedem (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I never understood that argument. If Jerusalem being the seat of government makes it the capital, why not just say it is the seat of government? If the two are equivalent, why use the most disputed wording? And I agree, reality is important. It is reality that Israel's claim to Jerusalem is not recognized. But I guess that reality is not as important. nableezy - 19:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Because we use the term "capital" in this encyclopedia. Sure - it's not recognized, and that's written in the article. But you've never shown why recognition is so important to be in the first sentence (just the lead isn't good enough, I guess). Respect the RfC. okedem (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is so important because countless sources think it is important. nableezy - 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously okedem, what did you expect? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I would hope more than I expect from you. nableezy - 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be an obvious mistake, which I hope he'll learn from. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, maybe it's a good idea you take a break from your humour? Just a thought. Breein1007 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Holy shit, I've been active in many Wikiprojects but not enwp, I now realize enwp=ziowp. Israeli claims is more omportant than the truth in this place I notice. A lots of countries in the world (most of Africa and Asia for exampple, India and China included) recognize the Palestinian state (see state of palestine and see Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of it. This should of course be mentioned in the very first of this article together with the statement that it's the capital of Israel. (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this dispute while tidying up the history of the period between 1948 and 1967. I have had a look at the existing lead, and it has all the top heavy hallmarks of an ongoing edit war. We need to put the reader first. The reader likes simple undisputed facts that are written in a coherent and easy to read fashion. This is English wikipedia. We don't need to be tripping over all the Arabic and Hebrew translations of the name. I was thinking about a more simple introduction along the lines of,

Modern Jerusalem became divided between Israel and Jordan following the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, with the old walled city lying entirely inside Jordanian territory. Control of East Jerusalem along with the holy sites within the old walled city passed to Israel following the six day war in 1967. Jordan subsequently relinquished its claim on the West bank and East Jerusalem, while in 1980, Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem to Israel. Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is not internationally recognized and is strongly constested by Arab states. Nevertheless, the annexation is a 'de facto' reality, and Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital. Most foreign embassies however have moved their locations to Tel Aviv as a result of the controversy. The city, including the disputed territory of East Jerusalem etc. etc.- - - -then follow on with the statistics

How about that? That is about as neutral as I can possibly make it while at the same time exposing all the key facts, and without making it top heavy. David Tombe (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And looking again, that ancient history stuff doesn't need to be in the introduction. That can go into a separate history section further down. We only need the 1948-67 history in the introduction as a device for presenting the controversial facts in a neutral fashion. David Tombe (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "consider Jerusalem its capital"; per the definition of the word, Jerusalem is the capital, being the seat of government, and is the capital under Israeli law. Recognition isn't, and never was, a requirement for a city's status as capital. okedem (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
And the annexation is not just "strongly contested by the Arab states", the UNSC declared it null and void and multiple GA resolutions have reiterated that. And EJ is not a "disputed territory", well it is but that is a meaningless phrase, it is an "occupied territory". And "control ... passed to Israel" is not exactly a NPOV phrasing. nableezy - 15:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So am I correct then in concluding that my compromise wording wasn't Zionist enough for Okedem and that it wasn't Palestinian enough for Nableeezy? To Okedem, would you have preferred that I had simply stated that Jerusulem is the capital of Israel without any doubt about it and without any controversy whatsoever? And to Nableezy, are you suggesting that I should totally brush Israel's point of view aside altogether because it conflicts with the United Nations point of view? Prior to 1945 there was no United Nations. Alsace and Lorraine was considered to be German as soon as Bismarck beat Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian war. In those days we didn't argue legal fictions over the head of 'de facto' realities. Both of you seem to have forgotten about the English speaking reader in all of this. They want to know the facts. They want to know the details of the dispute. The dispute originates with a UN partition plan in 1948, and the only way that we can present the facts in a neutral fashion is to thread the facts with the history going back to 1948, and to state clearly which side wants what, and what the practical realities are. There is no greater way to exacerbate a dispute than for both sides in the dispute to deny that the dispute exists. Here we have two sides, each wanting to obliterate the others point of view as if it doesn't exist and never existed. And what do we get? We get a top heavy introduction due to Arabic and Hebrew translations using Arabic and Hebrew script that means nothing to English speaking readers, and with midi files to hear pronunciations as if the English speaking readers are interested to know how it is pronounced in Arabic or Hebrew. I'll leave you to it. I did but try. David Tombe (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. It was not factual enough for either of us. And no I am not suggesting that. Your text glossed over things that are of fundamental importance and showed a lack of understanding about the issues. I took issue with your phrasing that Israel's annexation is "strongly contested by the Arab states" because that is q wee bit of an understatement. I also took issue with you choosing the favored phrasing of the occupying power in place of what countless reliable sources use to describe the status of E. Jerusalem (hint: occupied). If you think that means that I object because it is not "Palestinian" enough or that I am trying to "obliterate the others point of view" then I am afraid I cannot help you. And the world has come a long way since Napoleon. And the "fact" is that the UNSC declared the annexation of Jerusalem "null and void" and that most countries, almost without exception, and most scholars, again almost without exception, regard E. Jerusalem as "occupied Palestinian territory". And I was not saying there is no "dispute", there is, but the phrase "disputed territory" has no meaning. All of Israel is "disputed". And the "dispute" over the status of E. Jerusalem is not a result of the partition plan, but rather the armistice agreements and the 67 war. But dont let details like that get in your way. nableezy - 03:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, Try to look at it from the perspective of a 19 year old lad from Tennessee who has suddenly become interested in knowing more about Jerusalem and the controversy surrounding East Jerusalem. The purpose of the article introduction is not to go into detail on matters that are of fundamental importance to both sides in the dispute. It is to let the reader know the skeleton facts and to give the reader a basic idea about both positions in the dispute. On reading the introduction, the reader should know when the line came down and who controlled either side of the line in the subsequent years, and who claims what. The reader will also want to clarify that the line did not cut through the old walled city. I learned all these basic facts from Hutchinsons and Britannica, but somebody reading the current wikipedia introduction will be left confused. We cannot write the introduction either purely from an Israeli perspective or purely from a UN perspective. Both perspectives need to be stated. Anyway, I've now taken on board both your points and so I will have another try. How about this,

Modern Jerusalem became divided between Israel and Jordan following the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, with the old walled city lying entirely inside Jordanian controlled territory. Control of East Jerusalem along with the holy sites within the old walled city passed to Israel following the six day war in 1967. In 1980 Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem to Israel, but this was strongly opposed by Arab nations, and a United Nations resolution declared the annexation to be null and void. Meanwhile in 1988 Jordan relinquished its claims on the West bank, including East Jerusalem, in favour of a Palestinian State. Jeruslaem is now the capital of Israel, but owing to the fact that many nations consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, most foreign embassies have moved to Tel Aviv. The city, including the disputed territory of East Jerusalem etc. etc.- - - -then follow on with the statistics

How about that? David Tombe (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I would approachreally want to start things differently. Something like:
Jerusalem is an ancient Middle Eastern city which has played a major role in the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all of which have important holy sites there. The city has been fought over many times, notably during the Crusades. Most recently it has formed one of the central issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In its 1947 partition plan, the United Nations had intended the final fate of Jerusalem to be dealt with separately from the establishment of Jewish and Arab states in mandate Palestine. The city was to be administered as a corpus seperatum independent of either state. However, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War resulted in the city being divided with Transjordan gaining control of most of the Eastern part of the city, including the holy sites of the old city, and Israel holding modern West Jerusalem where it established its capital. Israel took the remainder of the city in 1967 as a result of the Six Day War. It has declared the whole city its "complete and united" capital but this claim is opposed internationally with the United Nations Security Council having resolved that the Jerusalem Law which asserted this claim is "null and void", and with most states maintaining their embassies in Tel Aviv. Meanwhile the Palestinians have declared East Jerusalem as the capital of their intended State of Palestine...
To me the history and the holy sites are key to the identity of Jerusalem and to why it is such a bone of contention between the sides in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This should be made clear in the lead paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talkcontribs)
The UNSC did not declare EJ occupied territory, they declared the Jerusalem law "null and void". EJ is occupied territory, not just "considered" occupied by most countries. nableezy - 14:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded slightly. The main thing is that I think that there is an element of WP:RECENTISM in having the first sentence being about Jerusalem's status in (or not in) Israel. I would regard Rome as similarly flawed. The most important facts about that place are that it was some centuries the centre of the major Mediterranean and European power, and that for most of the last two millenia it has been the centre of the dominant branch of one of the world's major religions. Its status as the capital of a middle-ranking European state for a bit over a century is a definite third to those two other facts.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont really have a problem with the organization or the other changes, the only thing I have a problem with is downplaying the legal status of EJ. nableezy - 17:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict) Peter, That's actually very good. You have emphasized the additional important factor that the very reason for the controversy is because of the holy sites in the old walled city. That's the way to do it. You weave the skeleton historical chronology of the controversy through the presentation of the facts, exposing all points of view in the process. That's what the 19 year old guy from Tennessee wants to read. I'll be interested to see the responses from Nableezy and Okedem. I fear however that Okedem will object on the grounds that it doesn't state the factual reality that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, while Nableezy will object to the lack of any mention that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Nevertheless, I think that your wording is perfect encyclopaedia wording. David Tombe (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, The Israelis don't consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory and they are a major party in the dispute. Therefore we cannot steamroll over Israel's point of view. In my wording above, I suggested writing that many nations still consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. The only way that can be changed in your favour is if you can produce evidence that 'most' nations consider it to be occupied territory, in which case, we can write 'most' instead of 'many'. But it is totally unreasonable to brush the Israeli point of view aside entirely. There needs to be some give and take here, because the article is written for the purposes of presenting all the facts to the 19 year old boy from Tennessee who doesn't yet know the facts. He needs to hear the points of view of the principle parties in the dispute so that he can make up his own mind. David Tombe (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, the Israelis do not consider EJ "occupied", but then there are a number of Palestinian groups that dont consider any of Israel to be Israeli but we dont seem to have a problem not giving them equal time. It is not just that nations consider it occupied territory; the International Court of Justice, in a unanimous opinion, repeatedly referred to EJ as "occupied". The UNSC, as well as the GA in resolutions that often pass with one nation opposing (guess which), repeatedly refers to EJ as occupied. The ICRC says that EJ is occupied, HRW, AI, Btselem and countless other organization say it is occupied. And finally, scholars almost overwhelmingly agree that EJ is occupied territory. The view that it is not is a fringe view. To downplay this to say that "many/most countries consider" is an absurd understatement. nableezy - 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm only interested in the 19 year old reader from Tennessee. What about giving Peter Cohen's draft a run on the main article and see how it goes. It is definitely much better than the existing introduction.David Tombe (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Tennessee. I would be fine with that draft if Israel took the remainder of the city in 1967 were changed to Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967. nableezy - 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK Nableezy. What I suggest you do is insert Peter Cohen's draft into the main article along with your suggested amendment. Then stand back and see what opposition it attracts. Even if the dispute continues, we will at least have a better overall introduction, even if the word 'occupied' goes in and out two times a day. If that happens we can then address that issue in isolation. And thanks for the correction about Tennessee. I wish now that I'd chosen Kentucky. David Tombe (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait until Okedem has a chance to comment, something like this is best done with prior agreement. nableezy - 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, That's a good idea. Ultimately, I think that this problem can be solved with a trade off in which Okedem accepts that Israel occupied East Jerusalem after the six day war, and that you accept that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. All the qualifying information will of course also be present in Peter Cohen's draft, such as the embassies being in Tel Aviv and the UN and Arab nations opposing the Jerusalem law. I thought that Peter Cohen's draft was a rather good framework for a solution. Fine tuning can then follow. The result will be that the 19 year old boy from Alabama will have a clear outline of the conflict. David Tombe (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked the text, mainly inserting links but the odd rewording e.g. that the UNSC "resolved" rather than "declared" the Jerusalem Law null and void. By the way I've noticed an oddity in that the "eternal and indivisible" phrase appears in our article on UNSC Res 478, but does not appear in the text we give for the Jerusalem Law. Anyone care to enlighten me on this? For now I've quoted a phrase from the law. I've left "occupied" out this avoiding any commitment in our text to whether Israel legally possesses all, none or part of Jerusalem.

--Peter cohen (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

First, if you want to completely rewrite the lead, please open and RfC, and get some more opinions. (Thank you, Nableezy, for your patience.)
Now, as far as I'm concerned - I fully oppose this suggested lead. It basically reads like it should be the lead of The dispute over Jerusalem, or some such conflict-oriented article. An article about a city, even such a unique one, should still start with the very basics - where is it, what is it, how large is it, etc. It should then discuss history, importance, etc. A conflict can be discussed, but it can't take over the whole thing.
The third paragraph of the current lead deals with the conflict, which is quite a lot of space about such a short period in a city several thousands of years old. If you feel that paragraph doesn't do a good job, we can improve it, but we can't have singular focus on the conflict. Please note that an RfC not too long ago, suggesting we "highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital of Israel" failed to gain much support. okedem (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, Your point of view here is indeed the very point of view which is intolerable to the opposition. You want to paint the status quo as existing in the absence of controversy. I was trying to reach a compromise. Peter Cohen correctly points out that Jerusalem, just like Rome, is alot more than just a capital city of a modern nation. And he is correct in that respect. Jerusalem is an ancient city which has been riddled with controversy throughout history, and continues to be the centre of controversy right at this moment in time. You are not being fair to the 19 year old from Alabama who wants to read about Jerusalem. Your preferred style of introduction, which is to state in simple terms that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel, without any elaboration whatsoever, steps on the toes of the Palestinians and it plays down key facts that are of interest to all readers. The back story must be weaved through the introduction in order to let neutral readers aware of all the points of view. There has to be some give and take. The historical background is for the 19 year olds in Alabama, the capital of Jerusalem is for the Israelis, and the 'occupied' East Jerusalem is for the Palestinians. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform people of facts that are of interest. The purpose is not to play down facts in order to cover up a controversy and bolster a status quo which is the subject of considerable opposition. David Tombe (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "I" the capital of Israel? (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with asserting, simply, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Palestine? Both entities consider Jerusalem to be their capital, and that would be NPOV because it recognizes the claims of both. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong is that some editors believe the Israeli position trumps that of other countries, and world opinion. There is something to be said for this argument, as the city, including East-J, is under Israeli military occupation/administrative control. What happened recently at Israel is that editors wanted the article, on first reference, to reflect the clear and undeniable real-world issues and disputes regarding Jerusalem as the capital, and not simply present the Israeli position unqualified. It took some work and met much opposition but eventually it got done. I can't say I'm delighted to see some editors (the same editors) again opposing a (similar) adjustment here. As has been pointed out by many editors, Wikipedia articles are for the readers, not for the editors. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong is that "capital" is not a question of belief or "both countries consider it their capital". It is a simple factual issue, of whether the city is the country's seat of government. Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. Jerusalem houses no part of the Palestinian government, even ignoring the fact that there exists no Palestinian state as of yet. okedem (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Ramallah, where the current seat of the Palestinian Authority is, is in the same conurbation as Jerusalem, even if it's not quite within Israel's declared political boundaries of Jerusalem. And the intent to move to "Jerusalem proper" (whatever it is) is obviously clear. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the Knesset is geographically a lot closer to the CBD of any reasonable definition of Jerusalem proper than the Mukataa is. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Kids doing their homework want to know the name of the capital city according to the same definition used for other countries. Some commentary can and should follow about the claims for Jerusalem to be the capital of a Palestinian Arab state, if there ever is one. What are the facts to suggest any other city is actually Israel's capital? If it isn't somewhere else, it has to be where Israel says it is, as are the capitals of other countries declared by their governments, and not by international vote.Labellesanslebete (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's NOT the capital of Israel

I can see alot of bias in this article with Israeli view point!!! it's not fair... Jerusalem is an occupied city since 1967! and all of you know this truth... please remove those lies from this article now. Freedom's Falcon 222 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

and before 1967? Was it occupied? I see you're an experienced user and I don't think it's polite to ask to remove the capital of the country without proper rationale. How would you like if someone went to an article you worked on - Amman and said that it's occupied by Hashemites and it's not the Jordanian capital? FYI, Check on a long history of different attempts and discussions to attack the legitimacy of Israel's eternal capital. Best, Amoruso (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you consider it's youe capital - which i don't agree with for sure- and say there is no occupation there, how will your reactions be if some one stole your house (with 3 rooms) and then leave you just 2!!! This is exactely what happend in Palestine in 5 june 1967, You all recognize that there is an occupation in West Bank and Gaza, BUT dont tell the rest of the truth! East Jerusalem is Arab City, and Yes it's occupied by zioinists that day! so, if You believe in peace ,toleranc and right history, Be brave and remove those lines! thanks..... Freedom's Falcon 222

and if you ask about what happend in Jordan, I answer you, there is a big differance between what happend in Trans Jordan and What happend in West Bank and occupation of the rest of Palestine in different years .. This land is Arab for 5000 years ago, and I advise you to check out the real history of this region, you will see there is Arabian civilzation in both Jordan and Palestine before your grand fathers came from Egypt! and the rulers of this land was arabs since those days! so, hashemites are one of those arabs ! Freedom's Falcon 222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ofcourse Israel has the right to designate its own capital, but the rest of the world sees that as an illegal capital, and act accordingly; hence, no country recognize it as such, none would move their embassy to the proclaimed capital. Rewroding the line that Juerusalem is the capital should be as follows: According to state of Israel, Juerusalem is the capital of the country. According to the UN and the rest of the world, Israel illegally occupies a portion of Jerusalem – and unilaterally extended the borders of that city deep into the West Bank, the nations of the world are reluctant to reward Israel capital recognition due to the occupation conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


I've added the UN flag in the infobox to represent the viewpoint that the legal status of the city is corpus separatum, per Res. 181. Since the United Nations and the EU (in fact also the US) subscribe to this view, it's a significant viewpoint (in fact, it's the consensus viewpoint) which triggers WP:NPOV and compulsory inclusion. Mentioning Israel there as well is something I'm also OK with, since while Israel is the only country to subscribe to that view, it's in this context a "significant minority view" mentioned in WP:NPOV. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you know full well your edit is contentious, and is against consensus here. Even after being reverted, you choose to edit war it in. This is unacceptable. Propose changes, and seek consensus, don't try to force your views.
Now to the point - the corpus separatum idea was a part of the partition plan, recommended by the general assembly. It never materialized, and no one takes it seriously anymore. Even if someone still actually recommends this, it doesn't exist in reality, and so is completely irrelevant for the infobox. To clarify - there is no actual viewpoint that Jerusalem is currently part of a UN administered corpus separatum; at most, some might think it should be. okedem (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, let's try to keep the tone civil and presume good faith, shall we? I wouldn't say I was edit warring, since I corrected a mistaken revert of yours where you said the "UN is irrelevant". Now why is this mistaken? It's mistaken because WP:NPOV says that all significant viewpoints must be represented, and the UN's viewpoint (shared by all member states except Israel) is certainly significant, thus voiding your claim it's "irrelevant". Your comment of "is" vs. "should be" fails since we're discussing what the legal status of the city is, not who is currently occupying it. Your contention above that no-one would take the idea seriously anymore likewise fails: the statement of the German Ambassador to Israel - on behalf of all European Union ambassadors in Israel - according to which the member states of the European Union do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in keeping with the 1947 United Nations Resolution attributing "corpus separatum" status to the city. It's not necessary here to begin listing all the UN resolutions that find Israeli attempts to change the status of the city to be null and void. This isn't a question of opinion, but a question of fact. Are the opinions of the UN and the EU significant in the sense of WP:NPOV? they are, therefore what's the problem, and why do you feel the edit would be contentious? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The UN does not consider Jerusalem to be a corpus separatum today. This is nonsense. Please do not insert it into the article again. Breein1007 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You've been here long enough to know better than feign ignorance ("What did I do wrong?"). Even if you don't think it's contentious, once you've been reverted, you should discuss, not push again. And don't pretend you didn't think this would be a contentious point; I don't believe it for a second. Note that the infobox already mentions the "Palestinian territories", even though the city is under complete Israeli control, and the fate of the post-1967 territories has yet to be determined; for instance, negotiations might end up with the city under complete Israeli control. To say now these are "Palestinian territories" is already taking a side very different from the Israeli one.
Your quote doesn't support your claim. The official position of many is not to recognize Israel's claim to the city, as they believe it has no legal grounds, seeing as how the UN recommended a different solution. They don't even say it should be a corpus separatum in the future, and certainly don't actually claim it is a corpus separatum now. Also, a little mentioned point is that the whole corpus thing was supposed to be for 10 years, and then a poll of the city's residents (where there's been a Jewish majority at least since 1896) would determine its fate. Anyway - please present sources saying the city is currently part of a corpus separatum under UN administration. okedem (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, text should be appreciated by a mind willing to understand, not one seeking misunderstanding. "the member states (...) do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in keeping with the 1947 United Nations Resolution attributing "corpus separatum" status to the city" does in fact mean that the EU is "keeping to" the attribution of the c.s. status. Likewise (since Bree appears to ask for sourcing) we can cite a UN resolution from January this year (64/20): "The General Assembly, Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem (...) reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void". And finally, why are you opposing the inclusion of the flagicon? I mean, there are already the Israeli and Palestinian flags there, despite there yet being no state of Palestine and the Israeli claim to the city being rejected by the entire world. Sure, Israel is occupying the city and half of it is planned to be included in the Palestinian state, but neither of those entities can really be argued to properly exercise sovereignty in the city as of now. So why oppose the UN flag but support keeping the other two? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, your quote doesn't support your statement. It only says "we planned something else, so you shouldn't have taken over". Not "we control it", or "in the future we should control it". The partition plan is in the past. I've seen sources refers to Jerusalem as Israeli, Arab, or disputed. I've never seen a single source refer to it as belonging to the UN.
And as Jerusalem is completely under the control of Israel, in all ways, I have no objection to removing the Palestinian flagicon. Israel is definitely exercising sovereignty, even if it shouldn't (check out the meaning of sovereignty - it isn't based on UN opinions, or what should be, just on what is). okedem (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're unhappy, then here is another source: "the EU reply stated that all of Jerusalem, including the Jewish sector, is a "corpus separatum" or separate body." (BBC). So now that you have seen sources (you neglect to discuss in your comment the UNGA resolution I also cite) describing it as a corpus separatum, I presume you're OK with the UN flagicon and may in fact add it yourself? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That article is over 10 years old. Apparently the EU has changed their mind since then [18].
The UN flagicon is inapropriate here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source saying the EU would have changed its mind? That one doesn't, on the contrary it again says that Israeli sovereignty isn't recognized. Are you playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT concerning the UN view? --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article again. Are you playing WP:IDIDNTREADTHAT? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact I did read it twice. There the EU says they envision the future of the city to be a capital of two states, along the 1967 lines. Here's another source (LA Times) saying the EU considers Jerusalem to be legally a corpus separatum: 1. I also again refer you once more to the UN resolution, passed this January. --Dailycare (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for another 10 year old newspaper article. Still not sure how you get from there to the UN does/should/did control Jerusalem in any way. Also, thanks for referring me to a primary source. What exactly do you want me to do with it? Interpret it for the readers of the encyclopedia? No, wait, that's what you're trying to do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG, using the UN resolution as a source for the UN opinion is very clear, and once more this doesn't involve "control" of Jerusalem but its legal status, namely that the UN and EU (and in fact the world at large) consider the legal status to be a UN area. Since that's a significant viewpoint, we'll be including it back in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This, however, is not the encyclopedia of the UN, nor is this article titled "The legal status of Jerusalem per various supra-national organization". We detail what is, not what some people think should be, nor the arcane legal aspects of it. The cold hard fact is the only country exercising any sovereignty in Jerusalem is Israel, and that no "corpus separatum" ever existed there.
"we'll be including it back in the article" ?! In case you haven't noticed, this article already has a six paragraph section titled "Political status", detailing the various opinions on the subject (with the first sentence explaining the corpus separatum, also explained under "British Mandate and 1948 War"); the current conflict is detailed in an entire paragraph of the lede; when we say "capital" we have a prominent footnote, and when we discuss size we specifically mention East Jerusalem, to inform the reader of the problem; Positions on Jerusalem is linked from FOUR places in the article; UNGA 194 is linked twice; international opinion of Israel's annexation of EJ, and the future of Jerusalem, are discussed both in "Division and reunification 1948–1967" and "Political status".
The legal/political issues surrounding Jerusalem are so over represented, as to take over the article. And you seriously claim the information isn't there? okedem (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I agree this is not an encyclopedia "of the UN", and I'll expand that to saying this isn't an encyclopedia "of Israel" either. Let's put all the significant views there like WP:NPOV says, and that's the end of it? One flagicon doesn't take much space. Alternatively, we can remove the flagicons altogether to free up space. --Dailycare (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but reading the UN resolution to mean that Jerusalem is a "UN area" is your OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, OR means that a conclusion is drawn which is not in the source. In this case, the source explicitly mentions the provisions on Jerusalem in Res 181, so there no danger of OR. Of course, we could equally refer directly to Res 181, or Res 303 which affirms it, or any number of concurring resolutions - I chose 64/20 as an example since it was passed this year. As you're aware, we frequently use UN resolutions as sources on Wikipedia. So now we have the UN, the EU and of course also the countries that maintain consulates in Jerusalem (the "consular corps of the corpus separatum"), which I believe numbers nine countries at present, including the US and seven European countries. But overall, let's hear your suggestion on the flagicon issue that's consistent with NPOV, I'm OK with UN, UN+Israel, UN+Israel+Palestine, or no flagicons at all. You earlier suggested only Israel, however that fails since it only illustrated Israel's view, which is universally rejected. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the UN, in addition to resolutions we can cite e.g. reports where resolutions are discussed, such as this one:


(b) The resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council in relation to Jerusalem following the occupation of the entire city of Jerusalem by Israel in June 1967 also maintained this original principle of internationalization. Further, they required Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the conflict, and to rescind all measures taken, as well as to refrain from taking further measures, to alter the status of Jerusalem. Thus, it would appear that the United Nations since 1947 has maintained the principle that the legal status of Jerusalem is that of a corpus separatum under an international regime.

--Dailycare (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does the UN call Gilo a "settlement built on Palestinian territory" then? It appears from your source it should be part of the corpus separatum, built on "neutral land? Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't mean that every source has to mention the information being sourced, sourcing means that there are reliable sources that have the information (such as the ones I've cited above). "Palestinian" means pertaining to Palestine, where Jerusalem is situated. Further, "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (OPT) is a term that has a specific meaning in international usage. That Secretary Ban chose to use that term when discussing Gilo hardly means that the UN would have changed it's position concerning the corpus separatum, which according to the actual source cited above is based on resolutions. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think something here is unclear. The question isn't what the UN thinks; the UN is a good source just for what the UN thinks. Not for what actually is. It can believe / claim whatever it wants. Our field in the infobox isn't "Legal status according to the UN", because that's not actually really important. Our encyclopedia deals with reality, and the reality is that the UN has nothing to do with Jerusalem, even if it thinks it should control it. okedem (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the question is very much what the UN thinks, since it is a significant viewpoint which has to be included in the article. I refer you to my post above stamped 14:36, 27 April 2010 concerning the "control" point. The field isn't "Legal status according to Israel" either. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Included, sure. As I've shown above, this point, and other non-Israeli viewpoints regarding Jerusalem's status, are explained in way too much detail in this article. It is not, however, the main thing, and has little bearing on Jerusalem, in the present, or the future.
The field isn't "legal status" according to anyone; writing "Israel" there has nothing to do with "legal status according to Israel", or Israel's opinion about the city. Israel's status in Jerusalem is not opinion, but fact. It might be Israel's opinion that Jerusalem should remain, fully, in its hands, but Jerusalem's current status as an Israeli city is just reality - the municipality is Israel's, the laws in effect are Israel's, all of the services are Israel's, the only sovereign body is Israel, etc. For all intents and purposes, it's an Israeli city (and obviously, not a UN-administered city). okedem (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I must have missed the UN resolution instructing Israel to hand over Jerusalem to them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, what are you suggesting, change to "Country (de facto)"? Saying "Israel is sovereign there" over and over again doesn't make it any more so. As we've discussed previously, that is a fringe minority view that can't be represented as the only view anywhere on Wikipedia, including in these flags. Since the text as you note already has the info, why not make the box conform to it? As I wrote above, I'm OK with UN, UN+Israel, UN+Israel+Palestine, or no flagicons at all. I'm also OK with "Country (de facto) : Israel" However my preferred option is UN+Israel+Palestine which compaclty illustrated there are various views and also what they are. --Dailycare (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever for other flag icons besdies from that of the Zionist entity. The field states "Country", not "claimed by" or "legal status", etc. We simply do not add more than one. Okedem is quite right and his arguments are solid. Argentina's flag does not feature on Falkland Islands. Dailycare is simply annyoned that the Israeli flag gives an impression the city is properly Israel's. Well, thats just tough. We are not going to change the set standards just for his POV. Both flags may appear on a village in Area B, such as Hizma, but not on the Navel of the World which is currently under the brutal Zionst regime's control. Chesdovi (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, you mean to say that you feel there is no need since you don't decide these issues alone, we decide them collectively. You refer to Okedems comments and he in fact does say that the UN is qualified to render the opinion of the UN (great!) and that he feels the material is (properly, one assumes) already included in the article. Now as to "Country", the country de facto is Israel, the country de jure is the UN. You're reading "Country" as "country de facto". As I mentioned above, I'd be OK with that labeling when made explicit. --Dailycare (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect, the country de jure is not the UN, anymore than if Israel were to pass a law saying that Tehran is now Israeli territory, then we would have to reference that. -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
"the country de jure is the UN". That's just too funny. I suppose you are a published expert on these matters, Dailycare? Stop trying to interpret UN resolutions and show us a reliable source that says what you're claiming.
Anyway, as you correctly stated, we decide things collectively. There's obviously no consensus to add this flagicon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we not missing the obvious? I'm not that up on current events, but last time I looked, Jerusalem belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Shouldn't their flag be here, too? IronDuke 23:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't looked since 1922, when the Ottoman area was changed into the Palestine Mandate, which in turn was terminated in 1948. Currently Jerusalem is seen as the corpus separatum by the UN, EU and various countries as mentioned and sourced above, and Israel sees it as its territory, however this is universally rejected outside Israel. NMMNG appears to be right in that there is little support to add the UN flagicon, what about "Country (de facto)"? --Dailycare (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right you are. I was going to suggest a sort of Crusader, Ottoman Empire, British Mandate of Palestine melange, but I guess we're past the UN flag idea. "De facto" implies "de jure" is somehow not present. If you steal a loaf of bread in Jerusalem, you aren't prosecuted by the UN, or by Hamas. And now that I've had a minute to get current, it seems that the Israeli government operates out of Jerusalem. So, UN flag is no good, "de facto" no improvement. IronDuke 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum, if the UN passed a resolution proclaiming that the Secretariat and the General Assembly Hall have seceded from the United States and are now their own independent country like Vatican City, would that be considered binding? Of course not—similarly here. The consensus is clear. -- Avi (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

May be flag and coat-of-arm impose by "Israel" on Jerusalem not belong in article info box, because it be non-nutral and suggest that Wikipedia endorse "Israel" claim on future capital of Palestine. Ani medjool (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review the many, many discussions about this. -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Avraham, the UN headquarters already has extraterritorial status so "seceding" isn't needed. However if the UN did, validly and with the consent of the US, decide that the building were to be made sovereign then that would be binding, just as the creation of the Vatican is binding. Similarly concerning Jerusalem the UN did, validly and with the consent of Britain (the mandatory power) decide to make Jerusalem a corpus separatum and that is binding. Ironduke, in Jerusalem if you steal a loaf of bread does that become your loaf by the act of stealing, or does it still belong to the original owner? --Dailycare (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem has never belonged to the UN. The UN had never ran it, never had any authority in it. The UN voted for a plan recommending that Jerusalem be under its control. It didn't work out. End of story. This whole notion, as if some failed plan can determine current status, is simply silly. The only country, the only sovereign there, is Israel. Britain never had the authority to "consent" to any such thing; Palestine was not its territory, but territory placed under its administration, for a specific purpose. Their opinion was not relevant. okedem (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think we should include any flags in the infobox. While ISrael claims Jerusalem as its capital, its sovereignty over the city is not recognized by the international community. While Palestine claims Jerusalem as its capital, its sovereignty over the city is currently nil. While Jerusalem was supposed to be a corpus separatum, that neve happened. So, until Jerusalem's final status is settled, there should be no country listed in the infobox and no flag. Tiamuttalk 09:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the question was "who should control it", then yes. But that's not the question, and not the field. Who's laws are in effect there? Who controls it? Who exercises sovereignty? Who runs their government from there? What citizenship do the resident hold? In all ways, it's Israel. okedem (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The field is concerned with which country Jerusalem is located in, not with who controls it or who it belongs to. While Israeli domestic law is in force there, international law denies the applicability of Israeli law there. While Israel controls it, its control over the eastern part of the city is widely regarded as illegimate. While Israel runs its government from there, no embassies are located there. While many of the residents hold Israeli citizenship, some hold no citizenship. Your framing of the question is incorrect, and your simple answer to rhetorical questions you raised fails to address the complexity of the situation.
Given the dispute over Jerusalem, appending an Israeli flag to the infobox and listing Israel alone as the country in which it is located is misleading and POV. Tiamuttalk 10:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Before Dailycare started pushing for his change, two bodies were listed there, with two flagicons - Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Dailycare (unintentionally) made a convincing argument to remove the Palestinian Territories from there, and so they were removed. But prior to this, you didn't see me or anyone else here fight for that removal. okedem (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it is POV to list Israel alone, particularly given the contestation over the status of Jerusalem. The current format needs to be changed to be NPOV. I'd prefer that we list no country and no flags, given the complexity of the situation. But if you insist on retaining the Israeli flag and Israel, I insist that Palestine and its flag be listed as well. Both claim Jerusalem as their capital and neither claim is recognized as currently legitimate by the international community. Tiamuttalk 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut is the voice of reason here, (as always), but I still want to note that Israel's presence in West J is more widly accepted, giving us more creedence to use the Israeli flag icon for the city. PA has no precence in the city at all. Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for saying so Chesdovi. About West J, if the article were just about that half of the city, we would be having a different discussion right now. As it is, Jerusalem as defined in this article includes the eastern half, which makes things much more problematic. Tiamuttalk 11:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare: The UN proposal for CS is not binding, according to User:harlan who stated: "the armistice occupation is de jure, i.e. legal." and "the CS decision was held in abeyance, but it has not been withdrawn. It really amounts to the General Assembly having its say in approving the final settlement. The old statute never really entered into force. The partition plan called for a plebiscite to decide the status of the CS. ...I suspect the CS would never amount to anything more than international oversight of the local municipal governments management of the Holy Places and antiquities." If the "the armistice occupation is de jure" that means that areas that were meant to ben under the CS are part of Israel proper, legally. Chesdovi (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus to remove the Palestinian flagicon, Hertz is edit-warring over it but it remains the long-standing version until there is consensus to revise. Chesdovi, are you using another wiki editor as a source? According to WP:NPOV we must present all significant viewpoints. According to the UN, EU and several countries the CS is the current legal status of the city. Listing just the Israeli flag is as "neutral" as saying in the infobox "All Jews are terrorists", and later in the text explaining that in fact almost everyone considers that an illegal and completely wrong view that is universally rejected. For the record, I think Israel+Palestine is better than just Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, D.C. "Hertz is edit-warring over it"?? If you mean me, please withdraw that statement. Though I have been following this interminable discussion, I hadn't said a word, let alone edit warred over any icon. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Coming from you, talk about "the long-standing version" and the need for "consensus" is simply hypocritical, considering your actions prompting this discussion.
"Palestine" can't be listed, as no such thing actually exists (a Palestinian state has not been established yet, as acknowledged by basically everyone). "Palestinian territories" might be listed, as before. The UN has no bearing on this. Again I explain - we're not discussing the "legal status" of the city, and so the viewpoints about this are irrelevant. okedem (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The may be dispute about which country it should be in, but in reality in is in Israel. Israeli police physically determine who is allowed to Friday prayers at Al Aqsa. Jerusalem is in the country of Israel, whether it should be or not and whetehr one likes it or not. Chesdovi (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hertz1888 I do mean you, as you're the editor that last removed the long-standing version without consensus to do so. However now that we're all here, we can agree on the version. Whether the test says "Palestine", "State of Palestine", "Palestinian Territories", "Palestinian Authority" or "West Bank" I frankly don't think is much of an issue. Okedem, I feel that in this discussion I've expressly been trying to build consensus once it became apparent that some editors were opposed to the UN flag, which took me by surprise since to me it's the most bleedingly obvious thing to put there. Chesdovi, this really is an issue to which there is more than one view. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
None of the entities you listed above are countries. Therefore, it is inappropriate to list them along with Israel in the infobox. This is misleading and unencyclopedic. Dailycare, thank you so much for starting this discussion and helping us realize that we erroneously had the Palestinian territories listed. The article is much more accurate now that we have fixed that mistake. Breein1007 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Breein, at least myself and Tiamut have said on this thread that we oppose removing the Palestinian flag, so you don't have consensus for removing it. If we invite broader participation, you can't seriously believe that the end result would be to present exclusively the Israeli POV, since that's against core policy of the project. --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not remove anything. You edit warred it back into the article after it was removed. It would be nice for you to be a big man and strike out your lies. Breein1007 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
D.C., I am still waiting for an apology. You accused me of edit warring—a serious allegation—when I made one reversion because your repeated reversions seemed contrary to the sense of the discussion and, at best, premature. Now you have put a controversial icon back in yet one more time. One can only wonder who is the real warrior here. And by the way, whatever else may be said, "West Bank" is not a country. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't hard to make a principled argument that the country of Palestine should exist. However, no such country does exist, let alone with sovereignity over Jerusalem. Therefore, there should not be a flag of a notional country in an article about some other country's capital. IronDuke 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hertz1888, Breein accused me of edit-warring after one revert (IIRC) to the extent of posting a warning on my talkpage, so I presume the same criteria apply to you and s/he has also warned you. I was originally under the impression that the flagicons had been there for a while, but as an editor pointed out they're in fact very new. Since there is of yet no consensus on them, I've restored the actual longstanding version with no flagicons for the time being. The flagicon combinations I'd be comfortable with, and the ones I'd not be comfortable with, are detailed in the discussion above with reasoning. Happy Mayday, --Dailycare (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

request for change in intro

in the intro it says that jerusalem is the country's capital, but not oficially recongnized as such, but that is not the case. jeruslaem is recognized as the capital of israel, though east jerusalem is not recongnized as such.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we recently had a (very) long discussion about how to present the capital issue and decided on the current wording, which represents a compromise consensus. Neither West nor East Jerusalem is recognized as Israeli territory or as a capital, but Israel has moved most of its governing organs there and the currently agreed text reflects this. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

alright--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

De facto Jerusalem is under Israel full sovernity. The UN decided not to akcnowledged one of world oldest cities, ancient Jewish city, as the capital of Israel-good for it. It's still de facto the capital of Israel. The goverment is sitting there, the suprime court, everything. The present wording is poor, but it's not the fault of all of those who suggested it I guess, given the facts I can't offer a better one.--Gilisa (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why the biased presentation ?

the first line states that Jerusalem is the captial of Israel. Not even one single country in the world recgonizes it as a capital for Israel. I know there is a footnote that explains this. But this is biased in presentation and most readers would think that it IS the capital of Israel. This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I second this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdefrezz (talkcontribs) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Later there are assertions with incorrect citations: "In 1998, the Jerusalem Development Authority proposed expanding city limits to the west to include more areas heavily populated with Jews.[126]" I just read the cited source and couldn't find anything referring to 1998 or expansion to the west. So the assertion is apparently unbased and may be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I think now is the time to fix this? isn't? Wikipedia lacks neutralism in some aspects. We all need to work together to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

capital of Palestine

Jerusalem has been declared the capital of the State of Palestine, which declared its independence in 1988 (see Palestinian Declaration of Independence). Me thinks this merits mention. Something along the lines of "Jerusalem has also been designated the capital of the State of Palestine in its 1988 declaration of independence. Palestine exercises no sovereignty over the city." nableezy - 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wishful thinking for a non-existent state is of little importance. Anyway, we already discuss this, in the last paragraph of the lead: "Arab Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state". More than enough. okedem (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You have made this argument elsewhere, but a state that has been recognized by over 100 other states is no longer a "non-existent state". And it is not just foreseen as the capital of a future state, it is the declared capital of an actual state. nableezy - 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You have made that argument elsewhere, and it is just as irrelevant here as it was there. I keep trying to explain this to you - political recognition isn't the only criteria for statehood, and as all world leaders and Palestinian leaders speak of the Palestinian State in the future tense (stuff like "we need to establish a state", "if we unite we can make the state a reality in two years", etc), it's clear there is no state. And, of course, the meaning of the word "capital" is seat of government, and that is clearly true for Israel, and clearly false for any Palestinian entity with regard to Jerusalem. okedem (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And it has repeatedly been shown to you that only other states have the power to determine whether or not a state exists. And they have done that by recognizing that a state of Palestine does in fact exist. And is it clearly false that Jerusalem has been designated the capital of Palestine, which is what my proposed edit says? nableezy - 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
In fact, this is the contrary - a State existe even if not recongnised, like Somaliland exists right now, and Palestine does not. Benjil (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Palestinians' aspirations with regard to Jerusalem are already covered here, and nothing else is needed. And, again, I'm not interested in your interpretation of what is needed to make a state, as you fail to actually produce evidence that recognition is sufficient in this case (meaning - experts saying that such a state exists, purely due to recognition). Furthermore, the opinion of leaders means about infinity times more than yours, and they all concur no such state exists - I'm afraid we can't ignore them (including the opinion of the president of that supposed state) in favor of your OR interpretations.
Oh, and do tell me - did a State exist back in 1988? Even then many states recognized it, but it had absolutely no control over anything, and was declared by leaders in exile. okedem (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are some world leaders clearly discussing the Palestinian State in the future tense. You can find plenty of such statements with a simple google news search.
  • [19] - Salam Fayyad: "The Palestinian government... in order to establish a de facto state apparatus within the next two years"
  • [20] - Mahmoud Abbas: "We will not alter our demand to end the occupation in full and to establish a Palestinian, with east Jerusalem as its capital, on all of our national land."
  • [21] - Saudi king: "I can honestly tell you, brothers, that even if the whole world joins to found a Palestinian independent state, and if we have full support for that, this state would not be established as long as the Palestinians are divided."
  • [22] - Khaled Meshal: "We will accept a Palestinian state within 1967 lines"
  • [23] - "Speaking at Khan Younis mosque, Hamas' prime minister in Gaza says 'we won't serve as an obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders'"
  • [24] - Improving conditions for West Bank Palestinians shows that a Palestinian state can be "built from the bottom up while it's being negotiated from the top down," Quartet Mideast envoy Tony Blair said Tuesday.
  • [25] - "Turkish President Abdullah Gul Friday cast doubt on a European Union call for a deadline for the creation of a Palestinian state, warning such a move could be counter-productive." okedem (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Without recognition a state is not recognized as an international Person, it has no legal rights or responsibilities under international law. See here. There is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision. States can "exist" without recognition in that they have a defined territory and government, but if they are not recognized by other states that "existence" is meaningless in international law. Palestine does exist simply because other sovereign states say it does. But all this is avoids the issue. Why would we not say that Jerusalem has been designated the capital of Palestine in the Palestinian declaration of independence? (hows this for evidence Okedem?) nableezy - 08:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, you're presenting your own analysis, which flies in the face of all statements by all leaders involved.
As for your suggestion - the problem with it is that it's meaningless - designated, great. It was also designated as capital by Israel - but it actually is Israel's capital, whereas it doesn't serve any Palestinian role. The current sentence is much more informative - the Palestinians want it to be their future capital - so it's not so now. More informative than a simple "designation", and makes clear the current situation. okedem (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Funny that you say I am presenting my own analysis when I give you one of the highest quality sources you will find on the topic saying the same thing. But I am curious to see what others have to say about the proposal so Ill just sit back now. nableezy - 09:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Your quote says nothing of "Palestine". And you continue ignoring all of the leaders saying the opposite. Don't these people know what you know? Are they that ignorant? okedem (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Nableezy is merely proposing to include a notable fact. It doesn't make any difference whether the thing recognized by 100 nations is a state or an icecream (like I'm eating right now); the fact that 100 nations think it is notable means that it is. Zerotalk 09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact Nableezy wants to include is already in the lead of the article. okedem (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't. I'm not necessarily in love with Nableezy's wording, but the fact he mentions is true and notable and should be mentioned somewhere. Zerotalk 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed notable, relevant to a page on Jerusalem and actually required per WP:NPOV. Israel may think it haas a monopoly on claims over Jerusalem, but there are other significant viewpoints on the issue which should be included as well. Tiamuttalk 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it might be notable that Palestinians want Jerusalem to be their capital, which is why that's written in the lead. okedem (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
What's notable is that they have declared it the capital of Palestine, not that they merely want it to be. Stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Tiamuttalk 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And why did they declare it? Because they want it as capital. Even if there was no formal declaration, the aspiration is the same, and the meaning is the same. They'd like it to be the capital of a Palestinian state, when such state is established. Both facts ("want" vs. "declared") are true, but the former gives more information (it isn't so now) than the later. okedem (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. -- The Lead
Already mentioned. Already given due weight. Already discussed ad nauseum. Tiamut, it's incredibly ironic that you're citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- tariqabjotu 19:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is mentioned. What is not mentioned is that it has already been declared the capital of the current state of Palestine. nableezy - 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a difficult balancing act because there are several points that may confuse readers. The simple point is that Palestinians have declared Jerusalem the capital of the State of Palestine. But then the first caveat is that no part of Jerusalem is under Palestinian control. The second caveat is that Jerusalem is not the seat of government of a Palestinian government, so it's capital in name only (if even that). The third caveat (not so much a caveat, but a clarification) is that "state" does not mean what most people think it means -- i.e. that state does not necessarily include control over any territory (that's country).
Basically, what I'm saying is that, although Palestinian aspirations regarding Jerusalem are notable, this point is far from simplistic. And if we're going to begin by saying that Palestinians have declared Jerusalem the capital of the current (as future is insufficient for you) Palestinian state, we're going to have a lot of explaining to do. A footnote, perhaps, could be in order, but I think, should someone not read the footnote, they would almost certainly come off with a false impression (and so it should be put inline).
And, yes, I know that was a long-winded answer that didn't say much concrete. I'll try that in a moment (I have to move to a different location.) -- tariqabjotu 19:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You raise important points, and we indeed should not be confusing the reader. I think if we can agree that this is a notable fact we can work out how it should be in the article. And your point about footnotes is well taken, as I feel quite the same regarding the footnote about Jerusalem being Israel's capital. nableezy - 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I knew you would bring that up, which is why I tried to head you off at the pass. Obviously, I was unsuccessful, but I'll leave it there. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to change that footnote, I know that isnt going to happen. My point is that I dont think footnotes should be used to explain crucial pieces of information, which looks like your point as well. And even if the one on being capital of Israel does that I dont think we should do that for capital of Palestine. One boneheaded decision does not mean we must make another one. nableezy - 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hows this: Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, in the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, declared Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine. Whole story without undue weight. nableezy - 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The second sentence is redundant. It's simply a sort of affirmation of the first. okedem (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No it is not. Even if you think that Palestine does not exist (I love how that idea plays with demands for recognition of a right to exist) the second sentence clearly gives information not in the first, it cannot be redundant. Does the first actually say it has already been declared the capital, or just that it is hoped that it will be. Does the first say anything about the declaration of independence? How exactly is it redundant? nableezy - 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
How's this: Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, in the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, declared Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine despite never having sovereignty over any part of the city. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, the second adds some information - but information of little meaning. They want Jerusalem as capital. One of the things they've done for that end is declaring it as such in 1988. But this isn't an article about the Palestinians, about the declaration, or about the SoP or the PNA. It's about Jerusalem, and we can't give so much space to a single point regarding future aspirations only. If you want, you can place the "declared" bit in a footnote, following the existing sentence - the declaration is the clear formal manifestation of the aspiration.
(Oh, and it's not just me who thinks no current State of Palestine exists - it's also Fayyad, Abbas, Fahed, Blair, Meshal, Hanniyah, Gul and countless others. Who can you present to support your position?) okedem (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, the 100+ states that have recognized it as a current state? You know, the entities that actually have that authority? nableezy - 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
According to your own personal opinion. But why doesn't any Palestinian or world leader share your views?
Let me just add French president Sarkozy - back in 2007 - Sarkozy: Lack of Palestinian state an injustice, and in 2009 Creating their own state is a "legitimate right" for Palestinians. I can find so many others... okedem (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The question isn't about whether the Palestinians have a state. The question is whether it's necessary to go beyond what is currently said -- that the Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future country -- to also state that Palestinians have already declared East Jerusalem the capital of their [current] state, even though that designation means just about nothing. I'm increasingly becoming convinced that it's not important to also mention that (in the lead, to say nothing about how it's handled in the remainder of the article). The declaration is really, as okedem said, just a manifestation of what is already mentioned in the article and nothing more. If the problem is that the lead refers to a "future state" when a State of Palestine already exists, we could change it to "future country" or maybe "future independent state". I really don't care either way, though; I think it's clear enough as it is. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes: Jerusalem is the offical capital for the State of Palestine according to The Palestinian Basic Law Ahmad2099 (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the fact that it's recognized as Palestine's by over 100 nations capital is worth mentioning somewhere in the article, and I don't see it anywhere right now. Don't try to write that it IS the capital of Palestine alongside where it says it is the capital of Israel, but it should at least be mentioned, Just make sure there's a source with a link to a list. -- (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Palestine is not an independent state and it has no capital city. Even the Palestinians do not recognize their independence. They recognize only their right of independence.Eddau (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

HOW can this entry say that Jerusalem is the capital, and that IF East Jerusalem were included.....when the hypertext link to wiki's East Jerusalem page says East Jerusalem IS part of Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine both recognize the city of Jerusalem as their capital; thus, isn't it NPOV to consider Jerusalem the capital of both? — Rickyrab | Talk 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree we need more NPOV in this article. And since one previously stated "Without recognition a state is not recognized as an international Person.", Jerusalem is NOT recognized as the Israeli capital by any state other than Israel itself. The PNA recognizes Jerusalem as its capital. So why on earth does the first line say that Jerusalem is Israel's capital? (forget about the footnote. Why not have a foot note for Palestine and explain it likewise?). In fact, if anything, Jerusalem should be stated as the Palestinian capital because there ARE other countries that recognize it as the Palestinian capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Please consult a dictionary regarding the definition of capital; it has absolutely nothing to do with international recognition, but is defined as the "seat of government". Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, not the Palestinians'. And you second sentence is clearly irrelevant: "Without recognition a state is not recognized as an international Person." - okay, but we're not talking about a state, but about a capital city. okedem (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to jump between topics here but countries do not REQUIRE recgonition to become ones (is what I learned after consulting a few dictionaries, thanks to someone). Anyways, so we are saying forget about recognition in terms of capitals. If we do so, then what defines a capital? I assume it is how the governing body regards it, correct? Israel, without doubt, considers Jerusalem as its capital but so does the PNA.
Israel is a country. The PNA is not. What exactly does the PNA govern? Breein1007 (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, while flipping through the dictionaries, you forgot why you were there in the first place - to look up "capital". Had you done so, you would have learned it is defined as "seat of government"; meaning, a country's capital is where its government is located. This is true for Jerusalem in the case of Israel (has its parliament, government offices, supreme court, etc. there), but false for the PNA (government offices are mostly in Ramallah). Thus, Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but not the PNA's capital. okedem (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, we had a long discussion about this issue in the Israel article and in the end decided to say there that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but that that is not recognized internationally. Let's do the same here? --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No, there we decided on that phrasing because we didn't want to waste more space on it. Here the lede contains an entire paragraph on the subject, and the article discusses it extensively. okedem (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, the amount of space wasn't an issue in that discussion so much as NPOV, namely the question of presenting all significant points-of-view. Here the lead does not contain the information that israeli claims to having their capital in Jerusalem are not recognized internationally. We decided to include that in the Israel article, so back to my original suggestion: here too? One option would be to not mention it in the beginning of the lead and mention it in the paragraph on the status dispute. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
No, we've already seen the not a single source makes any claim that a capital has to be recognized, but only that it be the seat of government. That means it is the capital, and all other issues (non-recognition) are secondary. We discuss the political status of Jerusalem at length, in several places in the article, including in the lede - "Because of the disputed status of Jerusalem, the embassies of most countries have been kept in Tel Aviv and its suburbs...". The word "capital" has a big fat footnote link on it, impossible to miss, that contain a lengthy explanation. This is too much weight, if anything. okedem (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, we discussed that point of yours several times in the RFC and in the end decided to say that it's Israel's unrecognized capital (which is being very generous to Israel). Do you have grounds why you feel the reasons behind the result of the Jerusalem RFC on the Israel page wouldn't apply here? As far as I can see it's the exact same issue. --Dailycare (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing "generous" about that phrasing. Throughout the discussion, no one was able to present sources to contradict the ubiquitous definition of capital as "seat of government", and undoubtedly, Jerusalem fulfills that definition for Israel. The RfC on Israel was one thing; this is another. Here we already have a big footnote on the word "capital", and we already discuss the issue at length in several places in the article. To write anything more about it would be undue weight for one issue. This isn't the "political status of Jerusalem" article. okedem (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. How is the issue different, except that since this is the Jerusalem article and not the Israel article, the issue should probably be given a bit more space here? Concerning the point you now raise, that too was repeatedly discussed in that RFC (and here, like there, I'd also be OK with substituting "capital" with "seat of government" in addition to being OK with the agreement reached in the RFC), and concerning the point on the footnote, there was (and still is) also a footote on the issue in the Israel article. --Dailycare (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not that long ago, there was an RfC on this question, for this article; the suggestion to emphasize the controversy failed by a margin. Please don't try to abuse the willingness to compromise on that page, to have your way on this page.
I've proven, very conclusively, what the meaning of capital is, and how Jerusalem fits the definition. You, on the other hand, failed to show any sources saying that recognition is somehow a requirement for a city to be capital. Thus, the wording "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is, without a doubt, 100% accurate. Now, you claim the issue of non-recognition is important, and I don't disagree. It is, however, extensively covered in the lede, and in the article, as I have shown before. Just to prevent confusion, we have a big footnote, impossible to miss, on the word capital. The sum of all these things is more than enough on this topic, and further emphasis is redundant. okedem (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This argument, as I wrote above, was discussed at length in the RFC I mentioned above. If you feel you've developed some new musings about national capitals, I encourage you to publish them. This talkpage isn't the place to discuss them since this is reserved for discussion on article content. --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it was actually not really discussed, as you never bothered trying to refute this simple fact; it has nothing to do with my "musings" as you mockingly call them, but with the dictionary definition of the word "capital". Unless you call Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Webster's, etc. my "musings" (which might be flattering in a new, I suppose), your above comment is very foolish. When using words, we have to use them accurately; for that we need to know their definitions; for that we go to dictionaries. As there is no dispute that Jerusalem serves as Israel's seat of government, the answer is clear. okedem (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Okedem, I don't think calling other editors' thoughts "foolish" is constructive. We've been through this particular issue several times recently. That Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israel's capital is a significant viewpoint (in fact it's the majority view), therefore according to WP:NPOV it must be "fairly" represented "in proportion to the prominence". Presenting only the minority view in the lead and the majority view in a footnote isn't "in proportion to the prominence", and in the Israel article we just agreed on a wording that also includes the majority viewpoint in the lead. I don't see how what individual editors feel makes a "real capital" is at all relevant. --Dailycare (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You fail to understand that your point is irrelevant as to the question of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. International recognition is irrelevant to the question. A capital seat is not decided by international recognition. Jerusalem is Israel's capital because it is the seat of government of the country, because it functions as Israels capital on the ground de facto. That's all. The rest is politics and ideology and should be irrelevant. Benjil (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
When you call something my "musings" or "feeling", when in fact it is extremely well sourced, it's a foolish and childish evasion. This has nothing to do with how I "feel" about a capital, but with what the sources say, and they say that a capital is the seat of government, and not a single one of them says, in any way, that international recognition is needed. You are, of course, unable to provide sources to counter this definition, so you try to evade it. okedem (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
A capital does NOT need to be the seat of government in order to be a capital. AFAIK, The Netherlands has it capital Amsterdam but all of its offices are in The Hague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does. The Netherlands case is "the exception that confirms the rule". This is a very particular case and there even need an entire paragraph to explain it in the Amsterdam article. And once, again, international recognition is entirely irrelevant.Benjil (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Once more, that Jerusalem isn't recognized as the capital is indisputably true (which can't be said of the claim that Jerusalem is the capital), extremely well sourced and it is also as noted the overwhelming majority view. We could agree, arguendo, that what you say is 100% true and that Jerusalem is the capital. It still wouldn't change one bit what I wrote above. --Dailycare (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
May I ask what makes Amsterdam a special a case? i.e. why can't Jerusalem be one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Holland's history. The difference being that Jerusalem *is* the capital. De jure and de facto. There is not even a question about this. The issue is : do international recognition of all of Jerusalem as being part of Israel a factor here ? And the answer is no. This has nothing to do with Jerusalem being Israel's capital or not. Benjil (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Benjil, whether it is or isn't the capital de jure or in any other way isn't relevant. The lead currently endorses the Israeli POV by saying it is, and we're not discussing changing that. What is relevant is what sources say, namely: 1) Is the non-recignition a significant view? 2) Is it verifiable? 3) Is the issue a major controversy? The answers to all these questions are "yes". --Dailycare (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly the contrary. Whether it is the capital is the only thing relevant. You three questions are not. Benjil (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to be more explicit: the first two points are from WP:NPOV and the third is from WP:LEAD. Your argument is of the type discussed here: WP:I_just_don't_like_it --Dailycare (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you don't understand English. Once again your points are irrelevant to the issue. That's not what I like or not. International recognition is not a criteria for the establishment of a capital. You can continue one hundred times with this line it will still be irrelevant. Benjil (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We're discussing this change: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although it isn't internationally recognized as such." where the bold-face text is added. We're not discussing the first part. At least, I'm not. --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Exaclty, there is no need to hide these crucial facts in a footnote. Move it up to the first lines and stop the biased in presentation of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This issue appears to have cleared up, so I'll implement the change in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Cleared up?! You don't have anything vaguely reminiscent of consensus, and you just push ahead? I'm reverting you. This information is already in the lede, per prior compromises. Don't abuse them, and don't keep pushing for your own version. okedem (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If something remains unclear to you, identify it but read the discussion above first, since the issue is thoroughly discussed already. Presenting exclusively the terrorist POV in the lead and the international framework in a footnote is not what we agreed on Israel, and it's furthermore completely ridiculous. If you're now withdrawing from the agreement we have, let me know. --Dailycare (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, I am sad to see you finally transition from well-meaning user to POV pusher. There's so much wrong with your comment that I have trouble deciding where to begin. Let's do it by the order you wrote it:
  1. "If something remains unclear ... the issue is thoroughly discussed already." - discussed, and you failed to gain consensus. You simply used the fact I had some other work to do for a couple of days to push your own version in, knowing full well you don't have support for it.
  2. "Presenting exclusively" - repeating a lie does not make it true. The entire third paragraph of the lede is dedicated to the conflict and status of Jerusalem.
  3. "the terrorist POV" - do I really have to say anything about this one?
  4. "the ... POV" - as I (and others) have shown, the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is objective fact, stemming from the unambiguous definition of the word capital as "seat of government", combined with Jerusalem's function as such for Israel. This is not anyone's POV; to say that Jerusalem rightfully belongs to Israel, or such moral judgments, would be POV. International opinion regarding the city is POV, on the other hand (a not-insignificant POV). The question of where to place it is not POV, but due weight. International opinion would be relevant from a POV standpoint only if we were to say "Israel maintain the whole city rightfully belongs to it". We clearly don't say so, even separating East Jerusalem in the first sentence for largest city purposes (taking the position opposite the Israeli one).
  5. "not what we agreed on Israel" - As I said above, you're trying to abuse the goodwill and willingness to compromise on one article, to have your way in another. This won't fly.
  6. "withdrawing from the agreement we have" - we had no agreement for this article, as you know full well. This article is very different from Israel, and is in no way subject to any understanding or compromise there.
To surmise - basically every word of your comment is POV pushing lies. Go try it on someone else. Perhaps someone illiterate, or suffering from amnesia. okedem (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, see my comment timestamped 20:12, 1 June 2010 in this thread. Do you have a policy-based reason for opposing the inclusion in the lead of the text? If so, what is it and why wasn't it relevant in Israel? And spare me the fake indignation. --Dailycare (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If you can't restrict yourself to claims that are true, there's no point discussing this, or anything else, with you. okedem (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Now that we've sorted out that you don't consider yourself restricted to the agreement reached on Israel, I will likewise not consider myself restricted to it and we can move to the thread below. Of course, your participation is voluntary.--Dailycare (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As was explained to you earlier, the understanding there never applied to this page (otherwise, you couldn't have started your demands for changes here). okedem (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Compromise for capital of Israel

How about a completely new idea? Like with the State of Palestine page, have Jerusalem (Proclaimed) and Tel Aviv (Administrative), I mean that's just plain true. Rab777hp (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Israel is not "administered" from Tel Aviv. The knesset and most ministries are in Jerusalem. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, not true. And sadly, not completely new, either. IronDuke 19:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to be rude to Rab777hp but if people have no idea what they are speaking what are they doing in this discussion page ? Benjil (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually Israel IS administrated from Tel Aviv, all of 3 gov buildings and like 2 embassies are actually in Jerusalem, all the admin is from Tel Aviv, looks like YOU guys don't know squat about this Rab777hp (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The Knesset is in Jerusalem, as are all government ministries save the Ministry of Defence, and the High Court is there as well. That's the three branches of government for you. Police HQ is in Jerusalem, as is the Israel Broadcasting Authority, the Bank of Israel and plenty more. Seriously, don't embarrass yourself any further. Poliocretes (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
good thing you can name a single country or international body that recognizes it as such. Oh wait.... Rab777hp (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Really ? No country recognizes that the Knesset and all the government ministries are in Jerusalem ? Where do you think these buildings are ? Indeed you have no idea what you are talking about. Benjil (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Frankly, I don't think we need to indulge in any WP:OR about this. A list of sources was compiled for an RFC in the Israel article on this exact issue, which is available here LIST. In short, what the sources say is that the Israeli regime claims it's the capital, but this is universally rejected. (West) Jerusalem does serve as an administrative center, wherefore we could say something like "serves as a seat of government for Israel" to avoid the charged "capital" term altogether. --Dailycare (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, as has sadly becomes his custom, presents a false picture. In fact, in those discussions, a long list of sources was presented, calling Jerusalem the capital, without qualifications. On top of that, as "seat of government" is the only definition of capital, there's no justification to avoid calling Jerusalem the capital. Dailycare has never shown international opinion to be necessary, or even important, to a city's role as capital. okedem (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That isn't true, since whereas a few sources did present Jerusalem as Israel's capital without qualification, most of the sources, and in detail most of the secondary sources, said something along the lines of Israel claims it as capital, but this is not recognized/is rejected internationally. There is a summarized list of over 40 sources behind the link I provided above. Okedem's WP:OR as to what makes a true capital is once more in the wrong forum. We report what reliable secondary sources say. What the pirates in Jerusalem say is just their viewpoint. The rest of the world has another viewpoint, and we can't present a disputed minority viewpoint as fact. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You have just disqualified yourself, with your "pirates" remark (yesterday it was terrorists) from being taken seriously as an objective, dispassionate editor acting in a collaborative spirit. It has been shown over and over that recognition is irrelevant to the common dictionary definition of a capital. At some point continued challenging of that definition becomes disruptive. I think you have long since reached that point. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, piracy is a term applied to the Israeli government in the past week by e.g. the Financial Times and members of the UN Security Council. As to the capital issue, there is no Wikipedia policy according to which reliable sources can be sidestepped the way you're suggesting. WP:NPOV says that all significant viewpoints must be presented, and that specific viewpoints from among disputed ones shouldn't be endorsed in an article. Saying in the article that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is endorsing one from among disputed viewpoints. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You tried to claim that list means something in the past, but it didn't then, and doesn't now. It's just a long list of things like official government positions (which are RSs for the specific official position, and nothing more), non-RSs ("Prospects: the UK's official graduate career website"), and articles dealing with the conflict, which naturally emphasize the dispute. On the other hand, I've shown a long list of sources simply calling Jerusalem the capital, without qualifications. We had an RfC about this 10 months ago, and the suggestion to "highlight the disputed nature of Jerusalem when stating that it is the capital" failed by a wide margin (6 vs. 17). Not a single thing has changed in this matter, and so your current actions are simply harassing the community to get what you want.
Oh, and calling Israel "terrorist" and "pirate" helps a lot, thanks. okedem (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's start from the beginning. I'll number this reasoning so we can discuss in detail which part is difficult: 1) WP:NPOV states "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". 2) Israel claims Jerusalem is it's capital, and this is supported by WP:RS. 3) The rest of the world does not recognize that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and this is supported by WP:RS. 4) WP:NPOV states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves". 5) Saying "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" and relegating the opposing viewpoint to a footnote is asserting the Israeli viewpoint, therefore it's a violation of WP:NPOV. Do you disagree with any of the above (1-5), and if so which one(s), and why? --Dailycare (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
As has been explained ad nauseum, it simply is the capital, by the standard definition of capital. That is not a "viewpoint" (nor a claim, nor an opinion). What you call "the opposing viewpoint" may be prominent, but does not merit proportionate representation. Per compromises worked out here it is nevertheless given significant exposure. There's no violation of NPOV. Let's not "start from the beginning" over and over and over... Hertz1888 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, starting from the beginning isn't my preferred choice but Okedem has clearly indicated he doesn't want to use the wording we recently agreed (after very long discussion) to use on the Israel article, therefore we'll start from the beginning. I'll cite here a section from WP:NPOV_DISPUTE:

How can one disagree about NPOV?

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

This is text that should be read with thought. Here are a few sources selected from the list behind the link above:
  • 2("Jerusalem is not recognised internationally as the capital of the Jewish state" (BBC))
  • GA resolution 63/30 ("the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (is) null and void" (United Nations General Assembly))
  • 21 ("Jerusalem is not recognised as the legitimate capital of Israel by any foreign country" (Inter Press Service))
  • 22 ("Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital")
  • 26 ("Capital: Tel Aviv" in an infobox on Israel. (El Pais))
  • 27 "(Israel) claims the entire city as its capital but the move was never internationally recognised" (Daily Telegraph)
  • 28 ("Israel has declared all of Jerusalem its indivisible and eternal capital, a claim not recognized internationally (Reuters))
  • 30 (""Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries" (page 2) (LA Times))
  • 31 ("he welcomed the pope to "the capital of Israel," a status that does not have international recognition" (LA Times))
  • 32 ("Jerusalem, the capital recognized as such by no government but Israel itself" (USA Today))
  • 41 ("The battle for Jerusalem has always been a battle that Israel has waged alone, since even the United States has not recognized the city as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
  • 42 ("Israel has declared all of Jerusalem its indivisible and eternal capital, a claim not recognized internationally" (New York Times))
  • 43 ("No major foreign government has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
In conclusion of this long entry (sorry about that), saying that a prominent viewpoint "doesn't merit" proportionate representation is in direct conflict with WP:NPOV, which specifically says that viewpoints must be represented in proportion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not hearing me and others. Status as capital is not a viewpoint. Recognition is not a determining factor. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is contesting the fact that Jerusalem isn't recognized as capital, but that does not change the fact that it is the capital, as recognition plays no part in a city's identity as capital. It is just another detail, which is already covered at length in various places throughout the article - 3rd paragraph of the lede, the history section ("Division and reunification 1948–1967"), the very long "Political status" section (five paragraphs!), and in the prominent footnote linked from "capital". The suggestion to further emphasize Jerusalem's contested status failed by a wide margin at the last RfC; there has been no change in circumstances, and so no justification for another discussion. okedem (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, why don't you re-read the section I copied from the WP:NPOV_DISPUTE article. It doesn't matter how convinced you are that something isn't relevant or that Jerusalem is the capital. Okedem, currently the lead is entirely silent on the international rejection of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. --Dailycare (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Completely silent, aside from dedicating an entire paragraph to the topic... Come on, try not to "misrepresent reality" about such obvious things. okedem (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Where in the lead does it say that Jerusalem isn't recognized as the capital? I looked again and I couldn't find it. There is a paragraph on the disputed status which doesn't mention the issue, whereas the very beginning of the lead claims that Jerusalem is the capital. I once more refer you to the section I cited from WP:NPOV_DISPUTE. I also refer you to the 5-point plan in my post timestamped 16:01, 8 June 2010. Do you disagree with any of the points, and if so which one? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Right there where it explains that most embassies were kept in other cities, with more being moved after UN resolution 478; the location of embassies is the only relevant point countries can take to recognize or not recognize a capital. The flaws in your claims have been explained to you ad nauseum, and you repeatedly refuse to provide any sources to show that recognition is needed for a city to be capital; without such sources, we are left only with the simple definition of capital as "seat of government", a requirement Jerusalem very clearly and objectively fills. Now, please stop bothering the community with a question that was settled in the previous RfC. okedem (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, that the city isn't recognized as the capital is well a sourced and a significant viewpoint. You don't get to decide it's not relevant. You also don't get to tell other editors to either stop editing the article or to stop discussing it's content. I ask you again, do you disagree with any of the five points I mention, and if so which one, and why? As to the paragraph you mention, I'd be OK if we change it to include an explicit mention of the non-recognition, for example "Because Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv." The suburbs or Messareviet Zion aren't IMO lead material. If we agree on this, it would be a fast resolution to this thread. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've explained to you the issues, and will not repeat myself yet again. To say "Because Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as the capital of Israel, most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv" is inaccurate. There is no formal meaning to "recognition" of a capital city by foreign nations. The only step one nation can take to "recognize" another's capital is the act of placing its embassy there. Thus, the location of embassies elsewhere isn't due to non-recognition, it is non-recognition. Thus, the explanation of the location of embassies is the discussion of non-recognition. However, perhaps we can find a better phrasing of the 3rd paragraph of the lede. okedem (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have sources for those ruminations on the content of recognition? At least the source mentioned here contradicts you and states that the US could move it's embassy to Jerusalem and continue to not recognize it as Israel's capital. However regardless of that issue, we can accomodate your point (even if not correct) and re-phrase as e.g. "Placing most foreign embassies in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem, the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." --Dailycare (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There is East Jerusalem. If the government buildings are in West Jerusalem, then perhaps the reference could be something like, "Most of the government buildings are in West Jerusalem which acts as the capital of the state", and this can be followed with questions of recognition and embassies. Politis (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There are government buildings in both parts, and there is no distinction between the parts, even though there's a dispute over some or all of the city. okedem (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, are you OK with the text I proposed in my entry timestamped 09:33? --Dailycare (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The conflict paragraph of the lede needs some work. If you want the "don't recognize" bit, that's fine, but we need to shorten the paragraph which is quite overloaded. Basically, we can remove the two last sentences there ("Because of..." and "In the wake..."), and replace them with one sentence about the current status (with explicit mention of recognition, if you wish). Otherwise we're just piling on redundant information. okedem (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
okedem, you just trying for nothing. This people are acting for nothing but their political point of view. No matter what you say, they still think the if palestine president claim the Jerusalem is it's capital, it is. The dont understand what "Seat of the government" means. Tomorrow Jordan will claim London as it's capital, does it makes it to be? no!! capital = seat of the government. as long as Jordan won't have thier seat of the government in London, they can claim how much they want. --Sipio (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Regrettabley as I read the page on Jerusalem I altered some of the wording to conform to reality without checking the discussion page since it didn't seem questionable. Now my correction has been reverted and my reasons impugned. I find it incomprehensible that this matter can be allowed when the page has an extensive discussion on political status further down Given the illegal occupation of Jerusalem surely the UN ruling should be followed here?Keith-264 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose to remove the words in the Introduction which make an unwarranted claim that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and relegate such claims to the section lower in the body of the page. Would anyone interested in the point indicate their views here please?Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith, this is a contentious issue that's been discussed quite a bit both here and in the Israel article, most recently in this thread here. In the Israel article we had an RFC a while ago and agreed (in a compromise) on the wording that's currently there. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
RFC, que? I see no grounds for compromise in a mater of fact.Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What you call a "claim" is amply warranted, per the volumes of discussion that have taken place on this page and, above all, per the mundane definition of what makes a capital a capital. As a review of the record, including the archives, will show, the present structure and wording represent a compromise that has been hammered out through lengthy, vigorous discussion and consensus building. The change you propose would violate that consensus. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The section on the status of Jerusalem contradicts your claim. I am not bound by a consensus arrived at without me. I suggest that this requires an effort to arrive at another consensus which accommodates the facts that Israel is a member of the UN and the UN doesn't recognise Jerusalem as an Israeli capital.Keith-264 (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you read the record, which repeatedly explains why status as capital is not dependent on recognition. It's not "my claim", it's the way a capital is defined. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but repetition is no substitute for facts. Who owns the (or a) definition of the status of 'capital city'? At the moment it seems to be past contributors to the page. Surely it's on this question that a definitive answer is most needed?Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The doctrine of obligatory non-recognition doesn't mean that non-recognition would "mean nothing". It also doesn't mean that legal rights created by an illegal act would become void by the act of non-recognition, but rather that no legal rights whatsoever can be created by illegal acts to begin with. This is the meaning of e.g. resolution 478, which declares the Jerusalem law to be null and void. In other words, Israel cannot make Jerusalem its capital city by declaring it so or by moving government offices there. To make it a capital city would require some legally valid action. Israel however disagrees about this, and the Israeli viewpoint should also be included in this article. What change, by the way, are we discussing here, Keith's earlier edit? --Dailycare (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, I jumped in without looking at the dscussion page since it seemed an elementary mistake or some zionist stoogery. I agree that as a member of the UN Israel can't deny that 'no legal rights whatsoever can be created by illegal acts to begin with'.Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"is the capital[iii]" Why is the tendentious claim that Jerusalem is the 'capital of Israel' linked to a footnote (iii) with no bearing on the matter? If the wording is to stand is needs a citation tha is a citation.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Positions on Jerusalem page does have sources to the effect that Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital, which is rejected by the rest of the world. I know it's not the same thing, but we don't yet have consensus to edit the lead to follow the sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Keith-264, the word "capital" has only one definition - "seat of government". Despite extensive searches, I have been unable to find a single source supporting the notion that international recognition is in any way needed for a city to be the capital, nor has any such source been presented here. As Jerusalem unquestionably serves as Israel's seat of government, we can safely call it the capital. Anyone disputing this use of the word "capital" would have to present a source supporting the importance of recognition to a city's capital designation. okedem (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is such an obnoxious, repetitive argument, because nobody is arguing to each other. Does lack of international recognition mean that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital? I have no idea. But nobody is advocating anything of the sort. The non-recognition is a significant fact which is generally reported alongside Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as it's capital, and it should be explicitly mentioned in the lede, and not shut off in an intrusive footnote. And given that the UN has passed resolutions saying that it doesn't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, I don't see how you can then say that location of embassies is the only for countries to recognize a capital - in this particular case, various foreign governments and international organizations have explicitly said, "we don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." And, BTW, the location of the seat of government really is not the only way to define "capital." Amsterdam is one example, but there's also, for example, Porto-Novo and Yamoussoukro, which are not really the seats of government of their respective countries. john k (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
john k, you know what's annoying? When people make claims on the talk page which are clearly, demonstrably false, and show they never bothered reading even the lede of the article.
The lede contains an entire paragraph discuss the disputed status of Jerusalem, which includes the disputed annexation, the non-recognition and location of embassies, and the Palestinian aspirations regarding the city. At some point in this discussion, Dailycare said the phrasing wasn't clear enough (it said embassies are placed elsewhere, but didn't say explicitly that this is non-recognition), and suggested we change it. I had no objection, and so he changed that phrasing to something he found clearer.
And so, your entire comment is based on not bothering to read the lede. Good job. okedem (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm...yes. I did not see that paragraph at all when I made my original comment. My apologies That being said, I didn't say the "intro", but the "lede," and I meant the first paragraph, not the whole introduction - I think at least some mention of the dispute ought to appear in the first paragraph, not merely in a footnote and a later paragraph. john k (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The lede is the first section of the article, before the table of contents. It serves to summarize the article. Not all information can be pushed into the first paragraph. okedem (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not being completely familiar with the (wikipedia specific?) jargon you are using. "Lede" in journalism generally means the first sentence or the first paragraph. john k (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Why is the tendentious claim that Jerusalem is the 'capital of Israel' linked to a footnote (iii) with no bearing on the matter?"Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See my comment timestamped 16:42 for the meaning of non-recognition. It's a matter of viewpoints: the international community doesn't condsider Jerusalem Israel's capital, Israel does. That's what the best sources also tend to say so a WP:NPOV wording here could be something along the lines of "Israel has declared Jerusalem to be it's capital city, but it isn't recognized as such internationally". That reports both viewpoints neutrally. --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename article to West Jerusalem and the problem is solved. Hcobb (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And Hcobb wins the award for "worst solution." john k (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarly there's an element of justice in Wiki contributors not wanting Israeli crimes to be endorsed by association and an equal element of reluctance for other contributors to accept that the wording is inaccurate. A past 'consensus' on this was really a fudge because the differences are irreconcilable. Jerusalem is a city and it is claimed by some to be a capital city. The partisans of this point of view deny that there are moral and ideological as well as epistemological aspects to this. I suggest that the wording be altered and then reverted as needed.Keith-264 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, if, as you say, "capital" means "seat of government", then why are you so averse to writing in the lead "seat of government" instead of "capital". I have proposed this before, and you and others claimed that the term capital has some additional meaning, but you now seem to no longer hold that view. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As have I. That is the simplest, cleanest solution to the conflict about that word. It is not like this is the Israel article where the infobox has a "Capital" field. nableezy - 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I also support "Seat of government", as I have before. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it the other way 'round? Namely, that "seat of government" means "capital". Hertz1888 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
If they mean the same thing, with a few exceptions, what difference does it make? nableezy - 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is about making a substitution. Capital is the usual, commonplace, and better-known term. There is no need for obfuscation. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
But it is not obfuscating anything. If you say X=Y, then Y=X. Replacing X with Y in no way diminishes or hides the meaning of a sentence Z is X. That sentence is equivalent to Z is Y. nableezy - 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I take it you would be willing to change half the other WP entries for capital cities to say "seat of government" instead. Which is it going to be, pure logic or clarity? Don't bother answering. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hertz, you are right that other Wikipedia articles say "capital" and not "seat of government". But there is a difference: in the case of other articles, there is not a significant group of editors who - rightly or wrongly - contend emphatically that the city in question is not the capital.
If, as you contend, the terms "capital" and "seat of government" are synonymous, then your only argument seems to be that you want to be like everyone else. That seems a pretty weak argument, in my eyes. On the other hand, were you to acquiesce, you would put an end to a longstanding source of contention over this article, and give it a level of objectivity that would only enhance it in the eyes of other editors.
Bear in mind, too, that your vigilance in defending the word "capital" is based on your contention that there is no consensus for changing it. On the other hand, there is also no consensus for keeping it. There is no consensus, period. Were you to agree to a change which, by your own statement, is entirely without significance in meaning (and which would be completely unnoticed by the vast majority of readers), you would achieve that consensus.
Respectfully, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You have missed the irony and misinterpreted my words. I never said the change was without significance, nor that the terms are entirely synonymous. If you recognize that a seat of government is a capital, as you apparently do, then there is no reason not to call it a capital—like anyone else's. Wanting to use words consistently is not a weak argument, nor necessarily the only one at issue. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
What, then, is the difference? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Jerusalem is not part of Israel it is corpus separatum; at the moment it is stolen property under illegal occupation in which rightful occupants are being expropriated. Calling it a captal city because of a coincidence in the placement of some governing institutions as part of the expropriation is a sophistry. It's like holding the victims resposible for the costs of Kristallnacht.11:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was asking Hertz, not you. Your opinions, Keith, have already been expressed with a zeal which, perhaps, has not contributed to the reasoned atmosphere necessary for an agreement. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for mistaking a comment in the public domain for a public comment. I haven't felt zeal, only tedium and a desire to rectify a mistake. Are analogies unwelcome in your reasoned atmosphere?Keith-264 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is

it is vital in the interests of accuracy this is corrected with immediate effect - jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel but Tel Aviv is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You might enjoy this or this or many other discussions in the talk page archives. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Far better to be uncertain than to be sure and wrong." (source unknown). Hertz1888 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If only we could get the article to follow that advice... --FormerIP (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well it was the capital of ancient Israel. Why not modern Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual capital of the Kingdom of Israel was Samaria and apparently there was at least one good Samaritan. Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem will remain united as it was when Israel was united. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in having a huge discussion garnished with some edit warring over this edit to the Western Sahara article yesterday that removed the capital entry from the infobox because El Aaiún is "claimed by SADR, but there is no international consensus in favor of this claim" ? No ? Oh well. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Chexdovi, Jerusalem isn't "united" except in two senses that I can think of: as the corpus separatum under UN jurisdiction or as two halves which are both separately occupied by a foreign power, Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Israelis, in terms of international law, have the right to define which city to be their capital. But East Jerusalem should not included in that right since it is a part of West Bank, whom legal status is disputed!! Maher A. A. Abdussalam (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no legal basis for including any part of Jerusalem in the West Bank.--Redaktor (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The UN would disagree with you since it does include East Jerusalem in the West Bank. But incidentally also West Jerusalem isn't within Israel's "right" (to use Maher's terminology) since it's not Israeli territory either and the international community rejected the notion of West Jerusalem as Israel's capital already before the six-day war. (BTW the legal status of the WB is "occupied", not "disputed"). But what edit, exactly, are we discussing here? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
These I/P territorial issues never cease to surprise me (and cause migraines). So is there a body of legal documents/political statements contesting the legal claim of Israel to West Jerusalem? I guess if it wasn't part of the UN Partition then someone is probably contesting it although I always thought it was legit. That might partially explain why most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv. Any sources? Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

'Israel' doesn't have a legal leg to stand on but it does have a claque of partisans to patrol pages like this. Your best bet is to correct the page then revert the revert.Keith-264 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a text describing the US position on Jerusalem, dating to 1963 (i.e. West Jerusalem) and speaking in terms of the corpus separatum. Here2 is another text relating to the matter. --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! And wow. I honestly had no idea that was the U.S.'s position on the matter. I'll put a "See Also" link to the legal status of Jerusalem page. (Nevermind, I am silly, it's linked in politics) Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
maybe that was the US position in 1963, but not today. in 1999, the Jerusalem Embassy Act called for the US to move its embassy to jerusalem, the capital of the state of israel. (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
see Jerusalem Embassy Act Sean.hoyland - talk 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law, but isn't it also the capital of the State of Palestine according to the Palestine Basic Law? And shouldn't that be stated in the article? --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Err ... there is no such thing as "State of Palestine". Keith and other antisemitic loons can screech as much as they like. Go back to the LoN mandate's terms. There is no sovereign entity other than Israel with the slightest claim to Jerusalem incl. all its parts, east, west, south and north-by-northwest, AND to the whole of Judea and Samaria. Israel is the ONLY entity with the slightest right to decide where its capital is located. The UN, the State Department, the Arabist Foreign Office, the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, the NY Times and all other pathological Jew- and Israel-haters: Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel because ISRAEL says so. You don't like Jews deciding things for themselves? Tough cheese. Go take a walk down a very short pier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Joshua, in short, yes. There is a section in WP:NPOV_Dispute that fits this debate well, IMO:

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

so instead of embracing Israel's claim ("Jerusalem is the capital"), it should be presented as Israel's claim and placed in context, like so many reliable sources do. --Dailycare (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Except that it's not a "claim". Countries designate their own capitals. We've been over this so many times it's ridiculous. And there is a plethora of context given in the article, worded and structured by consensus reached only after prolonged and repeated debate. Newcomers may want to know that whole volumes on the topic may be found in the talk page archives. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Hertz, that is true for everyone BUT Joos. Joos must accept what antisemites tell them - including where their capital is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are about 20 countries (out of almost 200) which do not recognise Israel. For the State of Palestine the above IP editor claims does not exist, it is about 90. In other words, Palestine is recognised by over 100 nations, including Russia, China, the Arab League, and a lot of others. Just as Israel has the right to decide where its capital is, so does Palestine. And Palestine's Basic Law states that Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital. I am not proposing we remove any mention of Jerusalem being the Israeli capital, but that we also mention that it is the Palestinian capital as well. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Herz, it doesn't make a difference to my argument whether you call it a "claim" or a "designation". Israel says it's the capital. The UN says it isn't. The article shouldn't embrace the Israeli narrative but present the issue as a dispute. I'd be OK with "Israel has designated Jerusalem as it's capital, but this is rejected by other countries" instead of "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" +footnote. --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything new here that wasn't thoroughly considered previously. The UN has no say over designation of capitals. A modifying second clause (the "but" part) is inconsistent with the basic—and correct—statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The rejection aspect is covered in the article in several places and ways, probably well beyond "due weight". The Palestinian aspirations are also covered. (Hint to Joshua Issac: A capital should have government institutions.) Hertz1888 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
True, the UN has no say in capital designation. The issue is that, in the UN/international view, Jerusalem isn't in Israel. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital could be construed as recognition of Israel's annexation, lending it legitimacy. If it were in Israel no problem, but until the final status of Jerusalem is determined they can't recognize it. It's a little more nuanced then "The UN rejects the claim" as the UN is rejecting the law the claim is based on. Perhaps "Israel has designated Jerusalem as it's capital, but other countries don't recognize Jerusalem as a part of Israel." Or something along those lines. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
@Hertz1888:Countries designate their own capitals. If you're not convinced, there's the Orient House (inactive), al-Mokassad Hospital (apparently controlled by the PA), al-Quds University (a governmental Palestinian university), etc. in Palestine to fulfil the requirement you mentioned. If the presence of governmental institution is a requirement that overrides the right of the country to designate its own capital, then what makes the requirement for UN recognition of such any different? --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Governmental institutions constituting a "seat of government", to use the formal phrase. Rather than my endlessly rehashing prior discussions, let me refer you (& others) to these archives for further study and review. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat helpful although the conversation flutters back and forth between a)a state decides its own capital and B)a state can only have a capital once it's put its government there. Argument A doesn't hold up; if the state decides where the capital is then the PA have an equal right to declare Jerusalem their capital. Argument B undermines argument A and relies on a dictionary definition of 'capital' with no definite standards (how much government needs to be there?). It also blithely slides around the issue of owning the territory; much of the archived talk is predicated on the notion that Israel has a quitclaim deed to all of city except East.J'Lem. If you accept the Jerusalem Law, they own the whole thing. If you are the international community the whole city's legal status is undecided and no one can claim it. Please correct me if you feel these are unfair characterizations.
The one thing the archives were clear on is that this question has been raging on for years. Could we just put something in the lead sentence about it being disputed and the declared capitals of Israel and the future(present, whatever) Palestinian state? That seems like a fair accounting of the situation and you could probably leave the rest of it as is. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"There are about 20 countries (out of almost 200) which do not recognise Israel", we are told. So, by the absurd 'logic' of some of the Israel-haters here, the article should not claim that Israel is a country but say something like "Israelis claim that Israel is a country but this is disputed by the so-called 'international community'". You see where antisemitic 'logic' leads you? The UN is not a sovereign body. It is a corrupt club the majority of whose members are corrupt, totalitarian regimes. It has no say whether Jerusalem is in Israel. It has no say whether it is Israel's capital. End of story. Does anybody here really believe that Israel will give up Jerusalem because some corrupt and antisemitic regimes have voted in the UN that it should do so? Again, that is where the 'logic' of the Israel-haters here leads inexorably - but it will NOT HAPPEN. So, if you have managed to stumble through Logic 101, it follows from the last statement that Israel will also not declare that it's capital is NOT Jerusalem, merely because some corrupt and antisemitic regimes have voted in the UN that it should do so. Jerusalem is the capital. Live with it. As to 'Palestine': some corrupt and antisemitic regimes have voted in the UN that it exists. Doesn't make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is this template[neutrality is disputed] that might be applied inline to the statement we're discussing. --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@IP most of the "corrupt", "antisemitic" "totalitarian regimes" (as you claimed) which recognise the State of Palestine are the same ones which recognise Israel (sans the Arab league). That Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine as as relevant to the article as it being the capital of Israel. Also, please read Wikipedia's policy forbidding personal attacks against other editors, and refrain from attacking editors in the future by accusing them of being "Israel-haters", anti-Semitic, etc. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Iran is not really corrupt, totalitarian and antisemitic. Malaysia isn't really corrupt, totalitarian and antisemitic. Syria isn't really corrupt, totalitarian and antisemitic. And so on. These are only my 'claims'. The world has been turning a gigantic blind eye to antisemitism, just as it did in the 1930s. I have no intention of participating in this charade. If anyone thinks that the objection to Jerusalem as Israel's capital stems from anything other than hating Jews who stand up for themselves, he or she is living in cloud-cuckoo land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, cloud-cuckoo land also recognizes the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, keeping their embassy in Tel Aviv. There's no point in trying to reason with you if your immediate reaction is to pull out the Anti-Semite card when confronted with the unfavorable. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Not recognising Israel's claim to Jerusalem has nothing to do with corruption or totalitarian, and neither does it imply anti-Semitism, which is prejudice/hostility towards Jews rooted in ethnicity/culture/religion. Moreover, anti-Semitism is totally irrelevant to this discussion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hertz, please read WP:NPOV_DISPUTE. It doesn't matter what you or I think is the "final truth" about the issue, what you or I think makes a city a capital or what you or I think of the UN's role in designating capitals. It does, OTOH, matter that a significant number of sources present this as a contentious point. --Dailycare (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it make any difference in this discussion to consider another historical example? Please read St. Petersburg. Newly won from Sweden during the The great northern war in 1703, and built by Swedish POWs (in part), St. Petersburg became Peter the Great's new capital of Russia in 1712, nine years before the war was concluded at Treaty of Nystad. So here's at least one other example of a state winning lands from a neighboring power, and establishing a capital on the newly acquired land. I don't suppose Sweden recognized St. Petersburg as the capital of Russia before the Treaty of Nystad was concluded! So, barring an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority regarding status of Jerusalem, I think Sol Goldstone's approach makes sense: insert some description of the dispute, that it is the declared capital of Israel, that embassies haven't moved from Tel Aviv, and that East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, See East Jerusalem for details of this. (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC) DanBliss, db3593

The current lede wording violates NPOV by giving the minority position undue visibility. The footnote is nice but this isn't a David Foster Wallace novel where we hide relevant information outside the main text. Could we agree on just putting in "is the disputed capital of Israel" or "internally recognized" or "proclaimed" or really anything that hints at the major disputes over the area. This isn't the Palestinian view (which would look something like "Jerusalem is the occupied capital of the State of Palestine"), this is the majority international view. Sol 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol Goldstone (talkcontribs)
I concur with Sol's reasoning and think we can proceed with the edit unless policy-based counterarguments are offered. --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The reasoning is faulty, based as it is on the false premise that status as capital is a position or a view. We've been over this before. Non-recognition by refusal to locate embassies there is covered. The dispute is mentioned many times and covered by an entire section. Anything more would violate the policy called undue weight. Countries determine their own capitals, and the dictionary defines a capital as the seat of government. It is immaterial whether I (or you) happen to agree or not; that's what a capital is, by definition. Qualifying the term in any way, as proclaimed, disputed, internally recognized, etc. is what would be injecting a POV. Let's leave it be and stop beating a dead horse. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not that Israel can't decide it's capital, it's that it's proclaimed its capital in a city no one recognizes as its property (which in international law is the standard for legitimating annexations). Same thing goes for the State of Palestine. No one is recognizing any claim until the two parties resolve the issue. The only country who would agree with the introductory sentence is the government of Israel. This isn't a majority view. If the article needs to be rebalanced it can. If we want to open it up for RFC or take a straw pole we could give that a shot. Sol (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
After extensive perusal of the archives, I still can't find anything explaining why the international community's rejection of Jerusalem as sovereign Israeli territory/a part of the country is over-ruled in favor of the minority Israeli view. International recognition is the standard for legitimizing disputed territorial gains and that recognition has been explicitly denied. I would like to at least amend the footnote to include that this is why the capital designation is rejected, proper sourcing would be included. Sol (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is fact backed up by reliable sources. It is true that the international community refuses to recognise its status as a capital, but that does not stop it from being one. A sovereign state can decide what its capital is, and Israel is in full control of the territory, even if it shouldnt have. This article explains the situation very clearly with the status of Jerusalem as the capital. If we did not explain it i could understand your concerns, but it is there for all to read. I see no reason for any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't explain the connection between the rejection of sovereignty and the rejection of Jerusalem as capital. It mentions them but not the connection. It's important. If the only mention of the controversial status allowed in relation to the lede is the footnote then I would like it as informative as possible. If you live in the EU, US, Canada, or UN member nations, your nation probably doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital because they don't recognize it as part of Israel. Sol (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, it doesn't matter what you (or I) think is the "real capital" or what you (or I) think of states' rights to designate their capitals, so invoking those items repeatedly in this discusson doesn't move it forward. Since it's a disputed item, it should be presented as a disputed item, for example by simply changing to wording "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital, but this is not recognized internationally". A small edit for man, but a giant leap for Wikipedia. As a stopgap, introducing the [neutrality is disputed] template would seem to me a reasonable choice. --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, it certainly does matter. Do you need a simple analogy to understand this? If I have decided that a room in my house is my work office, but most people claim it is a bedroom and you cannot make a bedroom an office, it does not matter. I still make that room my office since it has a PC, fax machine, paper shredder and file cabinets in it. Understand? And you know what, if I turned my bathroom into an office, it would still be my office no matter what anyone else says. --Shuki (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Setting aside the health and safety aspect of using electrical equipment in your bathroom, and assuming for the sake of argument that reliable sources reported the dispute you have described, what would be the policy based reason for your designation of the room types to supersede and result in the exclusion of other disignations ? If it is possession, i.e. because it's your house, then it's begging the question. What specifically is wrong with "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital, but this is not recognized internationally" ? It describes the situation according to reliable sources, it has no dependency on the definition of "capital" and it says nothing about the legitimacy of the views, it simply states them. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I will dig up the UN opinion on the territorial status of Shuki's bathroom-office later :P. I think Sean is right about the circular argument. A better analogy might be if you were in an estate/inheritance dispute with someone over a house and you declared your office to be in the bathroom. You don't own the house; it's still in probate. You might eventually but the other claimant also wants the same luxurious toilet-fax facilities of the abode. The court tells you to work it out between the two of you since you are both crazy enough to want an office in a bathroom. (Abbas and Netanyahu working in a shower-cubical in perfect harmony)Sol (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
what's wrong? it says jerusalem is just as much capital of israel as it is of nonextant palestinian state. on that article, it says proclaimed or declared. it does not make sense to make them seem equal. obviously jerusalem acts as israel (a real current exist country who controls the territory we talk about) capital more than palestinian (no country, no control of land) LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant what is wrong with "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital, but this is not recognized internationally" from a Wikipedia policy compliance perspective ? Are you able to exclude all arguments based on your personal views about Jerusalem, the legitimacy of claims and other related issues no matter how obvious they seem to you and just comment from a policy compliance perspective ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
yes from a policy perspective that this is encyclopedia that tries to teach people correct facts referenced by sources to improve their understanding, not harm it and confuse them. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
. . .which is why we should clarify Jerusalem's status in the lead. Sol (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand your concerns. What are the incorrect facts that concern you specifically ? It is a fact that Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital according to RS and it is a fact that this is not recognized internationally according to RS. These are correct facts, they aren't confusing at all, they improve people's understanding and they don't harm anyone or anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

jerusalem is the capital of israel by the definition. israel proclaimed it, means it is so. just like usa proclaimed washington, means it is so. other people don't recognize, it's another story. my concern is saying israel proclaimed jerusalem and palestinians proclaimed jerusalem. putting them on equal level. when obviously it is not that way in reality. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the lead of the East Jerusalem article says
  • "East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian National Authority[1] although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital."
So, would your concerns be addressed if this article's first paragraph said something like
  • "Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem its capital, and but this is not recognized internationally, The city serves as the administrative capital." Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose that. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is fact, although it is a fact that its status is disputed which gets explained throughout the article. To have the same wording as used for East Jerusalem with the Palestinians claim is unacceptable. There is a huge difference as LibiBamizrach has said. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference you refer to that isn't captured by the difference between a statement like "The city serves as the administrative capital" and a statement like "although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital" ? What if the difference were more explicit and one said "The city serves as the administrative capital" and the other said "The city does not serve as the administrative capital etc" ? These are the facts that distinguish the 2 cases, no ? If not, what is the difference that is not being described and what is the thing that is unacceptable according to policy ? Can you be specific ? Is there some kind of misrepresentation ? If so, what is it ? Can you describe it specifically in terms of inconsistency between content and sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, i oppose this being changed. Especially to a first sentence which gives it equal status to the palestinians proclamation. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the article Israel has Jerusalem as the capital. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, we understand that you believe it's a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. That, however, is irrelevant to this discussion. Please see WP:NPOV_DISPUTE :

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy.

We had a RFC about this where around 40 sources were presented that either denied Jerusalem is the capital, or said the capital status is a rejected claim. GoodDay, wiki articles aren't sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Show of hands

Who supports and who opposes the use of the neutral and whole world accepted terms in the lead: Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, although this has not been internationally recognized. The international community recognizes East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian Authority and future palestinian state, however the land is currently under illegal military occupation by Israel.

  • 'Support' Bulgarwheat (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - simply saying proclaimed capital is highly problematic, and many editors above have stated they oppose changing to that. If the text is to be changed, which is still far from clear that it will get enough support, it must be to the neutral middle ground. Saying Jerusalem is the capital but not recognised by the international community. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't vote about this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better if we can try and get to a compromise above. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Voting on such a subject is like 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what's for supper. It happens that Israel is surrounded by nations 50 times its size and 50 times as numerous who do not want the ancient Jewish capital controlled by Jews. A wiki "UN" vote on the matter is just not going to get an acceptable result for one side. Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Category: Capitals in Asia

Currently this article is in the category "Capitals in Asia". The whole wide world view (every country and every NGO) is that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. SyrianKing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Yawn, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, then why is no one else arguing that position in the discussion above? Why does no country in the world, or organization in the world recognize it as the capital. There appears to be consensus that states otherwise. SyrianKing (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion above you will see other editors have stated they see no reason to change the introduction. You can also take a look at the extensive previous debates in the archives linked about. This article has stated for years, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. No new evidence or information has been provided to justify changing the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the addition of the word proclaimed or disputed before the term Capital in the introduction. The reality of the situation is that not one nation in the world recognizes Israeli soverignty over the land in question nor does any nation recognize the city as the capital or maintain diplomatic offices there. Bulgarwheat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
Please provide sources that state a country needs permission from the international community to decide its own capital city? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot support removing the category. Regardless of the discussion about the zionist government's illegitimate claim of Jerusalem as its capital, we should not lose light of the fact that Jerusalem is internationally recognized as the capital of Palestine. SyrianKing (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of arms.

The Flag and Coat of arms are Israeli proclaimed symbols. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why i oppose "Proclaimed capital". It will be seen as justification to demand proclaimed be added to all sorts of things throughout this article as well as other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it should be added that these symbols are israeli proclaimed and not the citys official symbols. SyrianKing added a good template here [26], this should be re added as the entire article is written from an Israeli point of view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Shall we add "proclaimed Mayor" - Nir Barkat? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. "Israeli proclaimed mayor" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, I have now found that there is actually a Palestinian mayor for east Jerusalem: Zaki Alghol [27], this should be added next to the Israeli. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Lmao so the palestinian mayor in the infobox. If it turns out there is a flag, will that have to be displayed in the infobox too? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
We can ad the Palestinian flag and coat of arms if we find any, now we have the Palestinian mayor, so we can ad it now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Lets get more opinions. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess proclaimed Mayor sounds wrong. Maybe elected is appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But SD wants us to highlight the fact the position has no legitimacy just like the capital and the flag and the coat of arms. There for we must go around sticking "proclaimed" in front of everything possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? The jews want to create aa false reality by proclaimitng jerusalem as theirs while renaming arab foods like Palestinian Rural Salad to Israeli Salad. At least proclaimed is neutral and accepted by the whole world. Bulgarwheat (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this for the local government section?

The proclaimed Jerusalem City Council is a body of 31 elected members headed by the proclaimed mayor, who serves a five-year term and appoints six proclaimed deputies. The former proclaimed mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski, was elected in 2003.[147] In the proclaimed November 2008 city elections, Nir Barkat came out as the winner and is now the proclaimed mayor. Apart from the proclaimed mayor and his deputies, Proclaimed City Council members receive no salaries and work on a voluntary basis. The longest-serving proclaimed Jerusalem mayor was Teddy Kollek, who spent twenty-eight years—six consecutive terms—in office. Most of the meetings of the proclaimed Jerusalem City Council are private, but each month, it holds a session that is open to the public.[147] Within the proclaimed city council, religious political parties form an especially powerful faction, accounting for the majority of its seats.[148] The proclaimed headquarters of the Jerusalem Municipality and the proclaimed mayor's office are at Safra Square (Kikar Safra) on Jaffa Road. The new municipal complex, comprising two modern buildings and ten renovated historic buildings surrounding a large plaza, opened in 1993.[149] The city falls under the proclaimed Jerusalem District, with Jerusalem as the district's proclaimed capital.

Any good? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

SD and BW score one point each, applause. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Im simply highlighting the implications of what SD is proposing, if we followed the process throughout the article. It is totally unworkable and unacceptable, and its one of the reasons why "proclaimed capital", is very problematic and should be opposed. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
All right, I think we've all been pretty civil about this and that's pretty amazing. But we've put out a lot of well-researched, well-documented comprises only to have them shot down by variations on three arguments:
  1. It's still the capital because my dictionary defines capital that way/show me where it says they need permission to name their capital. That's great. Go show your dictionary to the UN and everyone's Foreign minister so they can agree/ask them why. Until then it's not the majority view and doesn't get prime billing. This is actually the only policy argument on the matter.
  2. The wording is fine because it's been fine. WP:CCC
  3. Proclaimed isn't ok because that's the wording used for the Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem. So go with "disputed", "internationally unrecognized", "internally recognized", "seat of government of Israel", "Self-declared and unrecognized" or any one of the suggestions proposed or synonyms thereof. Just please don't stonewall suggestions that remedy your stated concerns or shift the goalposts.
"Proclaimed"* is a good deal. It let's us keep all of the stuff about East Jerusalem, the Israel cats, the flags, everything that would lead a reader to think that the Old City is in Israel. If you want Jerusalem to be the recognized capital of Israel, write your Foreign Office. We aren't legislating reality we are describing it as best we can. *(Confused!)

Sol (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"proposed"? Israel is the proposed capital of Jerusalem? Lmao, im sorry but i think that is even worse than proclaimed. And the problem with proclaimed is where does it all end. This section on the flag and coat of arms highlights the problem perfectly and is one of the reasons ive been opposed to "proclaimed capital". People will want proclaimed flag, proclaimed district capital, proclaimed coat of arms, proclaimed mayor, proclaimed council... etc, because they do not want this article to reflect fact. I dont know how else to say it, i suppose defacto, but again attaching that word to capital and every other issue ive just mentioned simply will not do. As ive said before, i strongly oppose changing to "proclaimed capital", and several editors have said the same above. Ive suggested a compromise that clearly explains the international view in the first sentence, which is what people are meant to be concerned about, but that makes no difference. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If we go for proclaimed the defense to what your describing is "Yeah, we know it's controversial, that's why it's stated up front" so putting proclaimed in front of everything is redundant and the editor would still have to find a source saying "proclaimed flag". Somehow I doubt they can. You put the proviso up front and no one can whine about it later. We keep maximum content with the addition of one word and this issue is finished. Sol (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with BW. Do we have to view Jaffa Road as "proclaimed" since it was named so by an "internationally unrecognized" entity? The fact is that Jerusalem functions as Israel's capital, whether the world likes it or not. And facts is what counts here. Whether it is "recognised" as capital by Bolivia doesn't really have any bearing on how the city or Israel functions. Political views should be given scant mention and not determine every point of dispute throughout the article. Chesdovi (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with BritishWatcher and Chesdovi per arguments articulated by both. Incidentally, when was a Palestinain mayor elected and by whom? What is his/her term of office? What voting procedures were implemented? Were Israelis residing in the eastern sector allowed to vote for this phantom mayor? Who was eligible to vote in this phantom election, if in fact one was even held. What were the geographical voting parameters of this election? What powers does this so-called mayor have and where are they vested from? Where does he/she meet with dignitaries, foreign or otherwise. Does he/she have the authority to collect taxes, enact ordinances, build or invest in infrastructure? Is there a city council that this mayor consults with?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The Israeli mayor is illegitimate according to the world-view of Jerusalem being a city under occupation by Israel, especially since the international community recognizes the city as being the capital the future Palestinian state. It is not neutral to list only the Mayor and city symbols as designated by an occupying power, when there also exists public figures and symbols which were established by the internationally recognized owner of the territory. The Israeli Mayor and symbols should either be listed as "proclaimed Mayor" or "Israeli-installed Mayor" SyrianKing (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, could you specify what territory we are talking about? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The land upon which all of Jerusalem sits. SyrianKing (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I hope you don't mind the minor blank space formatting I've added before your comment. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybey SK can tell us who the "internationally recognized owner of the territory" actually is? It is not the Palestinians; (and why has he not provided us with the existing PA symbols?) Chesdovi (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll field that one; the answer is no one. Until the two sides quit fighting and agree on it, most countries ain't recognizing a thing. Sol (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Flag and Coat of arms?

Basic al-Quds star

Do Palestinians also have flag and coat of arms for Jerusalem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The city name is actually Al Quds. This is the closest I could dig up - alQuds Star, a star representing 'alQuds' (Jerusalem). The logo of the 2009 Arab Capital of Culture, chosen to be al-Quds, under the Cultural Capitals Program to promote and celebrate Arab culture and encourage cooperation in the Arab region.[citation needed]. This is Kingdom of Jerusalem coat of arms, but I'm not sure you would consider it relevant, though it pops up upon querying Jerusalem coat of arms on Google so I guess it is notable ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, I found that, too. But we all know that the right one is that of Baldwin, Leper King of Jerusalem! That's a lie, I just like his name. Anyhow, can't find anything on a flag/coat of arms. Not too surprising. Sol (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Strange. I would have thought there would be one. In fact, I'm sure they have concocted something. Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What is to be done about the tags

We now have a tag in the first sentence and a globalise tag at the top of the article. It seems that some people are only going to be happy with this article when we add the term "proclaimed" before every statement of fact and that we must add things like the "Palestinian mayor" that no one has heard of or knows how was selected.

It is not the contents that is a problem with the article, its the tags that are making it a joke by a small number of editors who appear to refuse even a moderate compromise to address the problem. If there can be no consensus then status quo should remain and these tags should be removed. A few radical proposals being refused do not justify tags. Do people honestly think that "proclaimed mayor" "Proclaimed flag" "proclaimed district" , "proclaimed coat of arms" is going to make this article more stable and better for the reader?

This issue clearly needs more input so i have posted a message on each of the wikiprojects of this article to try and get some more contributors to join the debate. We should not allow this debate just to go on endlessly or fizzle out which will mean the tags remain on the article tarnishing its contents. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as this article is written from an Israeli point of view and not representing a worldwide view of the subject, then there is no reason to remove the globalize tag, the tag is perfectly suitable for this article. People object to "capital of Israel" so there is no reason to remove it either. Who is the one who refuse a moderate compromise? You refuse to compromise on the clearly minority pov "capital of Israel" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This is sadly not just about the first sentence, although it was the spark. A tag on the first sentence whilst this debate is under discussion is one thing, but having the globalize template there because at present we do not say "proclaimed mayor", "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, is clearly a problem. As for the compromise, ive gone from saying i oppose any change to offering a compromise if it will resolve the matter. But the reason why i strongly oppose "proclaimed capital" is because of the debate above, some want proclaimed added everywhere else as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The tags can go. They have served their purpose and a discussion is underway. Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No the tags can not go, the article is still written from an Israeli point of view and not representing a worldwide view of the subject. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The tags don't "tarnish" any contents, they're part of the content. I think the practice with many tags is that they're removed once the underlying dispute or deficiency is resolved or rectified. --Dailycare (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
but the problem is with people demanding that proclaimed be added to things like the flag and mayor along with other things i do not see how those tags will ever be removed, they are infact likely to spread. You atleast have supported the compromise which whilst not perfect trys to deal with the concern about the international point of view. others appear to be saying this article will never be acceptable unless proclaimed is everywhere because it reflects Israeli POV. I think that is an impossible change which means the tags would be stuck there for ever unless we address this once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
First off, slippery slope.Second, the point of the "proclaimed capital" is to head off exactly what's happening right now; I don't want this article shredded by edit wars. Your suggested compromise isn't a compromise; it gives the minority position undue weight. Correcting that was the original aim. And did you really need to post a less than neutral canvass notice to eight different wikiprojects? "Cry NPOV and let slip the hounds of edit war!" Sol (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I posted to all the wikiprojects listed on this page including Islam and Palestine, and highlighted the issues. I explained the reason people wanted proclaimed added to the first sentence and that now the issue has spread to the flag, the coat of arms, the mayor among other things again for the same reason because the international community does not recognise Jerusalems status, i also explained the other side who want the status quo which has lasted 3 years and that there has been a couple of compromises. And also pointed out this had been debated many times in the past. I even changed my initial post straight away to make it more neutral by putting the international view in the second sentence. My post covered the main positions. I want this matter resolved one way or another and we clearly need more contributors. otherwise these tags will be left on this article potentially for years simply because some editors demand proclaimed be used and i think the tags do tarnish the article content, which is not biased in the way some seem to think. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are you saying is the minority view here? That countries have a sovereign right to select their own capital? That Jerusalem functions de facto as Israel's capital, including tacit recognition by countries that have their embassies in Tel Aviv but send their ambassadors to submit their credentials in Jerusalem and their foreign dignitaries to carry out their business in Jerusalem? Has any country actually refused to carry out their diplomatic business in Jerusalem due to not recognizing it as Israel's capital?
The article currently correctly states the majority view that countries select their capitals, and notes that in this case it is not recognized (actually, united Jerusalem is not recognized due to the annexation of East Jerusalem). Pending someone providing some sources that say that recognition is needed to make a city a capital, it's you who's trying to push a POV minority view that somehow Israel is the only country in the world that doesn't have the sovereign right to select its own capital. I'd ask why Taipei and Nicosia are simply stated as capitals when both have limited recognition as capitals of countries with limited recognition, but I think the answer is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read the rest of the debate which answers all of your questions. If you like "de facto" capital that works for me. Sol (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Did someone provide a source that says recognition by other countries is necessary for a state to decide what its capital is? I must have missed it. Please repost. I object to any qualifier, including but not limited to "proclaimed", "de-facto", "so-called", "or so they say", etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk)
So the tags will stay. Per the pov problems with the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear, beyond the first sentence issue. What else is POV and justifies the tag. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Israeli mayor not presented as a proclaimed mayor, no mention of the Palestinian mayor, Israeli proclaimed flag and coat of arms presented as the city's official symbols, Israeli proclaimed twin town with New York presented as official, Israel centric map in the infobox, there are probably many more things in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou. This is why i think the tag is unfair, you are asking for such a radical change to this article that even some of those who are demanded proclaimed be used for the first sentence would not insist on for the other matters.. but it highlights why saying proclaimed is simply not a good idea. It will be used to justify proclaimed being used throughout the article in the way you want. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize editors had to explain why the world holds the opinions they do. But if it helps, I'll try. The reasons are many; UNSC Resolution 478 invalidating the basic law, lack of Jurisdiction over East Jerusalem (or lack of jurisdiction over all of Jerusalem if you are the UK, US, etc.), etc, etc ad nauseum. Things are represented in proportion to how common the view is. No one accepts Jerusalem as Israel's definite, quitclaim, no modifiers capital. The objection is that the article's current lead sentence's wording is only accepted by one nation in the world and leads the reader to the bizarre conclusion that Israel's capital extends into occupied territory. It also nips the "proclaimed mayor/flag/coat of arms" issue in the bud: if it's stated up front no one can claim confusion. Sol (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
But you did not provide a source saying a sovereign state needs permission to decide its own capital, if it doesnt control the territory then i see the problem.. hence why i strongly oppose proclaimed when the same term can be used to describe Palestines position on East Jerusalem. People have to accept there is a difference between something not being officially internationally recognised and fact. Taiwan is a country, just because only a small number of countrys in the world officially recognise it, does not mean it is not a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
And I don't have to. That's not the article's topic. I can paraphrase various countries reasoning if that's helpful but that does not change the nature of the majority viewpoint and I've no wish to retype it. You're asking me to regurgitate the source material so you can see if you agree with UN/US/UKs reasoning. Sol (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The majority viewpoint is that a country gets to designate its capital. The fact that in this case it is not recognized (whatever that means) is already noted in the article right after the fact that it is the capital of Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in your opinion but would like a source to go with it. The Jerusalem Law was internationally rejected as both an attempted illegal annexation and an attempt to dictate laws beyond Israeli jurisdiction. Trying to change the laws of occupied territory is expressly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions. So if you'd like talk about West Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel you'd be on better footing (not perfect as the territorial issues are still murky, believe it or not) but you can't extend it to East Jerusalem which is what the article is doing. Hence "proclaimed". Sol (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you want me to post the list of sources defining the word "capital" again? It's in the archives at least 3 times that I'm aware of. It does not include "if recognized by other countries", as I'm pretty sure you know already.
Who wants to take a guess as to why there isn't a similar discussion on the Nicosia page that says unequivocally that Nicosia is the capital of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, despite this not being recognized by any country other than Turkey? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please show your dictionary to the US, the UN, the UK and every other government in the world. There's a dispute over it's status. It is, as far as I know, the only time since GC4 passed that a country has attempted to establish its capital outside of its boundaries. Your interpretation is nice but you've failed to establish why it's better than that of the international community. A dictionary is not an international law reference. You have to argue why Israel's perspective is not being given undue weight in the lead sentence. I've told you why they say what they say. Sol (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The German Democratic Republic established East Berlin as its capital even though all of Berlin was technically under four power control, and not part of either the FRG or the GDR, until 1990. So that's a possible example. john k (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like NMMNG is winning.... Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this a battle? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Things that seem obvious usually aren't. For example, it's not obvious to me why people need to provide "some sources that say that recognition is needed to make a city a capital". Why not ask people to provide some sources that say recognition isn't needed to make a city a capital ? I don't know which of those arguments is the right one but they both seem irrelevant because we have sources that say it is the capital in some sense and sources that say it isn't the capital in some sense. That's it. It's both so we can say that somehow (which is what we got close to agreeing). Also we're discussing Jerusalem and no where else. And why do people keep talking about rights anyway ? What does that have to do with anything ? The only thing that matters is what the sources say. These things don't get resolved because too many people here make unsourced statements like "it's (not) the f'ing capital dimwit, it's obvious" (I'm paraphrasing) and ignore sources that say something different. It's not too much to ask that everyone accepts that their personal opinions about the real world mean nothing here. Surely at least some editors are married and are familiar with the simple concept of your opinion having zero weight on an issue. Apparently it's not even obvious what the term the capital means (e.g. The Capital Cities of Jerusalem Chad F. Emmett Geographical Review Vol. 86, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 233-258), not that it matters to us, but it's a reminder that everything must come from RS. Don't assume anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well i know wikipedia is not a reliable source but i notice the article on capitals makes no mention of needing international recognition. It simply says: "A capital city (or just capital) is the area of a country, province, region, or state regarded as enjoying primary status; although there are exceptions, a capital is almost always a city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and is usually fixed by law or by the constitution". It is commonsense and standard practice for a sovereign state to decide its own capital, that is what happens in every other nation. So sources need to be provided to say the norm is not true, and that a country must have international permission and recognition for it to be a capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope, nothing you said there matters because nothing you said comes from an RS and talks about Jerusalen. You assume that Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem. Why would you assume that ? This is my point. We just need to go by the sources (a large number of which say it is the capital) and things will work out fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Which is what we have in the article now. It says it is the capital and notes that this is not recognized. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, and that simple change, mentioning the recognition in the first paragraph immediately following "is the capital of Israel" rather than not mentioning it until the 4th paragraph as it was before is enough for me personally. I would prefer to say something closer to "is the capital of Israel...proclaimed in 1949...not recognized" as I've said, but I can live without the detail in the middle bit in the first paragraph. The rest of the lead can cover it. At the moment it doesn't. The article says proclaimed, sources say proclaimed, we don't mention it. It can be included in the 4th paragraph of the lead with the rest of the related details but it should be in the lead somewhere. The addition of the recognition aspect at the beginning was the important/necessary change to provide due weight and balance for me. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that the capital issue is one thing, we have a long list of sources saying that the capital status is denied, but I haven't seen any list of sources discussing how a mayor's office would be denied internationally. Therefore I don't see a reason to involve the coats-of-arms or mayors in this discussion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I cant see a compromise happening on the lead if the globalize/neutrality tag is still kept because people demand proclaimed capital be stated, and the fact people are saying proclaimed mayor/proclaimed flag etc should be added otherwise this article is Israeli POV highlights the problem wit proclaimed. The two things are linked. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So is this settled then? We rely on RS and the lead notes both opnions, while still refering to "capital of Israel". (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is settled whilst some are demanding "proclaimed capital" "proclaimed flag" "proclaimed mayor" "proclaimed coat of arms" are needed and it sounds as though they want to keep the tags on the article if those things are not changed. I cant support a compromise if others will still demand the tags remain and the idea we have to add proclaimed everywhere else. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, we're nearly there. Sean has highlighted that it is RS what counts, (basically other peoples opinons in published form) and NMMNG has noted that both opinions are already cited in the lead. Dailycare has said no need to extend this to mayors, etc. So, unless we hear from SD or Sol, (hopefully agreeing with the conlusion) we should be done with this. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Great. I have RS saying everyone thinks the Jerusalem Law is invalid and that East Jerusalem isn't in Israel. Sol (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I wish i had your optimism lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality tag behind Israel and the Global tag at the top are two separate things, the first tag is only about the first sentence, which after agreement about that one sentence can be removed, the Global tag on the other hand is about how the entire article is written, involving many things, it cant be removed as the article is now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both tags need to go if there is to be a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The sentence specific tag is being misused. The current wording is the result of very long discussions and consensus that was not easily come by. That some editors are not happy with this consensus and keep trying to chip at it until they get a result they want is not a good reason to use a tag that is meant to produce discussion. I'm going to remove it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I back you. (SD, please list all the things you think need dealing with and we will go through them 1 by 1.) Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the most bad faith move I've seen in this debate so far. Bravo. Sol (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean putting up a tag that's supposed to produce discussion when discussion was already ongoing (and even noting that in the edit summary)? That's exactly the sort of badge of shame misuse the template warns against. I agree, that does have a whiff of bad faith. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going to leave this right here. If you'd like to come back and discuss why your dictionary is better qualified to rule on international conflicts than the world's governments I will be happy to listen. Sol (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The template I removed was this not the one you posted above. As for your appeal to authority, world governments can't change what the word "capital" means, nor does their non-recognition change the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Perhaps you could inform us what you think Israel's capital is if it isn't Jerusalem? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for getting the wrong template. Fortunately, the removal rules are the same. Please look at what's already been discussed; no one is redefining capital, they are rejecting the methods and legality by which Jerusalem, including occupied territory, was declared the capital. It's as if the law never happened. I don't think I'm surprising anyone by revealing that you can't apply your laws to land not under your jurisdiction. Sol (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look more closely at what the purpose of the tag I removed is. Anyway, it's not as if the law never happened, it's as if other countries don't recognize it. Since recognition is not necessary (pending a source that says it is, which I doubt anyone will be able to produce), Jerusalem is the capital, but not recognized by other countries. That's what the article says now, both in the actual text and in a note. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I did. You remove the tag once the discussion is over. Why do you assume recognition isn't necessary? If you unilaterally annex territory you need international recognition; you can't annex land by force and expect everyone to agree with you, especially if that land happens to be the center of three world religions and an ongoing property dispute. Until the land is yours you can't apply your laws to it. As is, the article tacitly recognizes claims the world rejects. And it matters not one jot nor tittle nor parsnip what an editor's interpretation is. You can't impose your standards on information and no one has to make you change your mind. The majority view gets top representation even if it's wrong or patently insane (this is neither, just pointing it out). I can try to explain the why of it, you can accept or deny the relevance but it doesn't change WP policies or that the majority of people who's opinions shape international relations don't accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Sol (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You insert the tag to produce discussion, not when it's already ongoing, and you don't leave the tag as some kind of leverage to get your preferred version into the article.
It's you who needs to show that recognition of a capital is necessary for it to be a capital. I can't prove the negative. The onus is on you to provide positive proof that it is. I agree that an editor's opinion doesn't matter. The majority view is that countries designate their capitals, as any dictionary will show you. Until you provide some proof that non-recognition invalidates the accepted meaning of the word "capital", you are just giving us your own opinion which matters not one jot nor tittle nor parsnip. "Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but is not recognized by other countries" is a policy compliant statement that meets WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Your interpretation of what non-recognition means is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And you leave it up while discussion is going on, you remove it when "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." I'm not trying to insert my definition of non-recognition, I'm suggesting the best way to approach a difficult topic within the proper guidelines. The last word is all yours. Sol (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the onus argument really works and I don't think we need to care about majority views on who gets to decide and what words mean or dictionaries say either. Sol doesn't need to prove that recognition of Jerusalem as the capital is necessary for it to be the capital and you don't need to prove that recognition isn't necessary. Imagine if either of you found a source that addressed those points, it wouldn't change what all the other RS say about Jerusalem or make them vanish. There's still going to be lots of RS that say it's the capital and lots of RS that say it isn't or rather, something more complicated than it is the capital. We're can't prove that it is/isn't the capital. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the IC, what is the capital of Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, there's the rub. They reject the validity of the Jerusalem law/Jerusalem as capital and return to the back-stabbing scrum of international politics. That's why I've lobbied for some modifier in "Jerusalem is Israel's capital": no nation agrees with that statement but deleting any reference to it as Israel's capital would be absurd. An unmodified "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" along with pictures of/references to the Old City tacitly implies that E. J'Lem is a part of Israel which is definitely not correct. Rather than rip out the Old City references (which is probably what most people are interested in) let's give the majority view the top billing entitled under WP:WEIGHT and move on. We can used "proclaimed", we can use another modifier, the BBC guidelines or pretty much any other palatable suggestion that avoids opening the article with the single phrase the squabbling majority of nations agree is incorrect. Sol (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors have already explained they strongly oppose use of proclaimed. It is an unacceptable term with massive implications throughout this article and others. As the debate above shows. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
But the problem is that it doesn't really matter what editors object to when reliable sources use terms. It's not about us. If RS say something, we can say something and often we're obliged to by policy. Objections can't be raised on the basis that editors think reliable sources are wrong to use certain terms or that we know better than them. That's even the case for highly contentious terms e.g. WP:TERRORIST. Policy absolutely overrides concensus. What the reliable sources say absolutely overrides what editors say. So, if editors want to convince perfectly reasonable, policy minded people like Sol they will have to come up with arguments based on what sources say and do. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
We disagree on what is or is not in line with policy. We provide a note in the first sentence and a whole paragraph on the status of Jerusalem, which some of us believe was enough. The wording and "not internationally recognised" has now also been added to the first sentence. If that is not enough to get the globalise tag removed and editors are demanding even more radical changes which would make this article a joke, then the previous wording should be restored because we are back at square one. I only supported the compromise if it resolved this matter. The template suggests its not resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you're new to editing IP articles, otherwise you'd have seen that coming. I agree that the previous wording should be restored. The new wording doesn't bring us any closer to solving this issue and will only be used as a new starting point for more POV changes. Not to mention the note already included this information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If that globalize template still can not be removed despite the change that has taken place to the first sentence of this artice, then the previous long standing wording will need to be restored. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the problems with the article is how the entire article is written from an Israeli pov instead of a world view, so the tag removed from the first sentence does not fix the problems with the rest of the article, so there is no reason to remove it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Either the new wording is better or it isn't. The presence or absence of tag doesn't change that. For the record, I don't support the entire article having a globalize tag. The disputes aren't over the entire article. Given its size, approximately nothing in the article is disputed. There are a few very specific statements that are matters of dispute so if anything is going to be tagged it's better to just tag those specific things preferably with inline tags. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
How is the article not written from an Israeli pov? For example: Mayor, flag, coat of arms, infobox map, twin city, nickname, motto? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
How can you ask that after you failed to find alternative mayors, flags, coat of arms, etc? The POV here isn't these facts, it's your wanting there to be some alternative you can't find. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If you had read the discussions above you would see that there is a Palestinian mayor. The map can easily be fixed. And absence of other flags, coat of arms, twin city, nickname, motto etc doesn't make Israeli proclaimed symbols and other things legal or authoritative. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean the 10+ year old article that says that another article announced that a Palestinian mayor was proclaimed? Do you seriously consider that RS material appropriate for the article? We don't even know who made the proclamation. That was 10+ years ago. Who's the mayor right now? Also, what's the problem with the coat of arms, twin cities, etc? I mean other than the fact you don't like them? You are not a RS for what is legal or authoritative as I'm sure you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Dont misrepresent what I said, I never said that I didn't like them. It has to do with that these are Israeli proclaimed symbols, mayor, motto's, twin citys, Israeli centric map etc, and Jerusalem is not regarded as the capital of Jerusalem by the entire international community, its not even clear that any part of Jerusalem is accepted as part of Israel as all countries keep they're embassy's in Tel Aviv in Israel, therefore this article is written from an Israeli perspective, not a world perspective. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I understand, since 1967 there were at least two attempts to establish a shadow city council. None of them ended with a creation of a functioning body of any type. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As the user who inserted the POV-Statement tag in the first place, I feel that tag was appropriately used and it's removal is warranted once the discussion has ended (i.e. now). The tag is supposed to remain for the duration of the discussion to invite participation by other editors, see Template:POV-statement. I don't see an active discussion concerning any deficiencies associated with the global tag, so I'd presume it can be removed by any editor. --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Has the article been re written from an Israeli point of view to a world point of view? Until that happens, there is no reason to remove the global tag. It invites new people to edit the article to a worldview perspective. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The tag was rightly removed. There is never going to be consensus for "proclaimed mayor", "proclaimed flag" or "Israels flag" "Israels mayor" etc BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't know what will happen in the future, maybe someone will see the tag and can help to edit the article into a worldview, the article is still written from an Israeli point of view, is it not? So there was no reason to remove the global tag. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
BW, I'm not sure which policy you think you've been arguing from. My whole point with the "proclaimed" is from NPOV subsection WP:UNDUE, specifically the passages regarding "prominence of placement" and the weight given to majority vs. minority views. To use the well-worn example, we don't start the "Earth" article with the statement "The earth is flat but the international community has rejected this." Every country that's spoken on the matter rejects the Jerusalem Law/Israeli jurisdiction to declare Jerusalem the capital/Jerusalem as Israeli and the majority of news sources do not speak of it as the unmodified capital. So why should WP? The idea that footnoting somehow sidesteps the NPOV policy doesn't seem to have any basis in the guidelines. It's interesting how the "facts on the ground" strategy shapes discourse, i.e., "The seat of government is in Jerusalem so its the capital even if no one accepts this". If its explicitly rejected by everyone then that's the majority view and deserves treatment as such. Many thanks to sean for the compliments (little does he realize my true aim to have the article declare Baldwin the Leper King as true ruler of Jerusalem!). Sol (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't start the Earth article with "The earth is flat" because the word "flat" has a certain meaning which we know does not apply to the earth, whether the international community rejects this or not. According to your logic, if the UNGC had a vote that said the earth was in fact flat, we'd have to start the article with that. For the nth time, unless you can show that non-recognition makes a city not a capital, we should go with what the word "capital" actually means in English. The view that it is not recognized is currently represented (twice) in the very first sentence of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of if you accept the legality of the Jerusalem law and unilateral annexation. If you live in the 18th century then there is nothing wrong with it. If you'd like to learn why read the rest of the conversation. For more fun, look at a definition of "planet" and then look at why it doesn't apply to Pluto. Sol (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Whether I accept the legality of the Jerusalem law or not is irrelevant. The reader can draw his own conclusions from the WP:V information we present to them. Telling the reader that non-recognition means a city is not a capital without providing RS that say so does not meet WP:V standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a distortion of what I suggested and the situation. Surprise. I'd be fine with letting the reader decide for themselves something like "Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital but this has been rejected by the international community." That would be fine. Stating one side as fact and then presenting the views of the international community (as is currently), isn't. Sol (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
NNMNG, I believe that's a strawman argument. I don't recall anyone proposing to change the wording to say that Jerusalem isn't the capital. I for one am OK with the current wording as I wrote above. --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence is now fine, there is no need to make another alteration to that sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd love for this to be over and despise sounding like a broken record but a balanced first sentence doesn't state one side's opinion as a neutral fact; that was the cause of this debate and is still a violation of WP:NPOV even consensus couldn't overrule. "Jerusalem is considered by Israel to be its capital although that status is not internationally recognized." It's a variation of one of sean's older suggestions and it's policy compliant. This lets the reader decide. Sol (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is based on the arguments, not votes, there can not be a "consensus" that violates npov. The current lead violates npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's simply wrong. FromWikipedia:Consensus#What_consensus_is: "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken.". A major step has already been taken to revise a long standing consensus to move even further in the direction you're pushing for, but a clear majority supports this current wording. As NMMNG says, it seems your side is just using every new consensus as a basis from which to then push for even more concessions. Not going to happen. The lead currently states two facts: Jerusalem is the Capital, and the international community does not recognize it. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Why are you cherry picking from that policy? "All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." so: "capital of Israel" is a violation of npov due and undue weight [28]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You said it was not about a majority, and that is plainly wrong, based on policy which I quoted. There is no violation of NPOV here. Stonewalling, as you and Sol are doing, in order to get your way, may lead to both of you being sanctioned. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Friend, I think you're misreading the situation. This isn't stonewalling. Refusing to consider any change on the basis of "past consensus", rejecting compromises based on shifting your requirements and refusing to discuss based on a fictional consensus, these are stonewalling and (you might notice) pretty popular around here. The new wording is an improvement; that doesn't mean it's correct, the product of consensus or that it's set in stone. I've tried very sincerely to make policy arguments, assume good faith and explain the specifics of my rationale, even to editors who don't care to read the actual debate. I'm still trying to do that despite it being an essentially sisyphean task. You are countering with threats and rejections. If you want to take it before some tribunal, go for it. If they think logical and valid counterarguments have been offered and I'm wrong, so be it. We can continue this later. Sol (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


It should be added in the first sentence of the article that its "the proclaimed capital of Israel", per npov as it is not recognized as Israels capital by the entire world and east Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, please provide sources that state a country must have permission of other states for what they decide is their capital? This article clearly explains that the international community rejects its status, there is no POV issue provided that is explained, which it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The CIA world factbook [29] says Capital: name: Jerusalem. There is no need to change anything in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"Proclaimed" does not contradict if you believe its the capital of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
If East Jerusalem can say "East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian National Authority" clearly there is a problem with us just stating Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel. The CIA world factbook states it as fact, but includes a note that Israel proclaimed it as its capital, but foreign nations keep their embassies in Tel Aviv. We do the same, we state Jerusalem is the capital, because that is fact, but we include a note which clearly explains the situation in the same way that factbook does, although our note is in more detail and information is repeated throughout the article about Jerusalems status. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
One can always put disputed, which it is. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Well i would certainly rather it said disputed capital, than proclaimed capital. But we do go into detail about the status of Jerusalem in the note and in detail within the introduction itself. To put disputed there would still cause problems though. It would be a bit like starting the Northern Ireland article, "Northern Ireland is a disputed country that is part of the United Kingdom". An extremely controversial change that would never get consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
A note will do, like the one at the Israel article. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am agreeing with BritishWatcher, no change is needed now. There was already long talks about this in past, including one section above this one. Maybe this discussion should take place there instead split it into two discussion about same thing. No need to say proclaimed, because it is not just proclaimed, it is really the capital of Israel. So this is what article says. LibiBamizrach (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I concure with BritishWatcher as well, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairly simple answer. The Golan Heights are considered occupied by Israel but NOT PART OF Israel by any nation or organization in the entire world, and the wikipedia article reflects that because that is the neutral whole world point of view. The same applies to their proclaimed capital: Jerusalem. Not one country or one organization, save for the zionist government, recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Therefore for wikipedia to fail to clearly and positively reflect that FACT from the very begining establishes a fringe view as fact and is a violation of neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talkcontribs) 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be OK with "proclaimed". "Disputed" is a fresh idea, which while not perfect would in my opinion improve the wording. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not really "disputed" since no country in the world or organization recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. On the otherhand, almost every country in the world, and every major world political body (i.e.: United Nations) recognizes East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state but currently under military occupation by Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talkcontribs) 20:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on some of the comments above i believe there is going to be no consensus to change the status quo. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, the details of Jerusalems status are clearly explained in the introduction and in the notes along with the rest of the article. There is no need for any change. "proclaimed" in the first sentence is very problematic thanks to its identical use on the East Jerusalem page. This has been heavily debated before, and there has been no new information provided this time. I think the only solution is to wait for a resolution to the Middle East peace process. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Well consensus is built from discussions. In particular, I see there does appear to be a consensus at least in no opposition to "disputed". --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I see opposition to disputed. I for one oppose it. Several editors today and there have been many other editors in the previous debates support the status quo, there is no consensus to change this long standing wording for the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can issues not be rediscussed? Just because the peace process discussions fail once, does not mean every gives up and doesnt discuss the problem again. The same should apply here. I see most editors who have commented support the change, but only one or two voice opposition. I certainly would say that there appears to be some sort of consensus or at the very least steps moving towards consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talkcontribs) 20:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We are redicussing it now. There is no consensus for a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I could live with disputed, but proclaimed is better. Wikipedia entries come up within the top 10 listings of most google and yahoo searches, so information listed on Wikipedia must take great care to remain neutral and not take sides in political battles. So, not clearly defining the city as being "occupied", "proclaimed" or "disputed" from the very start, gives the zionist position legitamacy, when in fact Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talkcontribs) 20:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We are neutral. Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state. The introduction, a note after the first sentence and the article itself all explain Jerusalems status. There is no neutrality issue as long as that note and the other text remains. I would like to see sources that say a country must ask permission from other countries about what it decides is its capital city. The fact foreign powers dont place there embassies in Jerusalem, does not stop the city being Israels capital. We do not define a capital city because it has foreign embassies in it, generally (although not always) foreign embassies go to the capital. I should also point out, what about countries like Wales and Scotland. They have capitals (Cardiff and Edinburgh) which do not have international embassies and there is no official international recognition of them as capitals. They do not come with massive disclaimers. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
We do tend to define a country's cities by them actually being in the country. Only a footnote for the majority view is misleading and the foot note itself doesn't cover why other nations don't recognize Jerusalem. We've kept the "Cities in Israel" cat even thought that's not quite right. I'd settle for a lead sentence that says "Capital of Israel but a not an internationaly recognized part of the country" or something to that effect which might actually be a bit more accurate. Sol (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
But it is not only a footnote. There is a huge paragraph on this matter within the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true, in fact some countries and organizations do not even recognize that Jerusalem is even part of the Jewish State, let alone the capital. It is not neutral for Wikipedia to state point-blank that Jerusalem is the capital without a prominent qualifier stating the viewpoint of the whole world. A notation such as an asterisk is not sufficent and by outwardly presenting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Wikipedia is taking a political stance supported by the zionist regime but not that of the whole entire world. This is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talkcontribs) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The state of Israel may decide what its capital is, if needs permission from international organisations or nations i would like to see sources stating it is required. The fact other countries do not place their embassies in Jerusalem is in the introduction there is a whole section on it, its also in the note right in the first sentence and its within the article. We are not ignoring the international view, we detail it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I could live with disputed, but proclaimed is better. Wikipedia entries come up within the top 10 listings of most google and yahoo searches, so information listed on Wikipedia must take great care to remain neutral and not take sides in political battles. So, not clearly defining the city as being "occupied", "proclaimed" or "disputed" from the very start, gives the zionist position legitamacy, when in fact Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. The neutral term is to express the one supported by the whole wide world, not the one supported by one entity —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianKing (talkcontribs) 20:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole paragraph on the status of Jerusalem as capital in the introduction, and there is a note on it after the opening sentence. That is perfectly neutral. This is not about one side having the upper hand over the other, we are just stating fact. Talk of the "Zionist position" will not help resolve this. The present wording has remained in the article for a very long time, theres a huge archive of all the debates. There is never consensus to change it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem's status as contested property is [WP:LEAD] worthy. If something is worth a subsection it's definitely worth mentioning in the lead. We can avoid the problem of "proclaimed" etc with a sentence: "Jerusalem's ownership is still disputed (by the international community)" "The annexation of Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized." Or any combination thereof. It's true, neutral, avoids the wordgames and relates directly to a subsection. Sol (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is in the lead. There is a whole paragraph in the introduction of this article that goes in to extreme detail about the matter.
Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Israel annexed East Jerusalem and considers it a part of Israel, although this has been repeatedly criticized by the United Nations and related bodies.[12][13] Placing most foreign embassies in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem, the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.[14][15] Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.[16][17] Israel, however, considers the entire city to be a part of Israel following its annexation of East Jerusalem through the Jerusalem Law of 1980.
The information is provided in great detail. However until someone provides a source showing a country needs permission from the international community to decide what its capital is, there is absolutely no justification for additional wording to the first sentence or any need for changes to the first paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea "The annexation of Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized." . It s a fair and intelligent way to avoid edits war and the most important for the reader, introduce in the lead the next paragraph which deal with the complex history of the city. --Helmoony (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That is already covered in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats not satisfactory. It must specifically state "proclaimed" or "disputed" or some other direct qualifier. To state otherwise is misleading the reader and flys in the face of the entire world view. SyrianKing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

BritishWatcher, please see my comment in the earlier thread, timestamped 20:00, 27 September. You say that you oppose "disputed". Could you explain why you oppose it? If you present your view in terms of wikipedia policies it makes discussion easier. In detail, that you feel something is a fact, that something has been that way for a long time or that other wikipedia pages say something are not policy-based arguments as far as I can tell. --Dailycare (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well i gave an example above. The status of Northern Ireland is disputed, there is no official international recognition of Northern Irelands capital (or other UK capitals for that matter except London). We would not start the first sentence on those articles as.. ***** is the unrecognised capital of ****** or ***** is the disputed capital of ******. Until those demanding change provide evidence that shows a country does not have the right to declare its own capital, i fail to see the problem. There is a note explaining the status is disputed within the first sentence. There is an entire paragraph in the introduction explaining the status of Jerusalem in detail. There is plenty of mentions of it within the article itself. We give plenty of Weight to fact the status of Jerusalem is disputed. There is clearly going to be no consensus for a change to the first sentences of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
SyrianKing, please provide a source that states a country needs permission by the international community to decide what its capital city is. The introduction mentions very clearly in a full paragraph the status of Jerusalem, we are not trying to mislead anyone here. There is also a note in the first sentence linking to the note explaining it in detail. It is hard to miss! So the introduction covers it, a note linked in the first sentence covers it, the article text covers it. We give plenty of weight to the fact that the status is disputed. There is no justification and no new information has been provided to show why we must change the first sentence of this article, which has existed for a long time and been debated endlessly with no consensus to change it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You keep coming back to this idea that people are arguing that the international community gets to tell Israel where their capital is. They don't. But they do get to legitimate annexations. That's the problem. I'm trying to work something into the lead that expresses both of the ideas. The lead section leaves out the tiny detail that this city is not recognized as a part of Israel. That's massive. By including it we can leave the "Jerusalem as capital" sentence unchanged while still recognizing the politically unique situation of the city. The footnote is awkward. It's not that the information would be confusing or difficult to work into the section (per WP:FNNR). We can get the jist of it in one sentence while explaining that it's not a rejection of Israel's ability to name its capital but an overlapping territorial issue. Sol (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The lead = the whole introduction. There is a detailed paragraph i posted above that is in the introduction and explains all this. There is a controversy over the status of Jerusalem, this is rightly mentioned in the introduction and to fail to do so would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. However there is no policy that says we must state in the first sentence other sovereign states reject its status as a capital. No evidence has been provided that shows a country needs permission from the international community or its recognition. The first sentence includes a link to a detailed note. The issue of the first sentence describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has been this way for years. Long before i arrived in the debate. I did not decide on the wording, but i agree with it and see no reason or justification for changing it. Some others appear to feel the same way, i can not see there being consensus for a change to this introductions first paragraph. Also i mentioned previously the CIA world factbook, that does what we do. It states Jerusalem is the capital, but it includes a note. It does not say "Capital: name - proclaimed Jerusalem". BritishWatcher (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The CIA have their style guidelines and we have ours. There's consensus in the past and consensus can change. The frequency with which this headache topic comes up is a good sign that the wording might need some tweaking. The reason for placing the suggested sentence near the beginning is because it's very easy to be mislead into thinking that Jerusalem's status is a done deal. I certainly thought so until I did some recent background reading. It's in the "Cities in Israel" cat, it's listed as the "Capital of Israel", it has the Israeli version of its flag in place; I want those to stay. But it needs to be very clear that this isn't just another city in Israel. Hence the suggestion. We could go back to the "disputed/claimed" line of thinking if that's more acceptable to you. If you have any sort of possible compromise you'd accept please let me know. Sol (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The present wording has been in the article for years, i fail to see anything new that justifies change. I do not think a compromise on this matter is possible as i cant see that consensus has changed, the number of people requesting change now is probably the same level as in the past. Whilst only a few other editors have so far commented, plenty of others would pile in if it looked like the wording was about to be changed. I believe the article explains in detail Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the fact its status is not recognised by other members of the international community. As for being misled, provided people read the introduction, or the note, or the information within the article they will not be misled. We do not have to include everything in the first paragraph. I also think if we did change the first sentence, to include a term like disputed or proclaimed we would get regular requests for its removal by the other side. The fact its remained for years despite regular debates highlights it continues to have support. One compromise i would be prepared to support if it resolved the problem is to change the [iii] after the sentence saying Jerusalem is the capital, to state [note], so it stands out more easily. I dont think that is necessary, but its a change id have no objection to if it eases concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered that editors being unable to see a reason or justification for changing it is part of the problem ? Appeals to the persistence of subjective beliefs and the consistency with which people's bias in information processing manifests itself over time are hardly convincing arguments. Citing what the CIA factbook says is like citing what Britannica says, which is to say "Capital (proclaimed) Jerusalem; the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition". So, which is it ? That single source should be enough to make editors who are unable to see a reason or justification for changing the lead realise that there is a mismatch between the simplistic slogan 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' and what sources have to say on the matter when they need to use very few words. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Or let's look at another CIA source, File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map .jpg, which says "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the United States, like nearly all other countries, retains its Embassy in Tel Aviv". Again, we see the use of the entirely uncontroversial word "proclaimed" by an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Whilst the Palestine article is able to use exactly the same term about Jerusalem being its proclaimed capital, there is absolutely no way id be prepared to support a change to using that term, even if i accepted the principle of changing the introduction, which i do not, it could not possibly use the same term as Palestines proclamation in its article. The situations are so very different, use of the same word is highly problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
We've been over this: past arguments were predicated on the idea that either Tel Aviv should be called the capital (which would be patently silly) and/or did not address the territorial status of Jerusalem as not part of Israel. The Palestinian and Israeli relations to Jerusalem are different (one actually has control of the city) but the basic claims are the same. I don't understand flat-out rejecting using similar wording for similar claims. The issue of imperfect title to Jerusalem deserves high visibility to balance the overwhelming amount of other information leading readers to think that the city is Israeli owned. A footnote is not sufficient and the information does not meet the criteria for content displayed thus. In fact, the footnote makes it sound like the international community is rejecting Israel's ability to declare a capital. That's not correct. If we stick with "Jerusalem as capital" with no modifiers we have to change the footnote to reflect the actual position, the rejection of anyone's ownership of Jerusalem pending negotiations. Currently it's illogical. And as the information does not belong in a footnote it needs to be placed in the lead for reasons given above. Sol (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Past debates on this have not just been focused on a Tel Aviv vs Jerusalem. Wording has also been debated. The fact one is in complete control of the city and uses it as its capital is a significant difference to the Palestinian "proclaimed capital" which is under the control of another sovereign state. The footnote addresses concerns about the first sentence. There is a whole paragraph in the introduction which details the status of Jerusalem, if that paragraph was not there i could understand these concerns. As for the note, i have no problem at all agreeing to some changes to that if they are needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the fact that both Britannica and the CIA say "proclaimed", I believe is enough for that Wikipedia also should say that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For interest, Britannica for kids says "Israel claims the city as its capital. However, the Palestinians have protested that claim." Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, we do not have to copy those two. Besides, the CIA world Factbook says Capital - Name - Jerusalem. At the bottom of the capital section it includes a note. That is what we do. We say Jerusalem is the capital, and include a note. They do not say Capital Name - proclaimed Jerusalem or disputed Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
As for Britannica, despite its lovely name i am not very impressed with their online material which i find a complete nightmare to navigate. Could you give me a link to their page on Jerusalem which says proclaimed? Because all i can see is the one mentioned by Sean. But just because Britannica says something does not mean we must. For example wikipedias article on Scotland states it is a country, Britannica makes no such statement. If you can convince the editors of Scotland that it is not a country because Britannica doesnt say it, then i will drop my opposition to a change to this introduction and support any of your proposals here. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No matter i see the Capital proclaimed is on the Israel page. The Palestine article on Britannica makes no mention of Jerusalem being its proclaimed capital, should we delete all mention of it from Palestine? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Having worked in Aberdeen I'm going to say Scotland is not a country from the safe position of several thousand kilometres away... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
lol the Tartan Army do not mind travelling long distances. But you have to think of the locals too, you dont want to spark a small riot. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Careful, sean, the Black Watch is always watching!!! Back on topic, if we have reliable sources saying "proclaimed", doesn't that meet the criteria for inclusions? It's certainly notable, it's well sourced and it matches the view of every country on earth save one. And the footnote just isn't going to cut it one way or the other for the previously given reasons. We can add in "proclaimed" or we can add in the suggested sentence. If you have a policy based argument beyond "we can't treat them equally just because reliable sources do" I am all ears. Sol (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you take a look in the article East Jerusalem you ll see in the introduction < East Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of the Palestinian National Authority[1] although Ramallah serves as the administrative capital. > but in this article its said < Jerusalem is the capital[iii] of Israel >, with no precision such as the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.[14][15] or something like foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv and none in Jerusalem. Are we in the same encyclopedia?

Of course no one has to ask Israelis what capital to choose, but how many Capitals we know that are not recognized internationally ? Probably none.. So it s a relevant information to know from the lead that although Israelis have chosen their capital, quite none except their self recognize it. The name of the article is Jerusalem not Israel. It makes the information relevant in the lead and not in the footnote. --Helmoony (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

People keep on mentioning this needs to be mentioned in the lead. Can i just confirm that everybody has seen that there is an entire paragraph on the status of Jerusalem in the introduction? To not mention the status of Jerusalem in the introduction would clearly be a violation of WP:NPOV. But there is nothing that says it must be mentioned in the first sentence or the first paragraph of the introduction. Simply saying Israel is the capital of Jerusalem with the note has been the start of this introduction for years. No new arguments have been put forward to justify change. Unles a country needs permission from the international community to decide what city is its capital, there is no reason why it must be mentioned in the first sentence or paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So if a palestinain state is proclaimed. And if the palestinain law will say that the Est part of Jerusalem is the capital of the state, then the sentence will change because that palestinian state doesn t need permission from the international community to decide what city is its capital? if yes? It's Ok for me, I understand what you mean. --Helmoony (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If a Palestinian state is in control of East Jerusalem and it declares it the capital of their country, then the introduction may state that in the way this article does. I have no problem with that all. The only neutrality issue is to be sure we include in the introduction the status, we do that.. there is a whole paragraph here. It is control of the territory that makes the two situations very different. Legality or international recognition by where they put their embassy is minor compared to one state (or entity) proclaiming someone elses controlled territory as their capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Britishwatcher, if I understood correctly you don't have a policy-based reason for opposing "disputed". An argument based on what another wiki page says fails since wikipedia isn't a source, and in this case also since the other page named discusses a different topic. Concerning your other point, you don't mention any sources for your claims. However even if you did, it wouldn't change the fact that a significant portion of the best sources present the issue as a dispute, which is what we should to here, too, and do so in neutral terms without taking sides. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no policy based reason for us having to include the fact the international community keeps its embassies in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem in the first sentence of the introduction. To comply with WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD we must of course state clearly the status of the city, we do that. There is a whole paragraph in the introduction, there is a note in the first sentence and it is stated very clearly throughout the article. This article has not been violating wikipedia policies for the past few years whilst the first sentence has remained the same. No new reasons have been provided to require change. There is no consensus for change. The status quo there for should stand. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets see here. There are numerous countries and major international organizations that recognize East Jerusalem as the Capitol of or Future capitol of Palestine. How many countries recognize Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel? None. Zero. Zilch. Heck, how many countries even recognize the legitimacy of Israeli control of the land Jerusalem occupies? None. Sifar. Nein. Nada.

Not even their staunchest ally, the United States, recognizes that Jerusalem is the Capitol of Israel or that the Jewish State has a legitimate claim to the land upon which Jerusalem sits.

BritishWalker, you are beating a dead horse. Reliable sources, the entire international community, the United Nations, and even the United States all currently say that Jerusalem is not the Capitol.

What makes or breaks a country is its international recognition, otherwise you are left with just words. I could declare the pasture land my cattle live on as being the resurrection of the United Arab Republic, but unless members of the international community recognize it as such then all I have is a field of grass. I could raise a flag on it declaring its independence, but that still wouldn't make it a independent nation. The same is for Jerusalem. The zionist government can call Jerusalem whatever they want, but that does not make it so. In the end, it is and a city whose occupation and status is questionable at best.

Wikipedia must represent a neutral, reliably sourced, world wide view; right now it fails to do that. SyrianKing (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, this isn't about embassies. That's a separate issue. This is about who owns Jerusalem. The footnote doesn't follow the policy on them. No where in the article does it state that Israel's ownership of Jerusalem is not accepted. The closest it gets is "The United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital,". That's not the full explanation, they don't recognize it as Israeli-owned and that non-recognition is why they don't recognize it as the capital. That's a big difference. If there's confusion over what's being suggested we can move to WP:BRD but this stonewalling isn't constructive. Sol (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I read WP:BRD and have made the change based on it and the above suggestion by Sol Goldstone. Stonewalling by a small minority of editors and their POV is not resolving the situation. SyrianKing (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You've implemented the 'B' part of WP:BRD, and I've just done the 'R', as I see no consensus for making this bold change. Now discuss. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HupHup for your edit. You seem to be following my edits in rapid succession, almost as if hounding me. SyrianKing (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRNC A consensus version of this article doesn't exist at the moment. You made the change, let's hear the reasons. Sol (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
One, you have the chronology wrong. The long standing consensus did not have the "proclaimed" qualifier in it - SK added it, without consensus - He/She needs to give the reasons. Two, WP:DRNC is an essay, someone's personal opinion, it has exactly the same weight as an argument that says "because I say so", even though it may be dressed up with fancy wikipedia acronyms.HupHollandHup (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

HupHollandHup is following my contributions list and reverting every edit I make in rapid succession. There certainly must be some rule against this. SyrianKing (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, HupHollandHup, for your constructive voice in the matter. The essay is expanding on a specific section of the Consensus policy. If you would like to be helpful you can discuss your reasons. And there isn't current agreement on the article, hence why we are here. SK, what you might be thinking of is WP:HOUND but it could simply be a matter of common interests and different views. Sol (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The essay, whatever it is expanding on, is doing so as a personal opinion of an editor. It has no weight comparable to the wikipedia policy it is supposedly expounding on, and is, just like I wrote above, equivalent to saying 'because I think so'. There are many examples of essays that are diametrically opposed to one another, and if you think so highly of essays - here is one for you: WP:EANP. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
How adorable. I must have missed the large disclaimer at the beginning. WP:CONS I'll let you find the relevant section. If you want to be constructive, tell us the why of the revert. You don't have to but that doesn't actually help anyone. If you'd like to continue fighting over this or leave me more gifts please keep it to user talk pages. Sol (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've already told you why - there was a long standing consensus, which was changed with a BOLD edit that falsely claimed a consensus exists for the change. No such consensus exits. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think appeals to a long standing consensus are going to really help resolve this issue. They haven't in the past. There isn't a long standing consensus and even if there were, it's reasonable to say that it would be irrelevant in this case per WP:CCC because editors have raised legitimate, policy compliant concerns based on reliable sources in good faith. There are some small but significant mismatchs between what we say and what sources say. Maybe a change isn't necessary, maybe it is, but there's no avoiding addressing these mismatchs properly using policy based arguments. Even if editors go away, the sources and wiki policies aren't going anywhere. Consensus decisions have to be policy compliant after all so at some point this issue has to be resolved to the satisfaction of sensible editors who have raised policy compliant concerns (and have completed the mandatory deprogramming course required for all editors who wish to edit in the I-P conflict area...okay, I made that bit up). Apparently that is not the case at the moment. Any content change is likely to be tiny word-wise but significant policy compliance-wise. Even if we could just ensure that this issue is dealt with consistently across related articles it would be an improvement. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yall people have to understand something. This is not going to change. You will never establish a consensus to change this. I think it may be possible, maybe even likely, that even if a country named Palestine takes full control of the entire city of Jerusalem that this article will still say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (though it may say "Jerusalem is the capital of occupied Israel"). Just give up. No matter what argument you bring, whether it be garbage or brilliant, "policy compliant" or made up nonsense, there are enough editors who will emphatically and unequivocally oppose any change to the article that you will never establish a consensus to change the article. Never. Ever. Ever. There is no point to this and if anybody is interested in improving the coverage of Israel and Palestine there are many more important things you should spend your time on. nableezy - 05:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like "proclaimed" because it implies that it's not the real capital. There are obviously subjective issues, like whether or not Jerusalem is legally part of Israel or not, but there's also important objective considerations, like the fact that Jerusalem actually functions as Israel's capital - it's where parliament, most government ministries, and the Supreme Court are located. Saying it's just the "proclaimed capital" implies a situation where its status as capital is purely titular. I wouldn't object to saying it's the "proclaimed and de facto capital." john k (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I still strongly oppose any alteration to this articles first sentence, the present wording which has stood for years should remain the same. At the very least before anyone makes a change to the intro there should be agreement here and it should have been agreed to over a few days to ensure other editors have a chance to join the debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, that isn't a policy-based objection either. Or if there is a policy according to which long-standing content shouldn't be changed, please let me know. In your earlier comment you mention WP:NPOV, and I agree that we should clearly state what the status of the city is. That is, that Israel claims it's the capital but the rest of the world rejects that. --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The introduction goes into full detail about the status of Jerusalem. This articles introduction does not violate wikipedia policies. The first sentence about it being the capital of Israel has been the same for years. No change is justified or needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't go into full detail. The footnote isn't policy compliant. The information proposed is well sourced, NPOV, notable and true. A lot of editors disagree with you about it being ok as is. I'll work on it this evening. Sol (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The introduction is fully policy compliant. It is not just the footnote in the first sentence but the fact there is a whole paragraph on the status in the introduction. I wouldnt object to the status paragraph being moved up slightly if it resolved concerns, although i think the present flows well. A lot of editors also agree with me, there is certainly no consensus for the first sentence to be changed. If it is changed without agreement here the status quo must be restored which has been in the article for years. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually i take that back, i would object to the paragraphs being rearranged, because at present it makes sense to deal with history and then the status of the city today. I just would not be as opposed to such a change as i am to these proposed alterations to the first sentence/paragraph of this introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I only see you making the case to not change the lead paragraph to the correct, neutrally worded, entire-world-supported version that states: "proclaimed capitol". HupHollandHup did not give a reason as to keep the current biased Israel POV version except to cite some sort of "past consensus" that myself and others have agreed never really existed. In light of that fact, unless you can present a compelling reason to not make the change or others come forward with valid reasons to keep the Israeli biased version, the change will need to be made. SyrianKing (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Two editors above said they agreed with me and i am confident if i had not wasted my time debating this matter with you all over the past couple of days, others would have stepped in. As i said before, this matter has come up many times in the past (this is the first time ive been involved i think, so ive dedicated a reasonable amount to it), but nothing has changed. There is no need to change the first sentence. This article does not violate wikipedia policies and has not done. If it did do you honestly think it could have kept the same first sentence for atleast 3 years? You need consensus to change the status quo. It is clear at present that consensus does not exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that there is clearly disagreement here, so the pov tag added by Dailycare is correct.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording has been in the article for over 3 years. Daily himself held a RFC on it but clearly was not satisfied with the result. The consensus is despite a couple of vocal editors here the current introduction is neutral. And no evidence has been provided to show this is not the case. If the introduction did not clearly state the status of Jerusalem, it would be a problem. But it goes into huge detail about the matter. There is also a note in the first sentence to ensure its covered. We should not mess the article up with tags just because some editors here can not get agreement to make controversial changes to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you disagree with that there is a large portion of editors here who disagree with that it is the capital of Israel? (besides reality, in which no country on earth see it as Israels capital), this disagreement is enough to at least have the pov tag. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I see a small number of editors who are demanding change to a sentence that has been debated for years and has remained in the article. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is fact. There is no consensus to change the introduction, Dailycare has for some time been trying to change the first sentence, there has been no support for it. I dont mind us debating this matter endless on the talkpage, but the article itself should not be messed up with tags that are not accurate or needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources that state a country needs permission from the international community to declare its own capital? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has to. We have to provide reliable sources saying it, which has been done in spades. I've suggested a compromise where we sidestep the issue with a sentence on the territorial claims. You don't like that either. Leading the article with a viewpoint unique to one country is prima facie NPOV; you and other editors disagree, hence the tag. And we need to deal with "In Israel" cats at some point if everyone hasn't smashed their computers after this is over =X Sol (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact the status of Jerusalem is disputed is why there is a note in the first sentence and infobox along with an entire paragraph in the introduction explaining the situation, if we did not mention this within the introduction or article of course there would be a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And what is this about the cats? Jerusalem is not allowed to be stated as in Israel in categories now as well? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This discussion or debate has been perennial, with editors old and new always trying to "resolve this issue", or (perhaps more to the point) making an issue of it. The discussion inevitably comes up against the same realities: 1. Countries designate their own capitals, whether or not "the world" approves. 2. By the dictionary definition, the official seat of government is the capital. No one has shown these to be other than objective (NPOV) statements. WP policy does not call for editors to rewrite the dictionary. As Jerusalem meets both of the criteria, it simply is the capital (without modifiers like "proclaimed"). Despite that, the article devotes considerable space to the controversy. I am glad to see that some editors here recognize the important difference between a functional capital and an aspirational one. The existing wording and structure of the lead already represent a compromise carefully crafted through lengthy discussions. I see nothing new presented to justify altering the status quo, even to the extent of tagging the lead. All capitals are proclaimed. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not have access to the State Department, the UN, or the CIA's dictionaries. All I know is what these sources say. I don't get to make the call. If the world calls it a proclaimed capital and WP does not you can guarantee that this issue will spring up once a month from now until the Internet is banned in the 2nd Robonixon Administration. I've proposed a solution of stressing that the rejection of the capital is not based on any explicit power of the international community to do such but on the underlying issue of Jerusalem's ownership. That would allow us to keep the wording as, delete the footnote and add a short sentence to the lead, maybe tweak the "Political Status" section a bit. It's more complicated than "proclaimed" but it's an alternative.
Britwatcher: sure, I figure I'd raise the issue since we are tackling all of the thorny bits. If you take territory by force and annex it it's not yours as both of those are illegal under international law (this portrayal is the subject of much debate). If enough people recognize it anyways, it's yours. Territorial sovereignty isn't achieved by unilateral proclamation or exercise of force, other people have to agree it's yours. Hence why South Korea is on maps and not called "Occupied North Korea" or whatever the current party line is. That's the quick and dirty summary and an argument a lot of Foreign Ministers accept. So for Jerusalem not many, if any, countries recognize its annexation, they think it should be an international city per the UN or worked out by the two sides. Hence why neither of our countries' consulates' addresses have an "Israel" after "Jerusalem": to them, no one has sovereign rights to Jerusalem. That's part of the reason so few countries had to withdraw their embassies from Jerusalem after the SC resolution telling them to, because no one was actually there to begin with on the basis that it isn't Israeli. And that is also why they consider it "proclaimed" and why you have people arguing that the Palestinians should also get equal billing on the lead; if they both have the same claims then they should be treated equally. So no one's really recognized it as Israel's and legitimized the annexation. I'd prefer to keep it in the Israel Cats if for no other reason than it's simpler (not a strong argument, but meh) but that's the background on the capital issue and why you'll see cat changes pop up from time to time. Holy wall of text, Batman! Sol (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
But the CIA world factbook does not put "proclaimed" before Jerusalem. It includes a note explaining it, just like we include a note here, it simply says Capital - Name: Jerusalem. They then go on to mention geographic coordinates , time difference and daylight saving time before including the note on Jerusalem status [30]. A country is able to select its own capital which it is in control of, the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is clearly far different to the claim Palestinians have which has no control over the territory. There is nothing incorrect about "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This is clearly fact, if it is not fact then what is the capital? i totally oppose the idea of adding wording like "proclaimed" or claimed to the first sentence. I do not believe any change is needed and i cant see consensus for a change but would "Israel is the declared [iii] capital of Israel" resolve this? You mention the categories, but that is just the start, even if people become satisfied with the introduction, demands will then shift to controversial alterations to matters relating to Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"A country is able to select its own capital which it is in control of, the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is clearly far different to the claim Palestinians have which has no control over the territory." And that is the heart of the matter. The international community disagrees, claiming that Israel cannot unilaterally change the status of the city (UNSCR 478) and/or, similarly, don't own the city (nicely supported here). Whether or not they are right to do so is up for grabs but that's the majority view. Even if the majority view is unreasonable or flawed in various ways it still gets top billing in articles. How about we use proclaim in the lead and footnote the Israeli view? I think that's still a misuse of footnotes but at least it's not violating undue weight. If you want to include bits about how the international community is wrong to not recognize it as the capital then that seems fine but I don't think we can argue on talk pages about it being wrong and come to our own conclusion on the matter. If you accept that Jerusalem isn't sovereign Israeli territory then you simply cannot recognize the laws declaring it the capital while ignoring the lack of jurisdiction. No one recognizes those laws. Sol (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't accept that Jerusalem, at least the Western part, isn't sovereign Israeli territory, and I suspect that this position is a rather minority one. We note in the article, at length, that the international community does not recognize the annexation, but that does not change the fact that Jerusalem is the capital. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to agree that it's not worth using that approach by virtue of most nations remaining silent on the topic. The ones that do mention sovereignty reject it (UK+US+ our non-government pals the UN) and the rejection of the capital designation makes no sense unless a country either a)thinks it can nullify Israeli domestic laws it doesn't like (bizarre) or b)doesn't accept Israeli jurisdiction over the whole area (some sources argue this so it's supportable but still not as strong). I'm not quite comfortable with it though. What about using "internationally unrecognized" instead of "proclaimed"? It fits Britwatchers criteria of not matching the Palestinian claim, acknowledges the views of the world while avoiding legal jargon with possible secondary/unwanted implications. Sol (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I can not support "internationally unrecognised". That may be different, but its horrible wording to put in the first sentence of an article. These are very radical changes to an articles first sentence which has lasted over 3 years, im also concerned about the implications a change in this first sentence will have on other articles. As soon as you add what ever term here like "proclaimed", certain editors will be demanding that term is used everywhere the capital is mentioned in other articles, it could have a big knock on effect. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed and i note the wording that comes on after saying it is the capital of Israel, " and, if including the area and population of East Jerusalem," the fact it says "If" there highlights there is a difference between Eastern Jerusalem and West Jerusalem. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I cant accept the term "proclaimed", the fact it can be used in exactly the same way to describe Palestines proclaimed capital is clearly problematic. Things do not need international recognition to be stated as fact. It is Israels capital, the sovereign state has decided to use it as their capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we have get past that because it's not about what we can accept, it's about what the sources say. While I share Nableezy's cynicism on this issue to some extent I think it is possible to find agreement. The issue isn't anything to get excited or defensive about. We aren't talking about new information or dramatic changes. The information is already present in the lead, the footnote, other articles. This is about minor adjustments and moving things around to improve NPOV and due weight. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is consistent with tonnes of sources. I don't see a policy based reason to change that statement but it's not enough by itself. It needs something right next to it to tell the rest of the story. Something like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." + "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950..or was it 1949" (like the CIA source, File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map .jpg and the Political status part of this article) and then something short and to the point about "the international community does not recognize etc" or something similar to what is already in the lead but needs moving up. To me, something like that is all that is required. It doesn't seem controversial, it's easily sourced and it's based on what is already in the article. I confess to not understanding the fuss over the word proclaimed especially if it is preceeded by "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". It's used by sources and it's already in the article. Perhaps I'm missing something. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"proclaimed" does not define the situation clearly enough, the fact it can be used for the Palestine article saying the same thing highlights this. I have far less of a problem with adding on something to the sentence or a second sentence, than i do about adding wording like "proclaimed" before capital. But its far from clear there will be consensus for any form of change to this. The fact it has been debated so many times in the past and still kept highlights this. I dont accept there is a problem with the current wording, i dont see how it could have lasted over 3 years basically unchanged if it was unacceptable and a violation of policies, especially as there has been several RFCs on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think your proposal - "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" + "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1949"+"the international community does not recognize it" could be workable, provided we correspondingly reduce the current paragraph in the lead that discusses the political status, so as not to allocate undue weight to this point. 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, a bit of the status paragraph in the introduction may have to be removed to avoid repetition. "Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel" is a little short for a first sentence though, id still rather "proclaimed" be avoided after the capital bit too. If its going to be in a second sentence or at the end of the first, could it not be "declared" or mention the legal declaration of its status then go on to say although this is disputed. We should not go into too much detail as international recognition will have to still be explained in the status paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
How about this: let's not discuss the capital issue in the first sentence(s) at all. Later on, we can say "internationally unrecognized capital". Saying upfront "Jerusalem is the capital is Israel" is wrong for reasons already discussed above, timestamp 20:00, 27 September. --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not. If the present introduction is to be changed the first sentence should still read "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", then go on to explain its international recognition. And this is part of the problem with even considering a compromise along the lines Sean has suggested. Will it satisfy Dailycare and others, along with the IPs and fresh accounts that always come along to this article and repleace Israel with Palestine. If adding on an extra sentence is not going to deal with that, then there is little point in us changing the present wording at all. If we did something along the lines Sean suggested, do we think people will still demand the disputed tag remain? or endlessly challenge it again as there has been repeated debates on the current wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable. Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel according to every nation and source. It must say proclaimed or disputed.

It should also be mentioned in the first paragraph that Jerusalem, or East Jerusalem is the internationally recognized capitol of the future palestinian state.

Both are important facts that have numerous reliable sources and should be clearly stated for the reader in the first paragraph. Bulgarwheat (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well we agree on one thing, Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel. It is in fact the capital of Israel though and plenty of sources showing this exist. Why exactly must disputed or proclaimed be used before mentioning capital? If your concern is neutrality which i do not accept is a problem, then surely saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. In 1949 Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital but the international community does not recognise its status." would solve that problem? This is why i dont think any change is needed, because the regulars and SPAs will still not be happy and demand more change which is not justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, I think we can take some ideas from other wikipedias. I was wondering how this article is treated in other wikis. Take a look at the French Wiki < Jerusalem... is a city of Middle Est. Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its -eternal Capital - since 1949, designation that is not recognized by any member of the international community. The plestinian authority hopes by its side to make Est Jerusalam ( considered by UN as an occupied territory )the capital of a future palestinian state.> But I don t know how to create a beautiful introduction with all that stuff... We can say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel since its declaration in 1949 but none of the international community has recognized it... what do you think ? By the way, I think that the first sentence must end with is a city of middle east. That help us to introduce the second sentence -the most discussed- clearly. --Helmoony (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Id be prepared to support (if it resolves this dispute and editors are prepared to defend the wording in future) : "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized. When including East Jerusalem, its Israel's largest city[1] in both population and area,[2] with a population of 763,800 residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[3][4][iv] Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond the boundaries of the Old City. That would address those with genuine concerns about the introduction and also mean we dont have to start removing bits from the paragraph on status which flows well. Although i still do not think a change is needed when there is a whole paragraph on this, especially as it appears some will still not be happy even if we compromised with wording like that and when this has been the wording for 3 years, most of that time i presume without tags claiming its not neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I object BritishWatchers unneutral suggestion as it suggests that the city is the capital of Israel. This is enough and neutral for an introduction: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East. Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, but this is not recognized by any member of the international community. The Palestinian authority hopes to make East Jerusalem (considered by UN as an occupied territory)the capital of a future palestinian state." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How is that not neutral? That proposal states a fact, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but the international community doesnt recognise that. My wording should completely address your concern.. but oh no, even that major compromise on the present wording is not enough which is why ive said from the start i didnt think a change was needed, when its obvious some wouldnt accept any reasonable compromse. The Palestinian state bit belongs in the status paragraph and oh look its there. Some potential future use of Jerusalem is not as important as the fact its the capital of Israel and the size/main information about its location. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe to you it is a "fact" that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", but not to the entire international community. Why create our own "wiki reality" here? We can ad "proclaimed" or "unrecognized" before, which doesn't contradict if you believe its the capital of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It is fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that it has not been internationally recognised. So i do not see how you can object to the proposed wording i said. It addresses the claimed "Neutrality concerns" people have. If Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, what is? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok guys, let s work step by step to find a compromise. Is there any objection to change the first sentence in < Jerusalem ... is a city in the Middle East. > Then the second one will begin like this < It is the capital ... > or < Jeruslame is the capital ... >. Can we work step by step ? --Helmoony (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If it brings about stability and editors who oppose the present wording are prepared to defend such a change, id accept: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East and the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized." Or "although its status has not been internationally recognized". BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, in my previous suggestion we can remove the last part so: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East. Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, but this is not recognized by any member of the international community." do you accept this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No i strongly oppose that. All that tells me is Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, it does not tell me it is infact Israels capital, serving as their seat of power like other country's capitals do. The fact the East Jerusalm article can say Palestinians have proclaimed it their capital too, shows that is simply not good enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but jerusalem is not the capital according to all reliable sources. Israeli and Jewish sources are not reliable in this instance because naturally they would push a pro israel pov. Bulgarwheat (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The CIA world factbook, a source used for a huge amount of information on wikipedia, says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm really impressed that this current discussion has been going on for almost two months now and without an edit war :P Nice. Hmm, looks like we are getting somewhere . . .maybe! I'm tempted by the version of Sean's suggestion BW has offered but we still have the minority view "Israel is the capital" and then the majority explanation as opposed to "Israel is the proclaimed capital" and then the minority explanation. I propose we all adjourn to the pub and come back after 2-11 pints when we are at our best. Sol (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the international community does not recognise this fact. If we have to change this introduction it seems like a reasonable compromise. I still continue to strongly oppose "Israel is the proclaimed capital". That is highly problematic and an extremely controversial alteration to long standing wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that the majority view does not see Israel as the capital but BW wants the recognition that it has the seat of power what about "Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government but it is not internationally recognized as the capital." That fulfills both of those requirements and now the footnote makes sense as it's directly expanding on the information it's linked to instead of containing introducing new facts. Sol (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I strongly oppose changing the wording to that. I have suggested a compromise that addresses the claimed concern about the sentence, but oh no.. its not enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sol Goldstones suggestion is good. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If you think changing "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to ""Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government but it is not internationally recognized as the capital" will satisfy many editors who have supported and continue to support the status quo then you are having a laugh. If a reasonable compromise is not possible then the status quo which has lasted for 3 years should remain. Id rather that silly tag remain in the article than change it to an awful sentence like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If the choice is between a sentence that is not true for 99.5% of the world and a sentence that is slightly awkward I think we go for the slightly awkward sentence. You objected on the grounds that SD's wording didn't tell you that the seat of power was in Jerusalem. This does while still sticking to the majority view that it's not the capital. The problem with saying "Jerusalem is the capital" is that the UN and the member nations have rejected any laws passed by Israel changing the status of the area and the Jerusalem Law explicitly. To say "Jerusalem is the capital" is to say "we are going to legitimize something the rest of the world rejects" It sure looks like a capital but everyone ignores that (as a side note, more of them could do me the favor of saying why exactly and scholars don't seem to much care). Sol (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
But it is true, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it is fact. It is also fact that the international community does not officially recognise Jerusalems status. I believe the present introduction is perfectly neutral as there is a whole paragraph on the status. But i suggested a change to the first sentence, which clearly mentions the international view.. but its simply not enough for people. There for the status quo which has lasted for 3 years seems to be the best course. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Take this example at Republic of China. "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, is a state in East Asia located off the east coast of mainland China. Subject to an ongoing dispute with the People's Republic of China (PRC) that has left it with limited formal diplomatic relations, the government of the Republic of China currently governs the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and other minor islands."

The objection to my suggestion is it places "Israels position" (which is fact because it serves as their capital, what is their capital if Jerusalem is not its capital?) first and said the international official position second. Well the above states reality first and then in the second sentence mentioned it has limited diplomatic relations. (Which is just with 23 countries). So the overwhelming majority of countries on this planet dont officially recognise Taiwan is a state, yet its not mentioned until the second sentence. And rightly so because it states the obvious first before going onto "official recognition" which is a secondary issue to what the actual entity is or serves as. Country's go to war all the time and do not bother to officially declare themselves at war with another nation. Should that lack of "official declaration" cause us to add caveats to articles on wars? "The... was an (Unofficial) war in..." I do not think so.

And on the specifics of Taiwan, lets look at what their capital article says.

"Taipei City (traditional Chinese: 臺北市; simplified Chinese: 台北市pinyin: Táiběi Shì; literally "Northern Taiwan City") is the largest city of Taiwan and the capital of the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan"). The entire introduction makes no mention of the fact that most of the world does not officially recognise them as an independent sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BW's suggestion in his comment (21:49) would bring this article in-line with the current wording of the Israel article, where we had a long RFC and ended up using that wording. While it's still not correct from a policy point-of-view, it's better than the current wording. Concerning Taiwan, wikipedia is not a source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Would something like that be neutral enough for the tag to be removed and for you to support it as the consensus and as a stable version in case it all comes up again? Because there is not much point in a compromise on this if someone else in a months time is going to come here and demand it changed again and we go through all of this again, causing instability. It seems like the middle ground between the two views in my opinion, and you make a good point about it basically being the wording in the introduction of the Israel article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input BW. We have reached a point where your stonewalling is not allowing consensus to be reached.

We know your minority view position. We also know that the false and non neutral Israeli view cannot remain.

Therefore I am asking those of us in the majority to come to an agreement on whether we are going to use proclaimed or disputed for the identifyer of Jerusalem and if we should include that jerusalem is the recognized capital of the future palestinian state.

BW, i hate to put you aside, but it is clear you are being disruptive in this discussion on how to take away the pov and make the intrro neutral. (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you Supreme Deliciousness? Ive suggested a compromise wording which addresses the issue of the status of Jerusalem. That seems like a reasonable compromise and the middle ground from the current wording which has its supporters and those who want to add proclaimed or disputed to before Jerusalem. Those demanding that be added are also preventing a consensus from forming. Several editors have explained the problem with "proclaimed". BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the IP is not me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
agh ok sorry. How do you feel about the compromise i suggested: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East and the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized.". I know you would rather we said proclaimed capital of Israel, but several editors have clearly said they oppose that and i cant see how there will be consensus to go from simply "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" to proclaimed capital not recognised by the international community. Saying it is the capital of Israel and not recognised by the international community is in line with what is said in the Israel introduction and its the middle ground. It addresses editors concerns about the international view not being mentioned, by clearly stating it in the first sentence, and it recognises the concern those supporting the status quo have about the "proclaimed" bit being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Or with ",although its status has not been internationally recognized." BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I cant endorse anything that say that its the "capital of Israel" as its against the international community view. How about: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East that Israel has declared its capital, although this has not been internationally recognized.". ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"Israel has declared its capital" does not tell the full story. It is the capital of Israel, that is fact, but the international community do not officially recognise this. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is like the Taiwan example i mentioned early. The first sentence says it is a state, then it goes on to say that it has limited international recognition. The proposed wording i suggested deals with te claim we ignore the international communities view, although personally i still think its fine that we only mention the status in full in the paragraph within the introduction, and not the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I have an idea. How about if we have the article on Elvis Presley say, "Elvis is proclaimed to be dead." The article on the Holocaust could say, "The Holocaust is proclaimed to have happened." The article on Earth to say, "The Earth is proclaimed to be round." etc. Every indisputable fact that is denied by bigots and pseudo-historians can have the word "proclaimed" next to it. Would that be a fair compromise? --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
But an RS like CIA don't say "Elvis is proclaimed to be dead.", "The Holocaust is proclaimed to have happened." and "The Earth is proclaimed to be round" but they do say here File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map .jpg, "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the United States, like nearly all other countries, retains its Embassy in Tel Aviv". It's from a government agency of Israel's closest ally. There is a difference. It isn't a problem that there's a difference between these cases. That's just how it is. There's no reason to ignore it or talk about bigots and pseudo-historians. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Compromise on the first sentence

How do other editors who have previously commented feel about changing the first sentence wording to..

"Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East and the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized." or ",although its status has not been internationally recognized".

I think this is a reasonable compromise that meets people on both sides of the debate half way. We address concerns editors had that the first paragraph did not mention the international view, at the same time we avoid using a term like "proclaimed capital" which several editors have clearly stated they oppose and which would be a radical shift from the current wording which has existed for a few years that has simply stated "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the "compromise" in your suggestion is when it still says "capital of Israel", which people object to. My suggestion above: "Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East that Israel has declared its capital, although this has not been internationally recognized." have both the Israeli minority view and the international community view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The compromise is it clearly includes the fact the international community does not recognize its status as capital. That is what some editors were concerned about. This is a big change from the present wording which has stood for 3 years, that simply says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. "Israel has declared its capital" is not clear enough about the fact Jerusalem is infact the capital of the Israeli state and serves as it. People can make all sorts of declarations, "Israel has declared its capital" is pretty much the same as "Proclaimed capital" which editors have expressed concerns about. We both know our views though, lets see how others feel.. many have commented at some point in this debate but have not done so for awhile. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's the problem from my standpoint, and it is (IMHO), a somewhat stupid problem: if most of the world denies that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel how can I (we, whatever) maintain it's the capital? Further explanations aside, the statement itself is patently false to all but one country. It's not about where the seat of government is; if that were the only issue this problem wouldn't exist. It's not that Israel doesn't have enough centers of power there to satisfy some non-existent international definition of what a capital is, it's that other countries just don't, in the face of what there is to the contrary, recognize it. That's the deal. It's stupid as they all should have just not recognized the city as Israeli territory (which is the only reason they could give to justify interfering in domestic issues, but I digress). Given the pictures of the Knesset, the multiple references to the other seats of government in the city and the overwhelming references to Israeli government in the article, I don't think anyone is going to be mislead about where the business of administration happens. "proclaimed capital" fits the bill and doesn't open the article with something not true to anyone not living in Israel. On the plus side, the Israeli perspective gets to keep the "Israel" cats, flag and no mention of the Palestinian claim. If it were up to me Jerusalem would be whatever it takes for people to stop fighting over it. But it's not. So that's the problem. Sol (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
On the plus side it has definitely been internationally recognized as a city in the Middle East so that is clear. On it being the capital and us saying that, it's true that 40 sources were brought that said it wasn't but it's trivial to bring 40 sources that say it is. If I recall correctly someone, GHcool maybe, did just that. Perhaps not 40 but there were many run of the mill, uncontroversial sources that simply said it was the capital flat out without bothering to elaborate. Maybe they are all technically wrong/dumbed down/use unspecified assumptions about words etc, maybe not, but they say what they say just like the sources that say it isn't the capital. As long as 'the capital of Israel' is immediately followed by something that acknowledges the wave–particle duality-like nature of its capitalness I think we can justifiably say 'the capital of Israel' but it really has to be immediately followed by the recognition clarification. I think either of the proposals are fine with or without the declared/proclaimed although I would prefer with declared/proclaimed for reasons that have already been gone over. I don't think "is infact the capital of the Israeli state and serves as it" means anything and this is where we always go wrong in these discussions. Those kind of statements are based on the notion that the speaker knows what "the capital" means. It shouldn't matter to us what it means, it means all sorts of things and that's fine. It's just about what the sources have to say on the matter which doesn't depend on what 'a capital' actually is. I also don't think the number of countries that say it is vs the number of countries that say it isn't are relevant to NPOV. It's what the sources say that matters. Plenty of sources say it is the capital and plenty of sources say it isn't the capital. For interest, see the very first version of this article which lasted several months in those halcyon days when Wikipedia was just meadows. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
We need to come to a compromise though. Several editors have stated very clearly they strongly oppose changing to something like "proclaimed capital" because that term fails to properly explain the situation. Some want proclaimed before Jerusalem, some do not think the articles text which has existed for 3 years needs to be changed and its been defended and kept on several occasions by many different editors. The proposal is the middle ground, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because the Israeli state treats it as such, sovereign states have the right to declare their own capitals and no one has provided anything saying that is not the case. But the proposal would also clearly state that the international community does not recognise it, which i thought was peoples concern. Every country as far as im aware has a capital, if Jerusalem is not Israel's capital, what is? Plenty of sources rather than saying "Jerusalem is not the capital", simply say is not recognised as the capital by the international community... there is a difference. You say people wont be misled about where the business of administration happens because of the rest of the article, but the same can be said about the status of Jerusalem because it is mentioned in detail in the introduction and article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not the middle ground. It deals with placing the minority view in the opening sentence by keeping the minority view in the opening sentence. The middle ground is "proclaimed/disputed"; on the other end of the spectrum would be "Jerusalem is the Capital of the State of Palestine, currently under Israeli occupation." It's not a question of verifiability its a question of undue weight; no one else agrees with Israel. More countries recognize East J'Lem as the capital of the State of Palestine (however they define that) then recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
Let's be really, really clear here; what's historically called "Jerusalem" and the Israeli municipal district known as Jerusalem are not all part of Israel. If this article is about the city of Jerusalem (the Old City, the Temple Mount, everything once occupied by Jordan included) then it's the proclaimed capital as Israel is including part of the city that they definitely don't own and you could argue giving Palestine equal billing on the lead sentence removing the "Israel" cats, and all the other Israeli territory markers. I'm pretty sure that's what this article is about and I really, really don't want to go in that direction beyond putting a "proclaimed" in front of capital. If it's only talking about the pre-67 areas of Jerusalem then I don't have a problem with "capital" but now the references to the Old City don't make sense. Sol (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
No the "proclaimed capital" is on one side because it is strongly opposed by several editors as the previous debates and recent ones have shown where reasons have been given. The other side is keep the status quo, there is no reason for any change to the introduction with the first paragraph simply saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (which has lasted for 3 years). The middle ground is saying its the capital but it is not recognised internationally which deals with the concerns about not giving the international view along with concerns about use of proclaimed. Its the middle ground, not ideal but a reasonable compromise in my opinion that some on each side will probably not support. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The current wording with the note is already the result of a compromise after several very long discussions. It's a shame that the same editors who pretend to agree to a compromise when they think they can't get something more to their liking, return every couple of months to try their luck again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This compromise would align the text with what we agreed on Israel after a long discussion and I'd be OK with that. It's not perfect, but much better than the current wording. For my part, I'd be OK with removing the tag and can promise to not raise the issue again or push another version for a long time if it's adopted. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the "I won't push for another version for a long time" trick from the Israel article. You can ask some of the editors who participated in that discussion and agreed to the "compromise" how they liked the result in the long run. Anyway, the current wording is already a compromise after a long discussion. I don't think it needs to be changed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East and the capital of Israel, although this has not been internationally recognized." Actually I am with this compromise... because it s called a compromise ;) ! More seriously that sentence gives the right to any country to choose his capital without any need to ask any cpountry what capital to choose and in the same time it directly gives us a useful information for an article dealing with a capital which is no one recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Israelis. I think that it s the only capital of the world that is not recognized internationally. Which gives the information relevant to add in the forst sentence. So, I join my voice for that compromise. --Helmoony (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing to compromise. The view of the entire world (minus one country) and the majority of available sources state that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/disputed capital. So that is what we must write. SyrianKing (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that change to a better wording is better than keeping a clearly wrong formulation. NMMNG, I don't know what "trick" you're referring to but I refrained as agreed from even discussing the capital issue on Israel for a long time. The reason we're now having this discussion is that Shuki (IIRC) refused to apply the agreement to this page, saying that the issue is somehow different on this page as opposed to Israel... --Dailycare (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I like ",although its status as capital has not been internationally recognized". --GHcool (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we make the change? It will be not usefull if after all this discussion we don t move on. What do you think? Do we have a compromise to enhance the first sentence? --Helmoony (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess we should show that this talk page do have a purpose. BW compromise is constructive. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't read all of this, skimmed really. Israel does have some recognition in the international community, and by no means is it required every nation recognize a state for that state to be considered legitimate. So, if a recognized government declares its capital Jerusalem, occupied or not, that is the legal capital of that nation. The compromise is more than fair. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Capital According To Whom?

To be accurate and fair this article must clearly state... Capital: Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the international community.

A capital is a 'designation', not a 'claim'. I can't see how a "designation" can be "not recognized". Do you have reliable citations that verify your proposal? Marokwitz (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Marokwitz, there are dozens of high-quality sources that state that Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as capital is not recognized and the UN Security Council has explicitly said the declaration is "null and void". --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it is clear that perhaps only Israel is the only one that recognises Jerusalem as its capital city. If Wikipedia is to be neutral, it should at the least describe Jerusalem as the OP suggested. At the moment, is just looks like Wikipedia is being used for Zionist propaganda without an regard to any international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmie (talkcontribs) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. A sovereign state has the right to decide its capital, it does not need approval or recognition from other nations. If wikipedia is simply used for zionist propaganda then you should know the proposal to change this is going to be rejected. Lets not waste our time :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not even see the problem, there is a huge reference note explaining the situation anyway if you click the [a] next to Jerusalem in the infobox. There is also extensive explanation on the matter within the article itself. I see no reason for any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether it "is" or "isn't" the capital isn't the point. The point is that it's a contentious issue that isn't being presented clearly as such, since the text in the article embraces the minority view. --Dailycare (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The infobox states the capital, it links to a note explaining other nations do not recognise it as such. The article is full of text about the situation, i do not see any zionist censorship here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The point is that the infobox states Jerusalem is the capital, which is a contentious point reported here by embracing a minority POV. WP:NPOV says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Saying Jer is the capital, but this is rejected by everyone else is a policy violation since we're presenting Israel's claim as a fact. Now if we said Israel has proclaimed Jer to be the capital, but this is rejected by everyone else, we'd be cleam from a policy POV. In fact as WP:NPOV also says that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not", we'd also be policy-compliand if we omitted Israel's claims to having their capital in Jer. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
But that is the whole reason for the note, to ensure neutrality by explaining others do not recognise it as the capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I hesitate to comment on this issue again but if Jerusalem were a gas field we wouldn't be able handle the information this way in an infobox by simply presenting Jerusalem as a unified object in Israel. For example, the South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field doesn't say 'Country: Iran' and it wouldn't say that even if Iran decided to proclaim ownership of the entire field. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
There are many reliable sources saying Jerusalem is the political capital of Israel. We are not whitewashing anything, the disputed status is already mentioned in details in this article. Marokwitz (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Marokwitz, that's not the point. See my comment timestamped 11:53, 20 August 2010. --Dailycare (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I really do not think there will be consensus to make the sort of change you are wanting. The infobox states Jerusalem but there is a note that clearly explains the situation and it is explained throughout the article, there for the article is neutral. As a compromise id be prepared to support changing that [a] to [note] so its more clear there is a note, or have an explanation in the infobox note section itself. But i see no reason to remove Jerusalem from the infobox, it is the capital of Israel. Reliable sources prove this to be the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Changing the link to the note from [a] to [proclaimed] has always struck me as a sensible approach but it hasn't been possible to make changes like that in this article using the consensus process so far. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The status of Jerusalem is disputed, no doubt about that fact. The legality of Israeli unilateral annex of Jerusalem is also disputed. To date, no country recognises Jerusalem as capital of Israel, it is a fact. So, this should be clearly stated in Article "Jerusalem is capital of Israel (disputed)".-- Jim Fitzgerald post 19:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The current wording and note is the result of multiple very long discussions. The likelihood of you getting consensus to change it is very slim. I for one object to changing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Tel Aviv is the de facto capital, and that Jerusalem (according to Israelis) is the official capital. To the international community Tel Aviv has long been accepted as the only true capital of Israel.--Gniniv (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not how "de facto" works. Israeli governmental offices and the like are in Jerusalem, that would make it (from a world perspective) the de facto capital, if not the de jure (again, from an international perspective). From an Israeli perspective, it is the de jure capital as well as de facto. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
My bad! I meant (vice-versa): Tel Aviv is the official internationally recognized capital, and Jerusalem is the de facto capital (You are correct about the Israeli government offices, all of which are located in Jerusalem, excepting the Ministry of Defense).--Gniniv (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Tel Aviv is not the capital by any mean. Show me a reliable source saying so. Marokwitz (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Tel Aviv is used instead of Jerusalem as a metonym for Israel,[31][32] and the Times Online Style Guide notes that Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital.[33] --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The first post in this thread demands the inclusion of a clear statement that has already been incorporated in the text of the Conflicts and treaties subsection of the article for quite some time:

The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions declaring that actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the whole of Jerusalem are illegal and have no validity.

There is also a Further Information template there that references the Positions on Jerusalem article. It leads-off by saying, among other things, that many countries do not recognize Jerusalem as a city that is properly Israel's. harlan (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, but . . . Why not follow the example of the British Foreign Office Country Profile of Israel: "Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the UK and the international community."[34]Haberstr (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so recognizing the 'de facto' situation but also that the international community does not recognize that Jerusalem as Israel's possession or capital should be our goal, along with wanting a reasonably short sentence. How about "Jerusalem is de facto Israel's capital, but the international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over the city and there are no foreign embassies there."[35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talkcontribs) 16:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the de jure Capital as well. The international community's non-recognition does not change the factual reality, and is mentioned several times in the article. Please let this long standing consensus wording stand. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Setting aside the merits of the content, I just want to say that "the capital is where the seat of the government is" as in this revert by Dosbears is not a valid reason to revert an edit. The capital is where the sources say it is and we could do without reverts like this based of editors beliefs about what things are. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Like i have said before, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. That is what the infobox must say. The article text and a note go into far more detail about the situation explaining the issues, that is all that is needed. So no change is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you BritishWatcher. And to you Sean.holyland, you come here to complain that someone made revert of POV and controversial statement that was already discussed 50 times on this talk page which can be found in archive if someone cares to look. But you don't say anything bad about person who went and made edit without any discussion, without reading talk page first and seeing that they have really no consensus to do such a change. Very interesting way to go around here. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not interesting at all, nor is your opinion of it. It's interesting what you have done with my surname though. Yeah, I came here to complain about editors doing whatever the hell they like based on their personal models of reality. Happens all the time in the I-P conflict area and not only is it against policy, it's one of the root causes of much idiocy in this topic area. 'No consensus' is not a policy based reason to revert either. Consensus can change and I have no problem whatsoever with what the editor is trying to do step by step which includes trying to engage people on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
What editors feel is the "factual reality" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what the best sources say on the subject, and they say pretty much what the British foreign office says above. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. A country can decide its own capital, it does not need formal permission from other nations, shown through were they set up their embassies. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's your territory you can put your capital where ever you want and no one can tell you otherwise. It's not so much that the international community rejects Israel's right to decide its capital's location but that Jerusalem is in Israel. And since recognition is the basis for a claims legitimacy the international community Jerusalem is only the de jure capital under domestic law. If the infobox were changed to what the British Foreign Office says (but not based solely on its assertions) I think that would be ok but, since theres a foot note and a link to the positions on Jerusalem article, I don't have a dog in this fight. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Britishwatcher, some sources (e.g. Israeli sources) do, others say that Israel claims it's the capital but this isn't recognized. Per WP:NPOV we can't adopt one of conflicting narratives as the truth, but we must present the issue in terms of a dispute ("The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view). --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That is why there is a note and within the article we explain the situation regarding Israel. That is all we need to do to stay within NPOV. Nothing says a country's capital must be recognised by the international community. A state has the right to decide what its capital is. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless the capital isn't in your country. On further reflection, I think putting the controversy into the infobox is worth doing. Even with the footnote it doesn't make sense to adopt one side of the controversy in the most notable spot. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree in that we only need to change the wording a bit to fall right within WP:NPOV. But we do need to change it, since the present wording is "endorsing a particular point of view" which we shouldn't do. Once more, what you or I think makes a capital is irrelevant to this article content issue. What is relevant is what the best sources say on the subject, and they say that the matter is in dispute. --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources clearly state that Jerusalem is the declared capital of the Jewish State. Just because other states dont recognise it is why we have a note. As long as there is a note clearly explaining the status is disputed there is no problem. What exactly are people proposing we put there instead? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a great word, "declared." So why not something like: "Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital, but the international community does not recognize its sovereignty over the city and there are no foreign embassies there." (Please note that I'm doing all I can to be collegial and flexible here.} The bottom line is that the facts of 'what is Jerusalem's capital' are complex, and the entire "international community" (the British government's words) finds false this encyclopedia's present assertion that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital." Editors' personal opinions about 'how a place/city becomes a nation's capital' are POV and irrelevant. You just don't have an NPOV encyclopedia when we make the assertion of one country, Israel, into 'Wikipedia fact'. Not when, if you ask nearly any government in the world except Israel what Israel's capital is, they don't answer 'Jerusalem'.Haberstr (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The State of Palestine article in its infobox simply says "Jerusalem (proclaimed), Gaza, Ramallah(administrative)". So the state of palestine which does not exist simply has "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" in its infobox despite having no control over the city at all. Jerusalem is in Israel, not "another country" BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No to this: "Jerusalem is in Israel." West Jerusalem no doubt is in Israel, but East Jerusalem is annexed territory not recognized by the international community as 'in' Israel. A matter about which there is a near consensus internationally ("Jerusalem is not in Israel") must not be denied by omission if this encyclopedia is going to achieve its ideals of being NPOV.Haberstr (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with BW. I also wonder why the Palestine article can go unmolested of weasel-wording, but this article has to suffer every possible pov-push.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I always thought it was just East Jerusalem that was disputed but it looks like the international communities/various governments aren't just talking about E. J'Lem but the whole city. Otherwise they'd have no reason not to put the embassies in the western part. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The international community/various governments object to Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. That's why the embassies that were in West Jerusalem were moved elsewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the confusion derives from a misunderstanding and misuse the terms 'suffer', 'unmolested', 'weasel-wording' and 'every possible pov-push'. What is actually happening is that some editors are trying to improve policy compliance in this article very slightly by discussing minor changes to content based on what sources say. That is what people are supposed to do here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If there was no note about all of this and we did not mention the situation within the article then i agree there would be a POV problem and changes would be needed. But we explain it fully within this article and with the note. So many of us believe the article is already in compliance with policies. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
So would you want to put (proclaimed) in the Israeli info box so the two sides match? I know a lot of people hate it, but no other country officially considers Jerusalem a part of Israel(if you know of one or more, please add them to the Positions on Jerusalem article)or Palestine, they use some version of "Jerusalem's status has yet to be negotiated". That's not a rejection of cultural and religious ties and claims for either side, just that no one can have clear title until the conflicting claims are resolved diplomatically. It was the same way when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem; they'd passed internal laws annexing the city section but even the countries recognizing their claims to the West Bank drew the line at Jerusalem. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
To do the same thing as the Palestine box would be totally unacceptable. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, there is no such state as Palestine and it has no control of Jerusalem to declare it the capital. The introduction of the Jerusalem article simply states it is the capital of Israel, this whole issue of how to treat Jerusalem status as a capital would be better debated there. However as a compromise id support changing the link to the note from [a] to [officially], we clearly can not say proclaimed if that is what the Palestine article says. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Saying "proclaimed" would be something I'd be OK with. "officially" doesn't work since it's officially the capital only according to Israel. Once more, what editors think is the ultimate truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is that sources say that Israel has proclaimed it to be the capital, and the international community has explicitly rejected this. According to WP:NPOV we can't adopt the narrative of one side in a dispute, and especially we can't adopt the minority viewpoint. Saying proclaimed in the infobox, and following the British FO in the lead, would correct the issue. The Jerusalem article, being a wikipedia article, can't be used a source in this discussion. --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, the current wording is the result of a very long discussion. There is obviously no consensus to change it, although it seems the same people try to on a monthly basis. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus can change"--Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Has it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────BritishWatcher, what about something along the lines putting "Internally recognized" in place of the current infobox footnote marker? I'd like to see at least something next to Jerusalem hinting at what the footnote covers. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Capital According To Whom? arbitrary break1

Question: If France 'proclaimed' Lyon its new capital, AND moved its government offices to Lyon, but no other country accepted this, would Lyon be the capital of France, or would it stay Paris because no one wanted to move their embassy (for any reason). --Shuki (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lyon would be the capital of France and wed have to include a note explaning it was previously Paris and other nations have not recognised the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Lyons would be the capital with no note. It would be a strictly internal affair (unless someone can dig up a source on it) that the international community has no say in. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It would depend on what reliable sources say on the matter. Question 2: What if France kicked the Israelis out of Tel Aviv and "proclaimed" it the French capital, but the entire international community refused to recognize it and sources said so? The operative phrase here is what the sources say. We don't need to be (and in no case should we try to be) experts in international law. --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: Most of the area of Jerusalem is referred to as West Jerusalem which has been a recognized part of Israel by the UN since 1947. East Jerusalem was part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan until 1967 when they lost the whole West Bank and East Jerusalem at the Six Day war. Years later King Hussein declared the West Bank not to be part of Jordan, hence making it a territory under Israel's control, de facto making it part of Israel, until the Palestinians are granted rights to the land. Therefore, and regardless if a country needs authorization to declare its capital, Jerusalem IS Israel's capital (at least it's West part - without any dispute whatsoever), while the only dispute could be if East Jerusalem is also part of the capital. Hence, it could be said that West Jerusalem is the recognized capital of Jerusalem, or that Jerusalem is Israel's capital while it's Eastern part is internationally not regarded as part of sovereign Israel and is therefore disputed as part of its capital. (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a good thing this article was demoted from FA if his is still a question. It realistically is not that hard. Mirror tertiary sources and be done with it. Add a note if it makes people happy. It is not worth this much discussion since Wikipedia does not say how it is. That is what the sources do. And at most the sources add an asterisks so then you get a note.Cptnono (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, we're supposed to primarily rely on secondary sources, not tertiary ones (WP:RS: "Tertiary sources (...) should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion"). We've identified from high-quality secondary sources that this is a matter of dispute, so it should be presented as a dispute without embracing either narrative. (WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia descri