Template talk:Largest cities of Israel

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


Of course, "Jerusalem" is not Israeli. West-Jerusalem is, and then we must consider that Israel expanded the "Jerusalem" area definition into East-Jerusalem, and beyond the earlier UN area. But still, these extensions are not Israeli. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel[edit]

There is currently a discussion related to the content of this template at Talk:Israel#Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel. Please contribute. GregKaye 00:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong place. Should be elsewhere. Israel? Japan? -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Jerusalem[edit]

The result of this discussion was no consensus. The template should remain as it is now, after GregKaye's addition of the footnote clarifying that there is a disputed legal/political status.
Some !voters here express a narrow view of legal positions, but even among the world powers and the local government there is no consensus as to the true status. The template is rather intended to show the geographical/demographical situation, and it is a fact that hundred thousands of people holding Israeli passports/citizenship live in this place. De facto it was annexed by Isreal. There is also no consensus among the !voters whether to include only West Jerusalem or all of Jerusalem, mostly for the abovementioned legal considerations. Considering this, the status quo may be preserved. Kraxler (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A discussion at talk:Israel didn't come to a clear conclusion and there is some edit waring over Jerusalem.

Given that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is rejected by most of the international community, and that there is currently no available number on population of western Jerusalem alone, how in your opinion should Jerusalem be presented in this template ? A few options were proposed so far:

  • Jerusalem [a]
  • West Jerusalem [a]
  • Jerusalem (west) [a]
  • Remove Jerusalem from the list entirely
  • Something else ?
  1. ^ a b c This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas

WarKosign 09:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Support to remove Jerusalem from the list entirely. No part of Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the option above. AcidSnow (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This book says "...with regard to Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem, this approach has received a modicum of recognition and is tolerated by the international community". This book says "...most states have nevertheless accepted the de facto applicability of Israeli law" and "The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel". WarKosign 21:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Those are some interesting books, but nonetheless the city is not recognized as part of Israel. Are there embassies or at least even one in Jerusalem? No. AcidSnow (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Using presence of embassies as a criteria is pure WP:OR. If you want counter-OR, I posted some here. Both are equally useless at WP. WarKosign 21:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned the embassies since your book states "modicum of recognition". To have them as such is a major thing but they aren't as so. Nonetheless, I don't think weather sites really seem to care: "West Jerusalem, Palestine" haha. AcidSnow (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This site uses interesting geography: Searching simply for "Jerusalem" yields only "Jerusalem, Israel", while searching for East or West Jerusalem yields these 3: "Jerusalem, Israel", "East Jerusalem, Palestinian Territory", "West Jerusalem, Israel". WarKosign 07:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • support the first option: Jerusalem (a) Ykantor (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I am putting Jerusalem in bold so Ykantor's vote is not missed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Something else West JerusalemIf all that we have for population statistics is the combined numbers, then put "West Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem, not internationally recognised as Israeli territory)" or something along those lines. This is the usual name for the Israeli portion of Jerusalem. The footnotes also get across the point that the territories are considered occupied in a quick and easy manner. If there's a similar list for Palestine, then for the sake of fairness, you could use either the East Jerusalem number (if it exists anywhere) or the total estimate again and get across the idea in a footnote, (or parenthesis if you can make it short enough) as we have here that the whole city is controlled by Israel, but sovereignty over the eastern half isn't recognised internationally. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 4 Adar 5775 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR: sidetrack
fairness, do you mean 'correctness'? -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
A loaded term like fairness was an unwise choice of words on my part. I should have said to keep things balanced. As unfortunate as it is, the nature of the Conflict makes it so that generally the Israeli-related and Palestinian-related articles require the same treatment so as to maintain an unquestionable NPOV (except by those not operating by the standards laid out in Wikipedia policy. It would be nice if neither were a source of controversy, but that's not the world we live in. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 5 Adar 5775 02:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you noticed the footnote in the examples above ? Is it insufficient in your opinion ? WarKosign 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I have, and for whatever reason I didn't associate the footnote with being part of the final product. That is my mistake and no, I would say it's brief and to the point, so it is more than sufficient. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 5 Adar 5775 02:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not doubt you good intention. But let me note that writing 'Conflict' (capitalised or not) is a, say, cultural approach too ;-). I agree, its difficult & subtle. Maybe leave it out altogether is a solution here, it's just a country after all. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I was just making a general comment there about the unfortunate nature of the world we live in and not proposing the term be used here at all. I don't know of any other name for it and so I must use it. This is probably one of my favourite cities in the world and it's always peaceful when we are there for our yearly two drunken nights of eating at the Armenian Tavern, drinking at Bar Putin and Zoli's, and dancing at Toybar, and the following mornings of relaxing at the Austrian Hospice and eating schnitzel (now that's a pilgrimage). So the usual fighting in Wikipedia over the city (not saying anyone in this thread is guilty of that) is something that bugs me. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 5 Adar 5775 15:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Request to everyone —I'd also like to request that everyone who comments here please leave your personal feelings, emotions, sense of right and wrong and everything else out of it. Please base your choices (even if you don't like them) on Wikipedia policy and policy alone as is the duty of every Wikipedian. If you feel you can't do that, then maybe consider the possibility that it might be best to bow out of this discussion entirely. I request this of people on both sides of the issue and everyone in between. Thank you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 4 Adar 5775 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Something else I am not sure on this one yet. Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is not recognized, however, many newspapers etc. seem to treat the western part as Israeli so it could then be included. If so, it should be added that sovereignty is not recognized or something similiar and that it includes occupied East Jerusalem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
West Jerusalem I'm changing to that and a link to it could be included. Include a note about it not being recognized, and if figures include East Jerusalem, add that it includes that occupied part. Controlling something does not mean that you own it. Israel controls but it does not own it. If and how much they should is an issue in the negotiations but right now, their sovereignty is not recognized and when it comes to the eastern part, it is strongly rejected. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • West Jerusalem preferred. In any situation it must be clear that "Jerusalem" (municipality, 1948, 1967, UN area, ...) is not a city in Israel/Israeli city. -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Jerusalem, since according to all the sources we have de-facto Jerusalem is administered as a single city by Israel and for any practical purpose it is handled as such. It must be clarified (for example with a footnote, as is in each of the proposals above) that it includes East Jerusalem, and that East Jerusalem is nearly universally not recognized legally as a part of Israel. I object to "West Jerusalem" because of this clarification; otherwise the clarification would read that West Jerusalem includes East Jerusalem which is nonsense. WarKosign 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Jerusalem As much as opponents of Israeli control state that Jerusalem is not a part of Israel, it is. Israel controls it and therefore owns it. There is a difference between "should own it", which is the argument against Israel controlling Jerusalem, and who actually owns it, which is Israel. The debate is over who should own it, not who actually owns it. Since Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, Jerusalem should appear in its entirety as one of Israel's largest cities. There should be a footnote stating that control of Jerusalem is disputed, however. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not about "owning". Jerusalem is not in Israel. Therefor it is not Israeli. An encyclopedia must write that. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The template is called "Largest cities of Israel". Jerusalem is arguably not in Israel, but it is administered by Israel and populated by Israel, so it can reasonably be considered to be of Israel. WarKosign 09:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
No reason to do so. That would add confusion to the encyclopedia, instead of clarifying the situation. starters, all other tempaltes are "Cities of" Keep it about "Israeli cities" and specify the Jerusalem partition. We should even consider the top comment here by Supreme Deliciousness. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It is part of Israel whether it should be or not. You can say that Jerusalem should not be part of Israel, but you can't say that Jerusalem is not part of Israel. The template is for cities of Israel, so Jerusalem as a whole should be in the template. The partition and any international recognition is irrelevant. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I support West Jerusalem or remove Jerusalem from the list entirely. I would also support a superscript note explaining the position of the Israeli Government on Jerusalem, and I would hyperlink West Jerusalem. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Jerusalem; the "it is not part of Israel" selection does not conform with internal sources who calculate demographics for the State of Israel.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israeli either. There exists a sort of consensus that as a part of an agreement with the Palestinians, Israel is likely to get West Jerusalem, but as it is now, no country (AFAIK) has recognized West Jerusalem as Israeli, and certainly the majority hasn't. See e.g. "Whither Jerusalem" by Hirsch, Housen-Couriel and Lapidot at page 17: "west Jerusalem (...) most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". --Dailycare (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove Jerusalem - no nation recognizes any part of Jerusalem as being in Israel. While Israel has forcefully taken control of the city, pushed out many natives, moved many of their nationals into the city, and as RightCowLeftCoast says, they pretend that it is their city, this does not actually make the city in Israel any more than Ariel is in Israel. (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Taken control of the city means that Israel owns it. What other countries say is irrelevant. Jerusalem should be in the template. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No serious scholar in the world would claim that a country whose military controls a city is necessarily the owner. (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that is not true. There is a difference between de facto and de jure control. De facto control is who actually owns the territory, in this case Israel owns Jerusalem. De Jure control is who "should" control the territory, which is up for debate. The Crimea article lists Crimea as part of Russia because Russia has de facto of it. The same should be said for Jerusalem. Jerusalem is part of Israel. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually Ariel is a good example. Ariel is almost always listed as an illegal Israeli settlement/town. WarKosign 05:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, what a tangled thread we weave... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Adar 5775 06:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Flinders Petrie, given your earlier good advise to keep this topic clean & serious, this edit and your elaborate sign are self-contradicting. I myself can skip such distractions mostly, but why not you clean up your own act first? Just keep it to the topic, please. -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
DePiep, apologies, I was trying to get what I was saying away from the old saying about a tangled web, which usually refers to lies (Oh, what a tangled web we weave). I was not trying to imply that there was any lying on anyone's part at all, but rather say that this whole conversation is becoming a lot more complicated than it needs to be and it runs the risk of getting bogged down and tangled up in minor points that people fight over with increasing ferocity. I was being quite serious in this sentiment thing I never said anything about people having to be entirely serious in this discussion (as situation appropriate humour is a part of most serious academic discussions) so as to avoid people getting upset. I am not entirely sure what you mean by my elaborate sign though unless you're referring to my signature which I have used for the last three or four years. All that said, I would also like to politely remind you to assume good faith in dealing with other editors (especially ones you might not know very well) rather than becoming unnecessarily hostile as such behaviour can only lead to problems. Politely replying to other people is how we avoid this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Adar 5775 23:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, this whole topic has already been discussed at Talk:Israel#Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel. I think that the whole template is flawed. At the same time that the Israeli government unilaterally declared Jerusalem to be "complete and united" it also declared places like Bnai Brak and a number of other urban areas within the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area to be "cities". This may well have been done for the simple reason of presenting information such as this with Jerusalem topping the list. On the [[1]] all of the "cities" in the "Tel Aviv" and "Central" districts can logically be considered to be suburbs of Tel Aviv and this goes to account for greatly thriving nature of the city centre.
The previous discussion (not referenced in the introduction to this thread) also gave indication of the Israeli presentation in this document of "urban areas" and yet WarKosign changed the template presentation to "cities" here. Given the lack of a reference made here to the previous discussion, a reference simply to edit warring and not to edit warring against views presented in previous discussion and the recent change made to "cities" not even getting a mention in this thread, I find it extremely difficult to assume good faith here. I honestly think that it is things similar to this that sadly perpetuates giving Israel a bad name. GregKaye 13:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The second word of the RfC description links to the previous discussion. I also left a note at talk:Israel for everybody interested to comment here, as you apparently did. All the "urban areas" in question are cities, so by changing it to "urban areas" you reduced the clarity without any clear improvement. I asked you before: do you need me to find sources that prove that each of these "urban areas" is a city and not a town or a village ?
It is not our place to question how Israel manages its municipal divisions. As a taxpayer I find it grossly inefficient to have tens of tiny cities instead of several big ones, but here we don't create the reality, we represent what the sources tell us about it. WarKosign 14:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, People here are certainly trying to create realities if they want to present Jerusalem, in Wikipedia's voice, as being the largest city in possession of Israel when this flies directly in the face of the legal views of both the international community and the Palestinian people. The last internationally accepted view was that it was meant to be an international city. The current situation of the template presents an outrageous and one sided POV.
WarKosign, can you say clearly that your change in template description was not made with the motivation and purpose of including Jerusalem "whole and united" within the Wikipedia template listing?
It is our place to present realities and, on this basis, the template really should go as. At best, it presents a very twisted view of reality. The largest conurbation by far is of Tel Aviv. It is the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area. None of Jerusalem is internationally considered as being in Israel. The template is, as far as I can see it, Wikipedia at its worst. It is being used, as far as I see it, to push a view of a current possession of territory which was taken by force of arms. We cannot use Wikipedia's voice to state possession until that possession has been agreed. WarKosign, can you not see that this is a most basic issue of NPOV? GregKaye 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: This RfC will hopefully determine what is NPOV regarding Jerusalem in this template.
My change (or rather revert of your change) had nothing to do with Jerusalem being "whole or united" or not. If all the entities in the list are cities, the list's title should say so. You want to bundle Tel Aviv with its suburbs to create some city-like entity that would be larger than Jerusalem, however the source does not support it. Tel Aviv district is larger than Jerusalem district, and this is what Districts of Israel says. Jerusalem is considered by CBS to be the largest city. WarKosign 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, the reality is that the urban areas of the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area are bundled together. That is how the geography of the area very clearly works and, as the topic is demographics (and not political division), the main issue is the natural gathering of people.
On the issue of cities, would you define West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as being individually defined as cities? Within the historical context of locations including East Berlin and West Berlin and many other locations on WP's List of divided cities this may be possible but, if not, can you see that your change at this particular time to "cities" at the same time as your !voting for the use of an entry of "Jerusalem" in the listing, fits with the description of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing? We have to go by what is internationally recognised in this matter. Again, we cannot use Wikipedia's voice to state possession until that possession has been agreed.
To be clear I don't necessarily want to bundle anything. My personal opinion is that the template is misleading regarding realities on the ground and would best be deleted. GregKaye 20:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm very well aware of geography of Gush Dan and agree it would make much more sense to organize them as a small number of large localities rather than current 254 (mostly) tiny localities. This is the current reality, however.
Reality on the ground is that East and West Jerusalem are managed as a single locality. In Gush Dan you can see differently styled street signs as you cross the street from one city to another, while in Jerusalem you (or at least I) have no visual clues to which side of the city you're in. More importantly, the source we are using for the city population numbers handles them this way.
We do not have to go by what is internationally recognized, this RfC is to determine what do we have to go by - some opinions are to follow the international de-juro recognition, while others support representing the de-facto reality.
My restoration of the template's title is no more WP:TENDENTIOUS than your changing it.WarKosign 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, as you know, that first change of the template title was accompanied by the talk page edit:
  • "Largest urban areas of Israel
This, or similar, should be the rightful title of the template as this represents the content of the source material here. The content presents a list of "Urban localities". East Jerusalem is not internationally accepted as being in Israel."
My edit made direct referral to the single piece of source material used used in the template and there is a world of difference. "Urban localities", as per the source material, clearly fits with both "Jerusalem" and "West Jerusalem". You did not answer my question regarding the your view as to the applicability of your reverted "cities" wording. Would you define West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as being individually defined as cities? GregKaye 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The source list Jerusalem as biggest of the "urban localities". I do not think there are sources saying that East and West Jerusalem are two separate cities (or urban localities). Many probably argue that they should be separate, but it's beside the point. The term "Urban localities" is not defined in the source, but since they are followed by "Rural localities" such as Moshavim and Kibbutzim it's quite obvious the designation means "Human settlements in Urban area", that is "cities, towns or conurbations". The list names only separate cities, so clearly it does not mean conurbations such as Gush Dan. It is technically correct to call any city an urban locality, but we should be using the most specific term possible. Otherwise might as well call them "artifacts" or "objects" - also correct but not specific enough terms. WarKosign 22:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, Yes OR No? I twice asked a direct question. I made an edit within the context of open talk page discussion. You then go against the content of the talk page discussion without yourself adding comment and talk about edit warring. We should be using the terminologies that most directly represents the source content and, beyond this, editor original research is irrelevant. GregKaye 22:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought that I answered your every question. Let's try again.
  • Do I think that this list that contains names of 10 biggest cities in Israel (whether it includes Jerusalem or not) should be entitled "cities" and not "urban areas" ? Yes. This is a list of urban areas which happen all to be cities, so we should use the most specific title possible. "List of people that match some criteria" would never be titled "List of mammals" even though technically it is also correct.
  • Do I think that the title of this template has anything to do with whether/how Jerusalem is to be represented in it ? No. With or without Jerusalem, the list is of 10 largest cities in Israel.
  • Did I change the title to affect the outcome of this RfC ? No. See two answers above. If you think the title should be changed it can be discussed as well, but I think it's unrelated to the this RfC.
  • Do I think that it makes sense that Israel administers Jerusalem as a single city, while Gush Dan consists of hundreds of small urban localities (not all of them are cities) ? No. I believe the reason for that is internal politics of mayors and municipal workers not willing to give up their places, your theory is that it's intentional to keep Jerusalem the largest city which is also a reasonable explanation. Either way we are not here to second-guess the division but to represent the sources.
Unless there are more important questions I missed, I would like to collapse this branch of the discussion to keep the rest of the comments focused on the question of this RfC.WarKosign 13:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign. Read above. Do me that courtesy. There is a simple question. Dead simple. Would you define West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as being individually defined as cities? "Yes or no". You placed this RfC here quoting Edit Warring (which actually had the content of edits going against the prevailing view of the previous discussion). A short time following your submission of the RfC you then changed the template from list of largest urban areas to list of largest cities. The question that I am asking is relevant. "Yes or no". I personally find it very difficult to simply assume good faith or clear judgement on you part in this situation. I think that your repeated avoidance of a simple question is also telling. I'll put the question a fourth time. Would you define West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as being individually defined as cities? "Yes or no". GregKaye 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: No problem. Jerusalem was a single city for about 3000 years. Between 1949 and 1967 it was managed as two separate cities. Since 1967 it is administered again as a single city. There are different views regarding it's legal status, with most organizations accepting legality of Israel's control over the western portion while rejecting it's claim for the eastern portion. East and West Jerusalem are not two separate cities, over the city's 3000 years history it was split into these two separate cities for only 18 years. It's future status is a matter of negotiations, with me personally believing that it should be split under acceptable conditions. Did I answer your question ? Why does my opinion matter to you? WarKosign 07:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That may be, but one is not Israeli. -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It is an Israeli city, this is a simple and plain fact - the only way to reach the city is by crossing the border into Israel; it is administered by Israel, it is populated by Israeli citizens and permanent residents. Legality of this situation is disputed, but it's hard to dispute the reality of it. Similarly, you can say that Israel's settlements in the West Bank are illegal, but you can't say that they don't exist. WarKosign 08:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, Thank you. After having to ask my question on three separate occasions you have given a still much elaborated answer. I asked, "Would you define West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as being individually defined as cities?" You, in effect, answered "no". Within this context and within the context that there had previously been open talk page discussion related to the source material referenced change in template heading to "Largest urban areas in Israel" I find your change with failure to give any talk page notification to "cities of Israel" to be manipulative pushing a Jewish lobby type POV. I do not interpret that you are here to build an NPOV encyclopaedia but but instead to push you own POV agenda. For me I do not find this as a nice thing to have to deal with and that is before adding the complications of your evasion and unaccountability. GregKaye 09:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: You asked for my personal opinion, I gave it. Having a personal opinion and pushing it into wikipedia are two completely different things. I hope that you do not push your every biased opinion, or do you believe yourself to be the embodiment of neutrality ? It's good to have editors with different opinions so we can keep each other's biases at balance.
In this case my opinion is well grounded in reality and is sourced. Do you have reliable sources saying that East and West Jerusalem are currently administered as two separate cities ? WarKosign 09:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, I repeatedly asked you a straightforward yes or no question in the context or your undiscussed reversion of a discussed edit that was performed at a time that would clearly have consequences on a discussion that you initiated. Please substantiate your accusation regarding my "every biased opinion" or strike. The clear issue is NPOV (in the context of the Israeli government unilaterally declaring Jerusalem and the international community and the Palestinians disputing this) that we can't present in Wikipedia's voice that Jerusalem is "of Israel". Embodiment of neutrality or not I will argue this case. We should neither state in Wikipedia's voice that Jerusalem is "of Israel" or that Jerusalem is not "of Israel". Either way would present a subjective POV. This is why I think that the best option would be to exclude the template entirely. Please read WP:NPOV and try to get the point. Why do you ask whether I "have reliable sources saying that East and West Jerusalem are currently administered as two separate cities". My question was solely in relation to your edit whose timing, effect and lack of notification clearly fits an image of manipulative editing. GregKaye 12:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You asked me the question 3 times, and I answered you twice based on source ("Reality on the ground is that East and West Jerusalem are managed as a single locality", "The source list Jerusalem as biggest of the "urban localities". I do not think there are sources saying that East and West Jerusalem are two separate cities (or urban localities)") and once as my personal opinion, as you asked.
Your claim that since Jerusalem is not recognized internationally to be in Israel, it is not actually administered by Israel. This view is biased - any single person's view is biased. There is no such thing - an objective POV, a POV is by definition subjective/biased. It is ok to have your favorite POV, and it's ok to argue for it - just don't think/say that you're neutral while anyone disagreeing with you is a POV pusher.
There are ample sources proving that Jerusalem is administered by Israel as a single city, yet you seem to argue with the fact, so I asked if you have any sources to the contrary.
I think there facts are plain and simple: Jerusalem is administered as a single city by Israel, it is mostly recognized that West Jerusalem is or should be a part of Israel while it is mostly unrecognized that East Jerusalem is or should be a part of Israel. The main question in this RfC is which state of affairs do we present - de-facto or de-juro. I argue that we should present both, that is to describe Jerusalem in whole as de-facto in/of Israel, with a very clear and obvious comment about the legal status. WarKosign 13:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, does it mean that your rename of "cities" to "urban areas" was motivated by your personal opinion that they are two separate cities ? This exactly the kind of "manipulative pushing" you are accusing me of. "I do not interpret that you are here to build an NPOV encyclopaedia but but instead to push you own POV agenda. For me I do not find this as a nice thing to have to deal with and that is before adding the complications of your evasion and unaccountability." WarKosign 09:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, My motivation was to clarify content towards the common interpretation as used in the Wikipedia article of territory "of Israel" and to sensibly apply this to the list of/ranking of "largest *** of Israel". The source material used, whether this is relevant or not, uses the terminology "urban locations" and with open notification within talk page content I made notification of the change and opened the topic for discussion. Despite this example of discussion you had reverted with no talk page notification being made of this change. "I find your change with failure to give any talk page notification to "cities of Israel" to be manipulative pushing a Jewish lobby type POV." "My question was solely in relation to your edit whose timing, effect and lack of notification clearly fits an image of manipulative editing." I do not like being in these kinds of confrontation I find this editing to be distasteful. GregKaye 12:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There was a discussion at talk:Israel about this change, but an agreement was not reached. You went ahead and made the change anyway. You can have a look at any of the lists of cities at Template talk:Largest cities of Acre. None of them is titled "list of urban localities", some are titled "Largest cities or towns" since some of the items in them are considered towns. All the items in this list are considered cities by the source. The term "urban localities" in the source refers to these cities as well as smaller localities that follow them in the list. I consider the name of the template separate from the issue of Jerusalem, you insist to tie them together, which I do not understand. If we call Jerusalem an "urban locality" (town ? village?) does it change in any way it being or not being considered part of Israel ? WarKosign 13:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, within the more restrictive titling that you have reverted back to, yes. You do not consider West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as being separate cities. The discussion at Talk:Israel#Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel in the section Largest urban areas of Israel received no objections possibly due in no small part as the reference made was quoted directly from source material. Support was also given to the use of West Jerusalem in the template. Despite all this you have chosen not to continue the existing discussion but to start a new discussion here. Your move to re assert a cities title to the template is, I think, much akin to a gambler who throws in all his/her chips into the bet. As written below, in the context of a template describing "cities" and as my further concession my vote become either "Delete template or Remove Jerusalem". The simple reason for this is that East Jerusalem was not even included in the supposedly temporary arrangements of the 1949 Armistice Agreements. There was at least an argument for considering West Jerusalem within the template but, as Dailycare notes with the notification of this discussion at Talk:Israel, this isn't recognized as Israeli either. GregKaye 08:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
You mention the other templates. There are many cities that are considered to be divided across accepted international boundaries. I do not know all the details but I would support the same principles being equally applied elsewhere. It remains wrong to present, in Wikipedia's voice, a territory as belonging to one entity when the entirety of the international community disputes such possession. GregKaye 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: You still haven't provided any sources saying that de-facto East and West Jerusalem are two separate cities, but let's assume for a moment they are. They are both large enough to be considered cities by Israel's standards, and they both are administered by Israel, so exactly same argument would apply to inclusion of both Jerusalems in this list, whether it's of cities or of "urban areas". This RfC should determine if this argument is convincing.
Perhaps some of the lists contain divided cities, but is Jerusalem divided ? If some city is de-facto divided with each half administered by a different entity while one or both of them claim the second half of the city, each entity's "cities of" list should contain only the half of the city they actually manage with the claim for the other half clearly stated. For example, between 1949 and 1967 while Jerusalem was divided between Jordan and Israel it would be the correct way to describe Jerusalem.
Wikipedia's purpose is not to describe what should be but to describe what is - a de-facto single city administered by Israel ("of Israel"), a situation that is considered legally "null and void" by most of the international community.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WarKosign, The thing that I had done was to provide the template with a more neutral title "Largest urban areas of Israel" which has the ability to apply equally to whole cities or to areas of a city. West Jerusalem, while not being internationally accepted as being part of Israel, was at least considered in the seemingly temporary arrangements of the 1949 Armistice Agreements. East Jerusalem was not even covered by those provisions so, clearly, this is the point where a major differentiation is made between the two areas. Despite my adoption of a neutral, source material referenced title that could equally apply to a whole city or to a sub division of a city, you reverted this change to a title "Largest cities of Israel" which would clearly prejudice against the inclusion, for instance, of the historically defined area of West Jerusalem being presented in the listing. I object to what I regard to be your cynical change in the more open and expansive "urban areas" wording to the more specific and restrictive "cities" wording which acted to support a more polarised decision regarding the inclusion of Jerusalem in the listing. In this context the decision becomes "in" or "out" and all in regard to a city that was given international support to be placed under international regime with no special jurisdiction being given to any specific group. In this context WP:YESPOV is clear that we cannot use Wikipedia's voice to state Jerusalem as being ".. of Israel". Related claims may be presented as exactly what they are: claims. The fact that Israel has also taken militarily supported control of the area can also be, in whatever way, presented. We cannot however use Wikipedia's voice to take sides in disputes of ownership. This is a line that, in the clear provisions of NPOV, we cannot cross.

Following Israel's land acquisitions in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War (in which Israel took control of almost 60% of the area allocated for the proposed Arab state) and following the provisional arrangements of the 1949 Armistice Agreements the area described as West Jerusalem was historically divided from the area described as East Jerusalem inclusive of the Old City. GregKaye 08:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: We are going in circles. You think we can't say in Wikipedia voice that Jerusalem is in Israel because it's not recognized as such, I think that we can't say in Wikipedia voice that it is not in Israel because de-facto it is administered as such and omitting it is a worse misrepresentation of the sources/reality than including it with a clear description of the legal status. This RfC will determine what is the consensus of a larger selections of editors, some of them uninvolved and possibly unbiased.
I cannot find a formal definition of the term "urban locality". The CBS always uses it for (what it considers) a complete city/town/moshav, so deciding that West Jerusalem is a separate "urban locality" from East Jerusalem does not match this source nor any official use of the term that I could find. Even if it's decided to include only West Jerusalem I think the list should be called "list of cities" since it's a much better defined term and it can be reasonably applied to a part of a city.
UN partition plan map with Jerusalem far from the area marked as being part of a Jewish State
WarKosign, Two direct and simple yes and no questions: During this discussion have you come across the article Urban area? Are you aware that for pings to work you (to the extent that they ever work in Wikipedia) you need to both add a ping or sign your post? In several of your last posts you have either done just one or the other. You are aware of the definition of wikt:locality which, in this case, would derive meaning from the word wikt:urban. There is nothing complicated here.
The reality is that the United Nations allotted a limited area for a Jewish State as per added image to the right. Israel in following military conflicts has taken territory by military force. I again repeat in this context Jerusalem cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice as being in Israel. Yes this is going around in circles and one contributing reason, I think, for this is down to your surreptitious revert the "urban areas" title which would have better permitted a West Jerusalem entry. When this RfC is done it may then, if it imperative to you for Jerusalem to be contained in a list, be possible to consider a title such as "Largest cities administered by Israel". We could certainly say in Wikipedia's voice that Jerusalem is administered by Israel. For now there is no way that it can possibly fall into Wikipedia's remit to validate contested claims of city wide ownership. GregKaye 13:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I'll try to be more careful with pinging. I assume you have the page in your watchlist anyway.
I did visit this article, but not very recently. I argued somewhere that "locality" in CBS's document corresponds to hebrew "יישוב" which means Human settlement, which together with "urban" indicates that it refers to a city, a town or a village which is exactly what CBS's lists contain. I do not see any indication that this term is usually used to mean a part of a city or a combination of several cities.
I think it's quite clear that we are not going to convince each other on this subject. Let's agree to disagree and let others determine the consensus. Now would be a very good moment for some other editors to comment on the subject of city/urban area and whether it bears relevance to Jerusalem's appearance in this list.WarKosign 14:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Israeli is currently not the sovereign, please stick to the facts, and your argument that precision is unimportant for an encyclopedia is hilarious. (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
De facto is key here. And sources use facts. This is much ado about nothing. --Precision123 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You may want to read Sovereignty#De jure and de facto WarKosign 22:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
NPOV, as with everything in Wikipedia, is key here. Israel says that Jerusalem is Israel's by whatever right it may be. The international community and the Palestinians say otherwise.
Precision123, we can't take sides. We can't say, before agreement has been reached, that it belongs to Israel, the State of Palestine or anyone else. Media "reliable sources" may be regarded as being hasty in there agreement with what entities unilaterally say. For instance, very shortly after ISIL self declared themselves as Islamic State and despite the fact that great swathes of the Islamic world regarded them to be un-Islamic and the international community universally regarded them as failing the standards of being regarded as a state, the news agency Reuters rapidly adopted unqualified reference to "Islamic State". They present themselves as the state for all of Islam. They have de facto control of territory including their purported "capital" Ar-Raqqah. I know that this is an even more extreme situation than that of Israel but would we say that a city like Mosul belongs to ISIL and not to Iraq? The ISIL article makes the issue of territorial control (occupation) apparent from the word go. The Israel article should keep things similarly clear. GregKaye 23:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that you bring that up, as the Wikipedia article on ISIL lists Mosul as its largest city, with absolutely no qualifications of the kid being contemplated here for Jerusalem. Some consistency , please I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop making false claims, the wikipedia article on ISIL lists Mosul, Iraq as the largest city under control of the rebel group. The article leaves no question as to what nation Mosul is in. (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Jerusalem We have to talk only about the facts here. So it's nothing to discuss: de facto Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Everything else: de jure, "occupation", another side's claims, etc. may be added only to clarify already existing real situation.
Actually, the same situation was in 1948-1967. It's interesting that then UN & other international organisations haven't challenged Jordan for its occupation of East Jerusalem as well as of Judea & Samaria as a whole. :)
And incidentally, somebody are already talking here that "None of Jerusalem is internationally[who?] considered as being in Israel". I'd like to see the real RS confirming such exotic for me POV. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Igorp_lj Take a look at the article Jerusalem Law. Israel unilaterally declared a united Jerusalem its capital and "For example, United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States), declared soon after that the law was "null and void" and "must be rescinded". This resolution called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city." Foreign embassies in Israel are based in Tel Aviv. Feel free to read around the topic. GregKaye 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, that long paragraph just goes to show that this is much ado about nothing. This has nothing to do with "taking sides" in the conflict or international foreign policy. This is just a template about the largest cities of Israel, using the municipal boundaries as defined by Israel, and the population stats compiled by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics. Objective sources routinely count Jerusalem as among Israel's cities (not to say that it is not also the subject of future negotiations), and have no problem referring to it as Israel's largest (see sources above). Any of your concerns are easily solved with a footnote, which is more than these newspapers even do. We always start with reliable sources. Don't try to find a problem where there isn't one. --Precision123 (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Precision123, for an encyclopaedia to indicate possession of a city in its own voice when that possession is disputed is not, as you say, "much ado about nothing". How is it not "taking sides" to make a presentation based on information solely "defined by Israel"? In this encyclopaedia we have to go by NPOV. Other groups may have different standards but we cannot take sides. We can state Israel's claim in regard to Jerusalem but clearly there are limits to the things that we can present as being in the specific possession of one entity rather than another. For reasons mentioned I do not think that the content of the table presents useful information regarding realities in Israel. It fails to present the relative sizes of inhabited areas. It presents one side of ownership claims regarding Jerusalem. It presents a league ranking that no one else uses. Information on the status of Jerusalem is sensibly presented in other sections of the article. Following I don't think we should repeat the information so as to state ownership. GregKaye 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
User talk:GregKaye, I may remind you about the Jerusalem Embassy Act, and other such opinions, but again: we have to base on facts only.
By the way, I was surprised not finding in Jerusalem Law the following such important fact about "Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries" decision of 22 July 1980 which preceded and was the main reason for urgent passing of Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" on July 30, 1980:
  • "(d) The city of Jerusalem is an integral part of occupied Palestine. It must be evacuated in its entirety and restored unconditionally to Arab sovereignty."[1]
So we have to learn a lot of things yet... --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Igorp_lj Thank you for, perhaps, reading around the topic as recommended or for otherwise sharing this. To be specific the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed in a single country, the US, in 1999 and yet the US embassy, like every other international embassy to Israel, remains in Tel-Aviv. See http://israel.usembassy.gov/ which, as far as I can see, shows no sign of moving. If you want to quote, "other such opinions" then go ahead -- otherwise please see WP guidelines on stating opinion as fact. There is a world of objection to the Israeli position on Jerusalem as shown in reaction to Jerusalem Law and in placements of diplomatic missions in Israel. The single abstention to United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 and the single unactioned legislation to move one embassy to Jerusalem does not count for much.
You raise an irrelevant issue regarding the statement of "Non-Aligned Countries" which goes against the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine's guidance that Jerusalem might be neither specifically under Jewish OR Arab control. It would be wrong to present Jerusalem as belonging to Palestine in Wikipedia's voice in just the same way as it is wrong to state possession by Israel prior to such resolution being achieved. The most that we can do neutrally is present what people claim. We cannot state conclusions until a negotiated conclusion has been reached between Israelis and Palestinians or that international recognition of Israel's legal possession has been achieved. So far such views have been flatly rejected. GregKaye 15:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support remove Jerusalem from the list entirely, or West Jerusalem Huldra (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, regardless of the occupation, so even if controversial politically, there is no harm is displaying this in this template. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ "A/ES-7/8 :ANNEX The part of the Final Declaration of the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries which relates to the situation in the Middle East and the question of Palestine". Letter dated 22 July 1980 from the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. UN. 22 July 1980. Retrieved 1 March 2015. 

A more innocuous suggestion[edit]

Not arguing either way on the legal stuff here. Just suggesting that "This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas." should be expanded to "This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas. The population of West Jerusalem alone is XXX,XXX." The reason being purely to make it more informative. Zerotalk 00:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the reason for this whole RFC was originally because we can't find the West Jerusalem numbers alone. I recall seeing them somewhere else a long time ago, but I guess they can't be located now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 00:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This gives some numbers without explaining where they came from. "+972 is a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of journalists" WarKosign 08:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is another source that gives the number 400,000. No idea how correct or up-to-date it is, and it is certainly too round to be precise. The math doesn't fit: CBS gives total population of Jerusalem as 796,200, +972 gives West Jerusalem portion as 65%, which would be 517,530 - very far from this 400,000. Of course this calculation is not usable - only data from the same source can be WP:CALCed. WarKosign 08:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If this is a sub-dicussion in the RfC, it should be notes and structured as such (use sections and levels?). As a stand-alone discussion, it is useless because the RfC trumps. One can not discuss a topic in two independent places. -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Just a disappointed note about editing chronology. The situation that we were left with at the end of the last Talk:Israel thread on this topic was that the heading read: largest Urban Areas of Israel and the first item read West Jerusalem. WarKosign then mentions starts this thread with mention of edit warring and then, without recourse to the talk page, edits back to "Largest cities of Israel" and then repeatedly neglects to answer the repeatedly posed question, "Would you define West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as being individually defined as cities?" In all this time the template continues to display Jerusalem being "of" and now being "in" Israel. Neither is justified and yet Wikipedia remains presenting false information. I have long been supportive of Israeli issues as is even currently evident on the Talk:ISIL page but I really think you need to understand why people get pissed off. The normal way things work in Wikipedia is to propose a change and then debate its merits. There is no merit in abandoning talk page discussion then making changes then raising talk page discussion then making further undiscussed changes and refusing to answer related questions and all the while presenting content that presents an extremely biased POV. It honestly sickens me. GregKaye 15:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: You are picking chronology start point that suits your narrative. The natural starting point is the state in which this template was in at least since July, a long time before you made your bold edit. Before this edit there was some discussion at talk:Israel about inclusion of Palestinian cities in the list, nothing about renaming Jerusalem. Your change here was challenged, we began the discussion and then the RfC. Per WP:NOCON, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" so I restored the template to its stable state until it is determined that there is a consensus to make a change. WarKosign 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign I am fine for you to start the chronology from any place you like. In the thread that you mention, as you know, there was plenty about Jerusalem. In fact three separate editors all used the wordingwording, "Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV" which was one strongly presented view. There has never been anything "about renaming Jerusalem". Why mention such a preposterous idea? Really - why? The fact is that in that thread there were were ~146 mentions of Jerusalem within editors posts and many of these references came in the context of specific mention of West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem.
No matter where you start your chronology the fact remains that East Jerusalem is not recognised as being in Israel. The sovereignty of the whole of Jerusalem remains in dispute. All of my last comments stand and I ask you to consider your approach. The only alternative name I know for Jerusalem is the Arabic al-Quds. No one is suggesting this but, even if they were, this would have no relevance with regard to consideration of issues such as the Green line. There was nothing unstable about the title Largest urban areas of Israel only this title, supported by the referenced material, allowed for edits with either option "West Jerusalem" (with its area on one side of the green line) or "Jerusalem" (straddling the green line). The "urban areas" edit came in the context of talk page discussion which you failed to return to when you made your revert. GregKaye 19:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: You are correct, there was discussion regarding Jerusalem, with opinions ranging between removing it entirely and keeping as it is, there was no consensus to make the change you did. It was and remains one of the options and soon we will know if it is supported. Until then let's keep the article the way it was. WarKosign 20:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign I repeat. There has never been anything "about renaming Jerusalem". Why mention such a preposterous idea? You are an unaccountable editor manipulating and changing content without discussion and now pushing to keep things, inclusive of your undiscussed edits and in the wake of edit war, the way things are until discussion is done. Again, I really think you need to understand why people get pissed off. GregKaye 20:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: It's very clear why you are pissed off - your change was challenged, after an RfC it will be very hard to change whatever version that is chosen, and it may not be your favorite version. I call "changing the way a city appears in a list" renaming it, but feel free to call it anything else. 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, Please add to the reasons a person such as myself might get pissed off, your repeated evasion of simple yes or no type questions. Such as, would you support this template functioning as in a "Largest cities in ..." type template? You were twice asked a question on this format at: Template talk:Largest cities of Acre#Requested move 1 March 2015. Its not the first time and I again make simple request for basic straightforward communication. GregKaye 18:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I do not need to evade any question, I can simply ignore it if I do not feel like answering. I do not fully understand this question, this is why I give an expanded answer rather than give a simple yes/no. What does it mean to "function as in" another template name, and what exactly is "template type" ? This template is called "largest cities of" and its content would be the same if it was renamed to "largest cities in", with the same dispute existing about Jerusalem. This is exactly the reason I opposed the mass rename you proposed - it achieves nothing. WarKosign 18:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign True enough. you do not need to cooperate. You do not need to communicate. You do not need to ask for clarification. You can edit war if you want. Bear in mind that there are people here who manipulate to highlight Israel in ISIL related topics in, I have argued, needlessly highlighting Golan Heights on Syria inclusive ISIL and Syrian Civil war maps and have made I think made unjustified additions of Israel on ISIL's terrorist designations etc. on a continued basis and others have battled to try to present a dire picture of Israel's attitude to immigration. From various things I have seen inclusive of your reactions. Some of the anti-Jewish sentiment here may just be natural reaction to genuine issues. I am someone who has continually fought the Israeli side on issues like those mentioned and, as someone who has continually been on your side, I want to ask you to try to think of ways not to piss people off. GregKaye 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I never edited any article related to ISIL and hardly read any, certainly not the talk pages, so I don't know if whatever you wrote there was or wasn't on my side. If you mean Israel's side - opinions within Israel vary widely to what constitutes Israel's interest. I am doing my best trying to cooperate with you, but when after I answer your question to my best understanding 3 times you accuse me of avoiding answering - what's the point continuing to try and cooperate ? I think it's clear beyond any doubt that we disagree on the subject of Jerusalem and discussing it between us won't get us anywhere. It's best to achieve consensus in other ways, such as an RfC. WarKosign 20:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign Let's try it this way. Do you support the template here as working as a "Largest cities in ..." type template as per its displayed heading? The question on this theme has been asked (in clear yes and no format for clarity) repeatedly. This follows your assertion at Template talk:Largest cities of Acre#Requested move 1 March 2015 claiming if it's disputed if a city is "of" a certain country, it is also disputed whether the territory on which the city resides should be considered "in" the country. "Of" and "in" are different words and any clarification you want to give on this would be fine but, after all this time, please answer the question.
Please understand that if you make a statement and an editor asks a question for the sake of clarification, then saying "I can simply ignore it if I do not feel like answering" is far from symptomatic of cooperation. GregKaye 08:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: Again, I do not understand what you mean by "working as a ... type template". Of course "of" and "in" are different words, but in some situations (such as this one) they are interchangeable. If one accepts that Jerusalem is a city "of" Israel then its territory belongs to Israel, therefore it is "in" Israel. If one does not accept that it's a city "of" Israel then it's also not "in" Israel. You keep asking me the same question that I keep answering, but it begins to seem like an WP:IDHT case - I see less and less point in answering with each iteration. WarKosign 11:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign The template has the title "Largest cities in Israel". Are you happy for the template solely to function as a template working with as using the work "in" which would mean that content could not be added as if the template were presenting something like "Largest cities of Israel"? GregKaye 17:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: If I understand your question correctly, you are referring to the contradiction between the article title and the heading. I would say that it serves as an alternative title. The distinction is of no practical use - there is only one city in the list which has a disputed status, and it's equally disputed whether Jerusalem is in Israel as whether it is of Israel. It would be more interesting if cities such as Ariel where in the list - I think it's quite clear that it is of Israel (de-facto), but it is not in Israel (at least not within currently claimed borders, it is expected to be included in territorial swaps in the final agreement). If Ariel was large enough to be in this list, I think I would include it (clearly marking its special status, of course). It would also be proper to include Ariel in the list of largest cities in the West Bank. WarKosign 19:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hallelujah, so you don't take "in" to be definitive in regard to the template content. I honestly have no comprehension as to why it took you so inordinately long to respond to that but at least, finally, I have some idea where you stand. WarKosign, thank you for your final reply.
However, please consider that all parallel nation related Wikipedia articles are written in a "List of cities in ..." or similar type format. List of cities of does not cut it as there is too much ambiguity and POV involved and Wikipedia contents are intended to have a degree of consistency. "Jerusalem Law" is internationally declared null and void and, in regard to East Jerusalem, no other nation regards it as being within Israeli territory. GregKaye 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know this distinction is of no practical difference at any of the templates that you wanted to rename, including this one. Is there any city in any of the templates where this distinction matters ? Legality of Jerusalem law (whether it should be considered to be in/of Israel) has nothing to do with the well established fact that it's de-facto is in/of Israel. I can't think of a way by which Jerusalem is not a part of Israel in practice. If you are outside of Israel and want to visit Jerusalem, you need to cross the border into Israel. If you break the law while in Jerusalem, you may be arrested by Israel police. Businesses operating in Jerusalem pay taxes to Israel. Saying "Jerusalem law is null and void and therefore Jerusalem is not currently in/of Israel" is denying the reality (and many established sources, if we go back to editing Wikipedia). WarKosign 22:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


I think we've finished discussing a temporary footnote, so let's leave this for discussion of any permanent footnotes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 02:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While we're having the above discussion, there could be an addition to the current footnote along the lines of Gouncbeatduke's here. I don't think there's any dispute over ownership of the city being disputed by the international community (not to use a cliché term, but I don't know a better one). Someone coming here unfamiliar with the situation (a surprising number of people) might not know that important fact about the city. We can think of this as a Band-Aid (plaster) for the problem while we figure out how to give it a better long-term fix. Thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Adar 5775 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A template is not seen by (normal) readers directly, it is transcluded into "normal" pages. This one is only transcluded by Israel and Demographics of Israel. Israel already contains a lot of disclaimers, Demographics of Israel may be a bit lacking. Perhaps it would be better to add it there, to save some redundancy. WarKosign 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Seconded... I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah all right, thank you. I admit I didn't fully understand how templates were used in this sense (I understood the type where you fill in information yourself, but not these more advanced templates), and so thank you for enlightening me. As it's unlikely to be used in any new articles (and we can cross that bridge when we come to it), I think we should go with your suggestion to just add something manually to the demographics article so that the Israel article doesn't get an unnecessary extra disclaimer. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Adar 5775 23:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion of the entire template is unnecessary. However, if the template is to be added then so as to assert the subjective opinion, in the context of current times, that Jerusalem is "of Israel" then this violation of WP:YESPOV would certainly need a disclaimer.
The first mentioned point in the YESPOV section of NPOV states.
  • Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.
If this rule is to be broken then I see no justification for excluding a clearly presented disclaimer. Wikipedia cannot be used as a one sided WP:SOAPBOX. GregKaye 12:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting things back on-track

Anyway, all, per Slakr's friendly advice back at the EW noticeboard, we should move things here so that we don't run the risk of disrupting the noticeboard. So a major point of the disagreement was that some felt the placement of the temporary footnote was an unintentional circumvention of the above RFC. I, and I believe some others, felt it was a temporary fix to help clarify things while we figure out a permanent solution in the RFC which I thought was just about how we represent Jerusalem's name for the purposes of this template, though maybe I was incorrect. What are everyone's thoughts on this footnote? Should we consider its wording part of the RFC as well and leave it alone until the RFC is closed or should we treat it as something separate? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A "temporary" footnote would be about the same issue as the RfC is. It would necessarily pre-conclude an outcome. So either we forget about it, or we have to run a complete pre-RfC for the footnote itself. I say option 1. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the content of the footnote is a part of the RfC, since the question is "How should Jerusalem be represented", and the footnote is a part of this representation. The bit of text that was edit-warred over is a bit too verbose to my taste, but otherwise harmless. WarKosign 20:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, WK. I know we discussed it a bit in the RFC, but, and I mean no offence by this, but I think the current formatting of the original request puts the emphasis almost entirely on which name we should use. I might move this all up to the RFC to keep everything in one place, but think there's any way could we put internationally disputed in that single footnote sentence then? Maybe a wikilink on occupied? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 20:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, Would very much like to thank Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie for raising this issue here. The previous talk:Israel discussion led to a listing of West Jerusalem into a template that, as per source material, referred to "urban areas". Edit warring commenced reverting these edits and yet, when Gouncbeatduke added some clearly encyclopaedic information into the footnote, this was instantly reverted by I invented "it's not you, it's me" here. All I can see here is partisan editing trying to suppress truths. Its not right to manipulate such contents as Wikipedia. Not only do editors want to use Wikipedia's voice to declare Jerusalem as being Israel's but they even want to remove reference to dispute. WTF is going on people??? Everything in this is wrong. GregKaye 02:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • get off your high horse and read the discussion above, which explains why a footnote inside a transcluded template is a bad idea. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I invented, your edit 02:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC) was placed out of the timeline. Should have been added below. I suggest you correct this. And about this reply: I do not see what you refer to. GregKaye's is whitin the topic of this subthread. -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


IS there a reason why the Jerusalem figure is in parentheses? It seems the asterisk is enough to convey whatever "this number is special" message we're trying to promote here. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't actually understand their use here. The only time I've seen parentheses in that sort of use is for negative numbers. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 21:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
ok, I'll remove them. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: The number may be "wrong" (describe East + West Jerusalem population while (if it's so determined by the RfC) the list should contain only West Jerusalem) but we have no reason to suspect its accuracy, it's as accurate as the rest of the numbers in the list. The asterisk and the footnote are there to indicate this number should be treated differently. Parentheses are misleading because they are sometimes used for Negative numbers. Can you think of a different indicator that would not be misleading ? WarKosign 08:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, hadn't seen this section. Well, the number itself is not uncertain. But it is about a different definition. The fact "Israeli city - Jerusalem - 796,200" is incorrect, because this set of combined statements is not exact (under discussion). To denote that "the number may be 50% off" we better use brackets. It is not a detail. -DePiep (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh and by the way: please stop pursuing sidetrack decisions for the RfC. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is how does the Manual of Style suggest we represent it? Nothing immediately pops out at me there. However, the current parenthetical representation doesn't seem to convey anything and might even cause confusion (though no one would actually think the city had a negative population unless it had been overrun by zombies). We could ask the question at Help Desk without linking or mentioning the RFC or mentioning Jerusalem in any way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 15:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The parenthesis are confusing and misused. There is no precedent on Wikipedia from what I can tell. The asterisk is sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Implemented. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 02:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Merging sections into the RFC

I don't know about these being side-tracks as they are important details that all fall under the question of how best to represent Jerusalem, but it might be best, as was suggested in another area, to make this topic–and the one I started about the footnote (changing the name just to footnote and maybe hatting the earlier discussion so it's out of the way if everyone's okay with that)–into subsections of the RFC. It actually works out quite well because then the main discussion can be focused on the name of the city and the subsections can deal with the other two aspects of representing the city (and thus the chaos that is RFCs shall be midly controlled). Is everyone all right with this? Zero0000, is there any particular way you'd like your section incorporated into the RFC if we make this move, good sir? It would be rude for me to mess with others' talk page comments without asking first. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11 Adar 5775 16:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
So, we all cool with merging these into the RFC as subsections then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 04:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You can easily move this discussion to be a subsection in the RfC, one bellow "comments". However it might become irrelevant if it's decided that Jerusalem should be removed completely or that it should appear as just "Jerusalem".WarKosign 06:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • User I invented "it's not you, it's me" again imposed their proposal without having a talked outcome here. [3]. That is to be reversed. To be clear, this topic is part of the RfC and so needs the RfC outcome to have any effect. I ask I Invernted... to self-revert, and to stay within discussion process. -DePiep (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Well no worries, then, WarKosign, if that is the decision made and the parentheses are made irrelevant, then it pretty much settles the matter either way. So, you do want them to be merged then, DePiep? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 14:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote, I want the premature edit be undone. No sense in discussing this when other people go beserk and edit it their own way. -15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion or removal of the parentheses and the rearranging of the subsections are separate matters. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 15:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not for you to decide. Anyway, the edit is not what the discussion concluded. -DePiep (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Then I will add the qualifier that I feel the two are separate matters. Even though I agree with others that the parentheses don't add anything, you are correct that we should wait until a consensus on the matter has been reached in #Parentheses and so I have reverted the edit. No offence intended there, IIINYIM. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 16:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How's this new hierarchy look?

== RfC on Jerusalem ==
=== Comments on Jerusalem name ===
==== A more innocuous suggestion ====
=== Footnote ===
(Hat: Getting things back on-track and everything else here so there can be a separate convo.)
=== Parentheses ===
(Maybe hat this portion of the discussion about combining everything?)

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 15:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would put "A more innocuous suggestion" at the same level as the comment, footnotes and parentheses - but don't mind this structure as well. This very section is absolutely pointless once implemented. WarKosign 16:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was a bit iffy about where to put it and did not intend to belittle Zero0000's point or anything like that. Agreed, this is only a temporary section. you might not have seen my edit summary, but this was basically to separate out this discussion from the parenthetical one and the idea is to hat it and close it once we have a consensus. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14 Adar 5775 16:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Largest cities of Acre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I raised this discussion on an across the board basis on the belief that it can be an utter waste of time to have both extent of area discussions of a country and separate cities/towns of discussions. A less subjective view would be to present cities in as a baseline topic. GregKaye 09:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem vs. Tel Aviv[edit]

It seems strange to see Jerusalem ranked higher than Tel Aviv, both because of the various issues connected with Jerusalem, and also because the Tel Aviv metro population is higher than the Jerusalem metro population. AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem has virtually no metro area, but when looking at the city itself Jerusalem has about double the population of Tel Aviv. There are no numbers on population of western portion of Jerusalem alone, it is probably more densely populated than the easter part, so even when taken alone it's probably larger than Tel Aviv.WarKosign 13:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
When looking at looking at what most people would think of as the effective "city" area in urban terms, Tel Aviv is far larger than Jerusalem, as far as I can tell. (Our own Tel Aviv article says "Urban 1,368,800 - Metro 3,785,000" while our Jerusalem article says "Metro 1,124,300"). It's really only by rigidly following the details of one set of technicalistic administrative legalisms, while completely disregarding and running roughshod over another another set of legalisms, that one could bizarrely contort up the result that Jerusalem is larger than Tel Aviv. (Also, unless the Israeli census has different publishing practices than the censuses of other OECD countries, then it should actually be possible to calculate the population of west Jerusalem.) As far as what most people who are not administrative subdivision geeks understand or care about, Tel Aviv is larger than Jerusalem. If this template produces a different result, then I would argue that it's using the wrong definition of "city"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This template is clearly about cities and not metro areas. It is evident from its name, and if it's not sufficient - it has entries for several cities that are within Tel Aviv's metro area. It can't be any other way, Israel has only a handful of metro areas, certainly less than 10. WarKosign 21:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The template as it currently exists is not really about "cities" at all, as most people would understand and use the word "city" -- it's about a technicalistic administrative unit, whether or not such technicalistic administrative units correspond to anything that ordinary people would understand as usefully being a "city". It should really be titled "Largest arim (ערים) of Israel", because its current title is somewhat misleading... AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The title is not misleading in the slightest. This template is about cities (a.k.a "arim"), That template is about metro areas. As I wrote above, Jerusalem has no metro area worth writing about, but if you can find sources - feel free to add it there. WarKosign 07:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)