Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Image clutter

This article simply has too many images that are either not relevant to the section in which they are placed, poorly captioned, not staggered, or redundant and add no more real encyclopedic value to the article. I plan to tidy it up per WP:MOSIMAGES here shortly. It also might be worthwhile to create a unified Jerusalem gallery in Commons that can be linked in this article. Any input is welcome. -asad (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its a great idea to create a unified Jerusalem Gallery --SajjadF (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes. I hope this will enable to the article to read, flow and look better. -asad (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving some stuff around for readability and flow is one thing. Adding new pics with contentious captions like you did with the US consulate and the panorama from Gilo is quite another. I can't imagine you didn't think those would be objected to.

How about you do some smaller incremental edits so we can discuss the problematic bits as they arise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope this are not deleting information for delet Israel also ! Thank you very much !. פארוק (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree some pictures (police hq etc) are unnecessary. On the other hand, a picture of the Orient House could be in there somewhere. --Dailycare (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Until now I can not understand why a capital city like Jerusalem can not have an importent pictures in the beginning of this article and why they are in small size in a small chapter, or maybe it stems from political considerations and before of that have been deleted here entire rows, some of them that I wrote. פארוק (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in to remind everyone here of WP:AGF. For what it's worth, the image clutter is a legitimate issue. MOS:IMAGES says that we are to, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar." This is exactly what it being done in large portions of this article. While all pictorial contributions are valued, I would encourage everyone to consider whether there may be more appropriate places to put them. I'm only passing through, but those are my two cents. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, besides the reference to Gilo and the caption about the US Consulate, could you tell me what else you found to be contentious? -asad (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, a blanket revert over a single caption? Most of these useless images were added over the last weeks, so if somebody wants to invoke BRD it would be to remove all that clutter. But I guess we cant have some people from muslim countries are deleting information about israel. Otherwise they might delet Israel also. nableezy - 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, moving some stuff around in the article is fine. Removing pictures that were added recently is also fine. Replacing a bunch of stuff and adding obviously contentious captions with no discussion on an article like this is just looking for trouble. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't see your point. Is there something I added that shouldn't be there? Surely the "contentious" captions can be easily cited. I just don't see anything in your statements that justify a blanket revert as you did. -asad (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than the two captions I already mentioned, you also added a picture of the Orient House with a contentious caption (my suggested alternative: "The Orient House, where the PLO conducted diplomatic contacts in violation of the Oslo Accords"), you removed a picture of the Wailing Wall for some reason, and at least 2-3 others. It's hard to follow all the changes when you make a couple dozen over practically the whole article.

Make smaller edits and I won't have to revert the whole thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that really your suggested caption for a picture of the Orient House? nableezy - 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not much worse POV-wise than what he used. It can easily be cited, which apparently is all you need for a caption? See above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? It isnt? How about we try this with less antagonism, not more. You say what you think is wrong with the caption used and make a serious suggestion for how it could be improved. Going from one "POV" to the other isnt going to solve anything. nableezy - 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, as I said before, the first two captions can easily be cited by a gagillion reliable sources. As for the Orient House, can you please tell me where lies the contention in writing,

"The Orient House, served as the headquarters of the PLO until its forcible closure in 2001"

Where is the dispute there? As for your last point, yes, I did remove a photo of the Western Wall. I also removed a photo of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. I incorporated all three of them into this photo. Did you even notice that before your revert? -asad (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things can "easily be cited by a gagillion reliable sources". Like the alternative caption I suggested for the Orient House. The citability of the caption is not the only thing we consider when deciding if it should be in the article or not.

Feel free to make smaller edits with edit summaries explaining your actions, or if you prefer we can continue to go around in circles here. Your call. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Orient House, served as the headquarters of the PLO until its forcible closure in 2001"

What's non-neutral about this? Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You still have not answered the questions. What is contentious about saying:

"Due to lack of recognition over the territorial sovereignty of Jerusalem, the United States Consulate General in Jerusalem, as most other diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, operates independently from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv"

and,

"The Orient House, served as the headquarters of the PLO until its forcible closure in 2001"

?? -asad (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "The Orient House, where evidence that the PLO was illegally detaining people in Jerusalem was found"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that provides any relevance to the article. See point 3 on criteria for a good caption WP:CAP. I don't think it is very productive to counter a question by asking question. This will make it the 5th time you have been asked to explain why you feel those captions are contentious. Could you please explain? -asad (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying they were illegally detaining people in Jerusalem certainly has more relevance to an article about Jerusalem than the fact it was closed.

The caption is contentious because it doesn't say why the place was "forcibly closed". It also doesn't mention that it operated as the PLO headquarters for less than a decade. On top of that, there are much more famous landmarks one could use to illustrate this article. HTH.

Perhaps you could try to create less politically motivated captions. Picking pictures based on how well they would illustrate the article rather than your political agenda (who cares what the US consulate looks like? Again, it's not exactly a landmark building) would also probably help. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Israeli claim that it was illegally detaining people in West Bank is not even mentioned in the article. The certain topic there is about government and national institutions, and this building served as a very well known home to the body which is known as the official representation of the Palestinian people in land that they claim as their capital. We don't need to interject the Israeli claim that it was shut down because of their operations in East Jerusalem just as much as we don't need to interject the Palestinian claim that it was shut down in an effort to rid the city of official Palestinian representation. Saying it was forcibly closed is NPOV and a representation of undisputed fact on both sides of the debate. Remember, this is a caption, if someone would like to read the conflicting claims they are welcome to click on the link. Also, I never claimed that the US Consulate was a "landmark" building. But please tell me how placing a picture of the American Consulate in a section talking about the political status of Jerusalem, near the sentence explaining the international mandate for world nations to specifically keep their official diplomatic representative buildings for Israel out of the city, illustrate a "political agenda". I am adding nothing of context that hasn't already existed in the article for years. -asad (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It was good of Evanh2008 to mention AGF but I understand why other editors would be cynical when MoS is invoked but still ignored. Both versions appear to have sandwiching (maybe it is my browser settings but I doubt it). Of course this is a contentious edit. You can hardly move a coma without people worrying about it on such an article. Quality aside, how the image works in he subsection and then how the caption should be worded are massive issues with an article that cannot be FA since people won't stop focusing on politics at every opportunity. Crete a cute table to organize the endless discussion that is about to happen: (image | subsection proposed | etc ). So time to start an RfC. You guys are good at that, right? Oh... Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How about simply "The Orient House, which served as the headquarters of the PLO until 2001". --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That works for me, though, I would like to know what NMMNG has to say in the interest of consensus. -asad (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 2

I think the proposal is an improvement. Might I suggest breaking the two POVs into two sentences and an addition?

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
Tiamut^talk 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thats fine by me too. nableezy - 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think this is very good. That is brief, facutal and without any controversy. The claim/reasonning of each side is given as well as the main reason why the other side challenges this. That fits NPoV because everybody agrees with what is written even if he could consider the other side's claim as unlegitimate. On the synthax point of view : the number of words is nearly the same ; sentence structure is the same. Excellent. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• That is far more reasonable. I wont oppose that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed - seems like a good compromise. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm dropping my support for my version and going with this one. Great work! I was surprised to see that so many people looked at my suggestion as being somewhat pro-Palestinian in terms of presenting sovereignty claims, as that wasn't really my intention. I certainly thought that the difference between "capital" and "proclaimed capital" pre-empted any WP:WEIGHT issues. Regardless, it looks like I was wrong. I like this one a lot. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that there is a stray comma in there after "such". We will also need to change the "If... is" clause (regarding the population and area of East Jerusalem) to the subjunctive "If... would be", as Nishidani pointed out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• If we're going this route, it should note that their seat of government is Ramallah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ramallah is the administrative capital of the Palestinian Authority, not the State of Palestine. -asad (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So where does the government of the State of Palestine sit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which country is Jerusalem territorially part of?     ←   ZScarpia   01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the seat of government of the State of Palestine? Do you know where it is? I think it's important to note where their seat of government is when they proclaim their capital (which most readers would correctly assume is related to the seat of government) to be in a different city. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your first question: nothing. But it has a lot to do with the double standards and partisan reasoning being shown here.     ←   ZScarpia   04:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, could you please open a new section for whining rather than interrupt a discussion that seems to be going pretty well here? I'll come play with you there if you ask nicely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This article talks about Jerusalem, not Ramallah. If we add the stuff about Ramallah, we should add that Jerusalem is not totally an Israeli city but is under military occupation after an illegal annexion. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I withheld my reply, waiting for Evanh2008, to whom we're much indebted for providing the basic formula, to give his view, and perhaps a further tweak. It's fine by me as well, once the comma's added. I agree with Pluto, also. This cannot be expanded to carry every nuance. Good work. Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think better after coffee. Two points however still need some work. The word 'control' worried me last night. As scholars readily allow, Israel has de facto withheld the kind of retricular control and administrative process normal for states on their territory, from significant parts of East Jerusalem. The electrical and water utilities are run by West Bank Palestinian corporations. The educational curricula is not Israeli, but modelled on that in Palestinian schools. Jerusalem's municipal council radically underfunds that sector, and more importantly, several autonomous institutions like the waqf and the Christian denominations, own and administer their areas. ((Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

'From all the research on polarized cities, it appears that Jerusalem may present the most striking case of a muncipal conflict being a more extreme reflection of a national conflict. ..(comparing Belfast and Nicosia). Jerusalem can claim the dubious top honour of being the most polarized city in the world'. (pp.121, 122)

)

Operatively, therefore, Palestinians and other groups do exercise considerable local administrative autonomy there. This is how, with the comma adjusted, and the flow of balancing sentences slightly modified, I'd prefer it. I added 'their sector of the city'

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians, while retaining some (administrative) autonomy, exercise no sovereignty over their sector of the city.

I'm not happy wholly with this either, of course, because it suggests there are two parties, excluding the strong Christian element in East Jerusalem. Still, a little more input and crafting is required to cover all angles, surely? Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"though Palestinians, while retaining some (administrative) autonomy" - Strongly oppose that being included sorry. This is giving too much undue weight to the palestinian side in the opening paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean it's not true? We have cut, as I showed above, a huge amount of slack to the fringe proposition that Jerusalem (all of it) is Israel's capital, against what WP:NPOV explicitly states. I don't think you realize that in this formulation, far more has been conceded by one side in this regard. The sentence I added adjusts precisely to balance that concession. Israel does not, see its budgets, run large parts of East Jerusalem. For goodness sake, it even built the 'West' Jerusalem stadium by siphoning off funds formally allocated for the Eastern sector's administration of essential services, more or less abandoning it to its own resources.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How about, "though Palestinians, while retaining limited (administrative) autonomy within their communities, exercise no sovereignty over their sector of the city." I hate to suggest longer text, but I think this may accomplish Nishidani's point. -asad (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Pluto and Evans, in particular, are concerned about stylistic balance and neatness, which suggests, for an encyclopedic lead, concision above all (as 'over their sector of the city' could be adjusted to there, for example, which is better since contextually it would refer to 'Jerusalem' (whole and in part, and 'retaining' with its implication of a continuity some might deny, could be having). Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what exact "administrative autonomy" do the Palestinians retain in East Jerusalem again? That a private electric company supplies them with power? That's not administrative autonomy and even it was, has nothing to do with SoP. And how did the sentence jump from the State of Palestine and its proclamation to Palestinians in general? The SoP has no administrative autonomy or even official presence in Jerusalem. Also, if we're not going to explain that despite proclaiming it their capital their seat of government is elsewhere in the text, it should be in a footnote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is about nuances and precision. some defines administrative autonomy, and that is a fair description of the otherwise immensely complex conceptual mess of Jerusalem's administration. Akram specifically concludes:

‘Trying to identify which parts of East Jerusalem are fully under Israeli jurisdiction, or are as Israeli as the pre-1967 Israel parts are Israeli, is a complex, if not impossible, task.’ p.124

So it's in Akram, it's in Michael Dumper's, The Politics of Sacred Space:The Old City of Jerusalem in the Middle East Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publications 2002 p.163, or any number of sources on de facto administrative autonomy. Let's take Mosheh ʻAmirav's book. He ought to know since was actually a municipal planner high up in the echelons of power there over the last decades and has described all this well in his recent book, from Eshkol's granting of autonomy to waqf authorities, to Israel's entented with Jordan that the latter power look after the EJ Palestinjians, and Kollek and Olmert's administration. No more than 5% of Jerusalem municipal funds up from the historic 3% after occupation, goes into East Jerusalem p.117). In his view Israel has effectively abandoned the Palestinian sector to its own devices. There is no united Jerusalem because the Wall built splits the Arab city from 9 Arab neighbourhoods. Two key quotes:-

In the first years of the city's unification, Kollek was one of the people most responsible for extending administrative, economic and educational autonomy to the Arab population. Years later, he came to realize that his 'liberal and enlightened' policy was a key factor behind the segregation of the Arab minority from the Jewish majority. The Arabs chose the Jordanian option and preferred autonomy to equality'. (Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

'From all the research on polarized cities, it appears that Jerusalem may present the most striking case of a muncipal conflict being a more extreme reflection of a national conflict. ..(comparing Belfast and Nicosia). Jerusalem can claim the dubious top honour of being the most polarized city in the world'. (pp.121, 122)

People who objected to Ravpapa's attempt to actually mention this profound and unique urban contentiousness would do well to see how close his suggestions mirrored those of one of Israel's best technical authorities on the city.

Golda Meir and Jordan's King Hussein had, even after 1967, a secret entente that in practical terms the Arabs of East Jerusalem would remain under Jordanian governance, which outspent Israeli gov. investment 10 times with some $100 million in East Jerusalem in the decade of the 1970s, and effectively Israel abandoned the area to itself, apart from retaining strict control over security and building permits. In the 1990s, East Jerusalemite Palestinians were given the right to vote in PNA elections. Jordan handed over its rights to the PLO in 1988, and the PNA carries on doing what the Jordanians did under the consent of Israel's occupying authorities earlier. None of this is in the article, of course, so just reading the article to inform oneself about the town won't be of much help in understanding the issue.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel pretty weird in here. I didn't agree with Tiamut's formulation, but swallowed my POV because so many editors were shaping a consensus, and I won't get in the way of that process, esp. when supported by people who are closer to the realities than a bookworm like myself is. I'm clueless as to why a formulation that showcases a fringe assertion at the outset, and meekly requests that the other side's reality be hinted at, now finds objections. The sensible thing is to accept a victory, and show grace in the conquest, as one bows to an uncontested reality on the ground.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were close to building a consensus in terms of the initial alternative proposal 2, I do not see the need for a change to this introduction, but i said i wouldnt oppose that change happening. But now instead of a reasonable brief sentence mentioning the palestinian position being moved to the top of the introduction, we are getting bogged down by issues around if they exercise some control of areas within the city in terms of local government. This is totally giving undue weight to this issue for the first paragraph of the introduction. The proposed initial wording was factually accurate. the "state of Palestine" has no sovereignty or control over the city of Jerusalem. Its brief and simple whilst making Palestinian claims to the city right at the top of the introduction despite many of us believing it is not necessary to be there. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means that the majority underwrite a passage that then assumes a certain authority textually, thus it takes time, requires close study, so that those underwriting it are fully aware of the implications. It is not an overnight rush, and we do it quietly. Generally the process so far has been illuminatingly sensible and civil. As per my source, the 'most contention-fraught city in the world', which by the way, the lead should add, but doesn't, we simply cannot gloss over the Palestinian presence and its POV as a claim counterpoised to a fringe POV assertion by Israel that it is the capital. That is the POV problem the added suggestions attempt to solve. By the way have you read the details above, which were in response to NMMGG's query?Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No only is it undue weight, it's mixing two unrelated issues. One is the capital of the SoP (still waiting to hear where their seat of government actually is, if anyone knows) and the other is whatever "limited autonomy" there is there, which is not exercised by the SoP, obviously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The world does not recognize Israel's position on Jerusalem, by a majority of 193 to 1. The majority of states recognize The State of Palestine by a majority of 130 to 63. If you want a debate about WP:Undue, you'd lose on that score alone, since, as I noted, the current opening line gives undue weight to a fringe position. Still, we're here not to quarrel, but to find a sensible arrangement for an inadequate lead. I'm happy to withdraw my qualifiers if the current majority prefers the text as Evansh2008 and Tiamut tailored it, by the way. Since the SoP is a state occupied by Israel, arguments of the kind you are adducing do not apply. We do not underwrite power arrangements here, we simply state what the best sources agree is the case, which here, is that Jerusalem is not wholly in Israel, is occupied, and the occupied Palestinian part is more or less left to its own resources in managing the mess in its quarter. Since the article deals with all of the city, there's no way of equivocating over this, and trying to maintain NPOV while relegating the Palestinian fact to a footnote. Britishwatcher accepts the Evansh/Tiamut suggestion. You haven't expressed your specific view on it, and perhaps it's time for some positive input. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If only you had a source that says that lack of recognition of a capital means something, or that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, maybe you'd have a point. I also notice that the "precision and nuance" you say it so important is a bit lacking when discussing the SoP, like the fact it doesn't have a functioning government, controls no territory, or in fact possesses any of the hallmarks of a state, except for recognition. But that's ok, we all know what the reality is and I think most of us understand that even if you were able to change wikipedia to fit your POV, it would not change the reality on the ground.

As for the current suggestion, I have expressed my specific view on it, but let me reiterate in case you missed it. I think that if the current suggestion is used, it should be noted (preferably in the text but I'll also accept a footnote) that the seat of government of the SoP is not in Jerusalem. Considering the fact some editors here wanted to change the text to say that Israel "proclaimed" Jerusalem as its capital and we all know that Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel, saying that the SoP proclaimed it as its capital may imply that their seat of government is there. It should be made clear that it isn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I like Nishidani's most recent revision. The only thing I would tweak is the parentheses around "administrative". Let's get rid of those, if no one objects.

Accusations of POV pushing aside, I agree somewhat with NMMNG regarding clarification in connection with the seat-of-government issue, but I would much rather see that in there as a footnote than in-text. One question I don't think anyone has yet raised -- if we're going to use the full-form "State of Palestine" shouldn't we also then use the full-form "State of Israel"? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine can mean Palestine, State of Palestine, or (sometimes) the Palestinian territories. Israel, for at least the last 60 years, does not suffer from such ambiguity. But I dont really care if State of precedes Israel, I just dont find it necessary. nableezy - 20:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it necessary either. I sill object to Nishidani's proposal for the reasons stated above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Id be fine with a footnote that addresses your concerns. That language would have to be worked out, obviously, but I dont have a problem with it. nableezy - 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So can we not have a footnote that deals with the Palestinian Authorities seat of government, along with the issue of the administrative autonomy mentioned. Rather than putting either of those things in the opening sentences. That initial Alternative proposal 2 is not inaccurate, despite these issues being raised. Those claims are too much for the second sentence of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If 'alternative 2' as proposed by Tiamut is adopted, I don't see any objection to footnote[s] that would be added to provide clarifications. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the "autonomy" stuff belongs in a footnote to the first sentence of the lead. It can be discussed in the section about the current status of the city, assuming somebody develops an appropriate section in the body of the article. I should note that the Waqf and churches managing their own affairs happens all over Israel and with others like the Baha'i and Druze as well, so it's not something unique to Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I try to argue from the most authoritative sources I can find, which in this case means Mosheh ʻAmirav who states

In the first years of the city's unification, Kollek was one of the people most responsible for extending administrative, economic and educational autonomy to the Arab population. Years later, he came to realize that his 'liberal and enlightened' policy was a key factor behind the segregation of the Arab minority from the Jewish majority. The Arabs chose the Jordanian option and preferred autonomy to equality'. (Mosheh ʻAmirav, Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City,Sussex University Press, 2009 p.111).

A de facto state of administrative autonomy was conceded to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. That is admitted by someone who actually participated over that period in the administration of Jerusalem, who also documents Israel's systematic disengagement from what would be, were Jerusalem really unified, its responsibilities in that area. It even uses half of the taxes from the Palestinian quarter for Jewish developments. I.e. taxes the non-Israelis in order to get more resources for the Israelification of the rest of Jerusalem. Nishidani (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Amirav is not free of political bias, not to mention he was in charge of building roads and light rail. His view should be attributed if it is included in the article. Please explain why you think this belongs in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is free from political bias. This area is plagued by editors who have little but political bias. Moshe Amirav's statement comes from an experienced administrator of Jerusalem under Kollek and Olmert and I have no idea what his politics were, except that they ain't mine. And I don't care either. A specialist cited uncontroversibly in the area of his competence does not have to suffer attribution unless his view is fringe. It doesn't appear to be the case here. Otherwise everything cited from specialist academic sources would be under attribution.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Recap

• Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
  Tiamut^talk 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This has broad approval. My objection is to control. Israel's control is a matter of security and building permits alone by all sources I have looked at.

• Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the Palestine, though Palestinians, while exercising some administrative autonomy, lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.
  

My point is, if you mention the lack of Palestinian sovereignty, you cannot get away with the factual is clause in 'is the capital of Israel', unless you qualify the latter by a reference to the fact they do exercise some administrative autonomy. The reason is, by the unanimous agreement of all other nations in the human community, Israel does not have legal sovereignty over an important sector of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem. The text as it stands doesn't mention the sovereignty issue except to state that Palestinians lack it. Sure, but Israel also lacks it there. When I speak of 'nuance' and POV advantage, I mean things like this. I don't care how the phrasing is rehoned, but I think Tiamut's suggestion must be per NPOV reviewed with regard to 'control' and the unilateral emphasis on Palestinian lack of sovereignty, something true of that sector also of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel clearly has sovereignty and control over the city of Jerusalem, even if it was obtained by what is deemed an illegal occupation/annexation. Something the introduction already clearly goes into in further paragraphs. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends the exact meaning of the word 'sovereignty'. I think that Israel has the control but no 'sovereignty' on East Jerusalem. But whatever, instead of expanding the lede to nuance this, I would suggest to shorthen Tiamut's version... Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel doesn't have sovereignty over Jerusalem. An encyclopedia article can't say that with a straight face. Israel says it has sovereignty over Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are we proposing to say in the wording that it does. The proposal is simply to say Palestinians do not to emphasise the lack of control they have over the city compared to Israel. The fact Israels control of the city is disputed is covered in detail further in the introduction where it says the international community view it as an illegal annexation. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply responding to your statement "Israel clearly has sovereignty ... over the city of Jerusalem... Something the introduction already clearly goes into..." because the statement is inaccurate on both counts. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a sovereign state, it treats Jerusalem as entirely within its own territory and exercises sovereignty and control over it. It may not be internationally recognised, or viewed as illegal or what ever else by others, but it clearly has control of the city. But like i said, we are not specifically stating Israel has sovereignty, this is just about explaining the fact a non existent sovereign state does not have sovereignty over the city or control it to ensure balance, seen as its already stated that Jerusalem isnt recognised internationally as the capital of Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up what the word "sovereignty" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the state exercises no control. We dont need to get into whether Palestinians exercise any control. nableezy - 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the points I've been trying to make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is solved by using sovereignty, right? nableezy - 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gah, too many threads here. I was talking about my proposed change for the Palestinian control. On the issue of Israeli sovereignty, that is a bit more complicated. I dont think anybody actually disputes that Israel controls all of Jerusalem and that the treat the entire area as their sovereign territory. It isn't though, EJ is occupied Palestinian territory, not sovereign Israeli territory. West Jerusalem's status varies a bit more depending on who you ask. I dont think the article can state that Jerusalem is Israeli sovereign territory, or that it has sovereignty over the city. The occupier is not the sovereign power, it is the occupying power. Without using the term de facto, the article should not assert any sovereignty over the city to Israel as that is a legal issue in which Israel's position is very much in the minority. nableezy - 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

NNMNG, re: 'what the word "sovereignty" means', please, as you surely know, there is a difference between fact and opinion and we are required to distinguish between them. If we are going to talk about who has sovereignity (and I'm not suggesting that we do) then Ruth Lapidoth provides an overview of the diversity of views on the sovereignty issue for both west and east on pages 71-77 in "Jerusalem: A City and Its Future" ISBN 978-0815629139. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference between fact and opinion. For some reason you prefer opinion. I still recommend you look up what "sovereignty" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, no, I prefer facts. Opinions are pretty worthless in my world, including opinions about meaning. Still, RS and editors seem to like them. If I could delete them all with a press of a button, I would. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State ofPalestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.

I see this favours control over sovereignty. Another variation might be:

is both the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii], and the proclaimed capital of the Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no sovereignty over their sector.(

(ref: ‘Jerusalem is a unique municipality whose importance is such that it is jointly and simultaneously claimed as the capital city of Israel and the proposed Palestinian state.’ Sanford R. Silverburg, 'Palestine and the World of Law: A Structural Analysis,’ in Sanford R. Silverburg (ed.),Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics, McFarland, 2009 pp.160-172 p.163 Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"is both the capital of.... "" That is blatant gross POV in favour of the Palestinian view point giving totally undue weight. If there is not going to be a reasonable proposal accepted then there should be no change at all. If this grossly biased wording or anything like that is added to the introduction, it should be reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have the impression you are not reading the sources on which I am making several suggestions. Please focus and do not be disruptive by using phrases like 'blatant gross POV'. 'Both' in my text comes specifically from Silverburg's reference to dual claims. What I am suggesting comes from scholars like Sanford R. Silverburg or scholar-technocrats in Israel like Mosheh ʻAmirav, and they are not 'grossly biased'. If you can't evaluate proposals and sources with equanimity, I suggest you withhold your vote until other editors have tried to work out consensually an agreed upon version to replace the present NPOV-defective one. It won't be what any one editor wants. It must be what the realities on the ground as described in RS require. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not support your proposed wording. I view it as blatant gross POV and do not think it belongs in the article because it clearly gives undue weight to the palestinian position. I do not think there will be consensus for such wording. I did not think there was a need for the change at all, but i was prepared to back the initial compromise above which was reasonable. But not this. It has been explained in the previous sections talking about this why it is inappropriate to talk about it being both the capital of Israel and Palestine in a single sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your diffidence is registered, several times, in the same words. There is no need to keep on repeating yourself. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Both" can be misunderstood as "both the capital of Israel and Palestine" when it is here just "Both this... and that" ; this and that being two different things... What about fusing both sentences and going deeper in the lede to talk about this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Jerusalem's political status is complex: the city is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such^[ii] [and] the proclaimed capital of the State ofPalestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.
  

Forget control, and just say though Palestine exercises no sovereignty over the city. nableezy - 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy re 'control'. Sovereignty is more comprehensive, while control is inadequate. I've provided Pluto's tweak with two notes, used earlier, to source in RS the introductory adjunct he added, which is illuminating (it is also the gist of what Ravpapa's version argued). Could all editors read the whole of Dumper's close analysis, which I've linked in that footnote, as regards how absolutely bewilderingly complex the various demarcations and powers active in both parts of the city are? For easy access see Michael Dumper, ‘Constructive Ambiguities? Jerusalem, international law, and the peace process,’ in Susan Akram, Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, Ian Scobbie, (eds.) International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based approach to Middle East Peace, pp.123-124 Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read it. Particularly where it says "It's important not to overstate this argument", which is exactly the opposite of what you're doing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's followed by "but", and is 'rhetorical'. If you are familiar with the stylistic conventions of prose rhetoric, it means quite the opposite to how you take it.

Pretty easy to read several pages just to find one phrase that might suit a predetermined objection. Try to be constructive. Anyone can sit round, and keep kibitzing negatively. We have a problem. As a child I used to watch fettler teams, and always noted how many of any crew would idle by, smoking, and plying 'expert advice', and how many actually rolled up their sleeves, worked up a sweat jemmying rails and fixing the transit. Know what I mean? Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of the "I edit articles while all you guys do is comment"? 1. Nobody cares. 2. Someone needs to keep people like you honest. 3. If you think that because you edit more articles that gives you some kind of higher status, you are very much mistaken, as anyone here will tell you.

As to your source, the sentence is not rhetorical. I know you'd like to think it is, but really it isn't. He notes some pretty minor stuff like who supplies East Jerusalem with water and electricity, or the fact they were allowed to use a non-Israeli school curriculum. Moreover, the only place he uses the term "autonomy" is in relation to religious institutions, which as I noted above have the same autonomy in other areas of Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm blushing at your elective vocation to keep me honest. It's very flattering to have such an attentive, if immodest proposal thrown my way, only I'm not a woman. Still, thanks.

No. In textual analysis, particularly as it developed in classical philology, any clash in interpretation is often resolved by looking at all available examples of similar thematic phrasing in an author, and by that criterion alone, you are patently wrong and being, if I may be permitted, tendentious.

If you wish to know why my reading correctly takes Dumper's single concessive clause as a rhetorical form which concedes in order to emphasize the opposite, all you need do is compare his phrasing here with what he says at 'ALREADY EXISTING PALESTINIAN AUTONOMY' regarding 'the extensive autonomy that Palestinians already have in many aspects of life in Jerusalem', adding

East Jerusalem has been exempted from a raft of Israeli laws, ranging from health and safety regulations to labor laws. The Oslo accords themselves permitted Palestinian Jerusalemites to participate in Palestinian Legislative Council elections as any other Palestinian living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. From the Palestinian perspective, therefore, Israeli "concessions" on Jerusalem were illusions, drawing on a rhetoric of full Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem when that sovereignty does not exist in reality.' Michael Dumper, The Politics of Sacred Space:The Old City of Jerusalem in the Middle East Conflict, Lynne Rienner Publications 2002 p.163.

Israel after 1967 tried to subordinate the autonomous bodies, religious and otherwise of East Jerusalem to the Israeli state but

'The administrative framework established by the Jordanian government remained in operation and provided a relatively advanced degree of autonomy.' p.25.

Regarding Israel attempts to get the PLO to underwrite Israeli sovereignty there in 2004, its offers to devolve administrative autonomy were rejected because the PNA already had what was being offered. I.e.

'Since 1967, when Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the neglect of the Palestinian residential areas by both the Israeli Jerusalem Muncipality (of) and the central government led to the virtual absence of basic services, infrastructure development, and welfare programs. Palestinian and foreign charitable associations, religious organizations, the PLO, and the Jordanian government attempted to fill the vacuum left by the Israeli state. In these areas, the only element of the Israeli state that is visible is the restrictive planbning laws and the security forces.'p.163

You have, in short, read a few pages and seized on the rhetorical wording of one clause in only one of three of Dumper's texts, and used it to challenge what both he, and Moshe Amariv clearly state, about de facto administrative autonomy exercised by East Jerusalemites in many spheres of their public life with the consent of the occupying power. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is piddling, and we should not be distracted by such trivial challenges to what texts clearly state.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not piddling. You are deliberately trying to confuse the reader by extrapolating the fact that some Palestinian communities manage some of their affairs that the state could (or should) be taking care of into an "autonomy" and putting it next to a statement about the State of Palestine, as if that state is the one picking up the slack. This stuff does not belong in the first paragraph of the lead, not to mention the first sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(a) 'Someone needs to keep people like you honest.' (b) 'You are deliberately trying to confuse the reader'. Um,WP:AGF. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An argument on whether Palestinians exercise any control over any services or part of Jerusalem isnt necessary, as NMMNG is right on the point that it doesnt matter for the second sentence of the article. This started as a discussion about including Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as capital in the lead. Palestine, the state, doesnt control any part of Jerusalem, I dont think that can be argued. The sentence is about the state, so make it about the state. Palestine exercises no sovereignty, not Palestinians do not control. nableezy - 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be prepared to support the original proposal simply with the removal of "control" if that is such a big problem for some. But i strongly oppose watering down the introduction and the attempt to undermine the fact Jerusalem is Israels capital, with this additional wording now proposed before the statement of fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital though it is not internationally recognised as such. This is totally giving undue weight to the Palestinian POV and focusing on the opinions of academics whilst ignoring the reality on the ground. The current introduction is reasonable, and we should perhaps just stick with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating what we have been informed of several times. Be assured that note has been taken.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A new proposal was put, so i gave my views on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record and to let people know, i have posted on both the Palestine and Israel wikiprojects encouraging people to take part in this debate. Thanks. [1] [2] BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this proposal. I think we can say just "control" without "sovereignty", this is the lead after all. --Dailycare (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Oy!

This lead suggestion is going from bad to worse: :Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] It's this. No, it isn't! It's something else. No it isn't that either!

Nobody cares about the poor reader? Can't we just say something, anything about Jerusalem without degrading the lead into a debating society? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the poor reader one worries about is the one who happens upon the article, and comes away disinformed. Only madmen read through the motherlodes of bullshit on the edit-discussion talk page, surely. I think there's a fair provisory consensus for a modification of Tiamut's edit, and I'll support it, even though I disagree, and gladly retire from further discussion. Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If we had stuck with going for the original compromise proposal which people were saying they would support, then this could have been resolved. Its just a shame that additional and totally unreasonable addons are now proposed which undermine the sentences. The closest thing to consensus reached so far is the original proposal by Tiamut, possibly with a footnote to go into greater detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'shame' here, and impatience on either side is unwarranted. One must take due care to see, in key articles with two POVs, that all angles are covered, and that those who express a willingness to underwrite a fresh consensual reformulation of a lead passage know exactly what is meant and implied. Since I owe my wiki life to Ravpapa, I defer to his judgement, as to several other editors with an exemplary record, and on seeing his exasperation, expressed my view above. A week is remarkably short span for an issue like this historically in the I/P area. Please note that it was also (immensely :))productive. Most would do away 'control' and just use 'sovereignty'. I hope Evansh2008 has not been put off, and if so I must apologize. He has shown himself to be a careful stylist with a flair for accommodating various views.Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive said id be prepared to support removal of control too, from the original proposal in this section. But i dont support the proposals that unjustly dilutes this introduction for blatant political reasons to undermine the fact Jerusalem is israel's capital. No evidence has been produced showing a country needs international recognition for its capital, but we go out of our way to mention that it lacks it in the first sentence. The idea we start the introduction with "Jerusalem's political status is complex:". is offensive, if that was put here i guess we better go and add that to 100s of other articles on wikipedia which could equally be described as such. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2012

"The article should begin with "Jerusalem is a disputed city, claimed as a capital by both the current Israel state, and the Palestinian people (whose formal statehood has not yet been established.)" This is really the only way to maitain NPOV. It begins the article, from the very beginning with a fair tone. The current article simply says that " Jerusalem *is* the Israeli capitol, though is not internationally recognized as such..." , and is obviously not a neutral position. Instead, the article is presenting, as fact, one position on a hotly contested issue. In the interest of fairness, please change this. 85.181.102.137 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Such wording would be totally bias and will not get consensus. There has been some discussions above about potential changes to the introduction you could join in with. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please info about the Jerusalem Hebrew (a dialect of hebrew that is only present in Jerusalem )

Jerusalem has a small dialect that is used by native to Jerusalem , with special pronanusiation and diffrent meaning for things. Example: A lolytop (סוכריה על מקל) - is addressed as suction (מציצה) Games are with diffrent names , here is a common dictionary http://www.safa-ivrit.org/dialects/jerusalem.php 109.226.53.10 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In Hebrew: מאתיים 200 =>>> in jerusalem =>>>> מאאתיים 200 . פארוק (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jews banned from entering

The article says jews were banned from entering until two different dates. Which is the correct one? Jarwulf (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Unverifiable"

It is false to say that the muslims believe that the prophet ascended from the heavens from Dome of the Rock. According to Islamic scholars and traditions, the prophet ascended from the heavens from Al - Aqsa Mosque (Bait al Muqaddas)[3][4][5][Unsigned]

There are no sources for the claim made in the last sentence of the first paragraph and it should therefore be deleted if it cannot be sourced accurately and immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.21.201 (talk)

I don't think a source is needed. On what grounds could anyone possibly challenge that claim? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

Trial 1

I have read once more the discussions. The proposal of Tiamut brought a wide consensus. Some nuances were asked or suggested as well as some alternatives. Trying to fuse both sentences didn't get consensus as well as stating that the case was complex. On the other way, the removal of the notion of 'control' got agreement. There I suggest both following versions (A) and (B) and suggest that everybody gives his mind about the best between 3 choices :

• A for version A
• B for version B
• N for none of these (in underlying the issues of whether A or B).

---

version A : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though Palestinians, while exercising some administrative autonomy, lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.

---

version B : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of Palestine, though Palestinians lack sovereignty over their sector of the city.

---

• B > A - clear and short. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• N. I strongly oppose version A. I also don't like version B. What does "their sector of the city" mean? How did we jump from Palestine to Palestinians again? Why are we piping State of Palestine? I thought we agreed that was needed to disambiguate it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

N. Sorry but i cant support either of those versions.. My objection is also the "Their sector of the city". Very problematic which makes it sound like more the split of Berlin than Jerusalem. Id support the original proposal with the "control" removed. So..

"Jerusalem ( /dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎‎ Yerushaláyim  ; Arabic: القُدس‎ al-Quds and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no sovereignty over the city.".

Accepting that version compared to the current introduction is a big compromise for those of us who feel the introduction does not need changing. Saying State of Palestine, rather than just Palestine is also important. I wont support any add ons to this paragraph that blatantly favour Palestinian POV or seek to undermine the fact despite lacking international recognition, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd go for B, and simply rewrite, for 'their sector of the city', 'there' (though Palestinians lack sovereignty there). I preferred 'sector of the city' because it refers clearly to the East Jerusalem where they predominate, whereas 'there' refers to the whole city. So B, yes, but if further compromise is necessary, perhaps replace the contested phrase with 'there'. I've edited Pluto's two versions to remove a slight grammatical error.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ABORTED. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Trial 2

Given reactions here above that I had not guessed from the initial reading, I suggest the following options : Option A - Tiamut's version and Option B : one that takes into account some comments made here above.

---

Version A : :Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such,^[ii]. It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians exercise no control or sovereignty over the city.

---

Version B : Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of State of Palestine, though Palestinians lack sovereignty there.

---

• A = B > N. These are both the same. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support A This makes the most sense, i fail to see the problem with control. it is factually true that the Palestinians have no control or sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem, no matter what examples of local decision making mentioned in the previous discussion. Id back B if it was "over the city" rather than "there.". But A is what i favour, if not A or B with the modest alteration then i favour the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Modifying A and calling it Version C. Also very similar to B. Punctuation cleanup and a wording tweak give us:

Version C: Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim  ^ⓘ; Arabic: القُدس al-Quds  ^ⓘ and/or أورشليم Ûrshalîm)^[i] is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[ii] It is also the proclaimed capital of the State of Palestine, though Palestinians have no sovereignty over the city.

This is a minimalist change from the status quo. I believe it is the most that is needed, and would support no change at all rather than anything more elaborate. I do not understand what "A = B > N" means, in any mathematical or other sense. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C - i believe that is a reasonable compromise. It is a major change to the introduction and addresses the main concern people claimed existed. It should be version C or no change. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C (although the differences between the versions are minor and all represent improvements). As a minor point, I think the correct phrase is to "exercise sovereignty", rather than "have sovereignty". A second minor point is that I prefer "control" to "sovereignty", since also Israel lacks sovereignty over the city but as said these are minor points. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

N again - I still think the jump from State of Palestine to Palestinians is confusing. It would be like saying "the Republic of Ireland proclaims <something about Northern Ireland> though the Irish people have no sovereignty over that part of the island". Also, I'm thinking the no sovereignty issue, while clear to people who participated in this discussion, might not be clear to a casual reader. And I still think it should note they have no government institutions there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record I think it's ghastly. This is the city that David built, where Jesus walked and where Mohammed flew; where the ground is soaked in the blood of thousands fighting for their belief, or their country, or their nation; the city that has become the symbol throughout the Judeao-Christian-Muslim world for peace, love, redemption, hate, apocalypse. And the best first sentence we can come up with is, "It's the capital of Israel (sort of), and maybe also (but maybe not) the capital of someplace else (Palestine? is there really a Palestine? Is there really an Israel?)" This is neither a vote for nor against, just a heartfelt protest against the sacrifice of clarity and energy on the altar of Wikipedese. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right that should not be the first sentence. Jerusalem is much more than a topic of controversy in the I-P conflict and per WP:UNDUE this information should not start the article. Where to put it is to be discussed just after. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa. Pythagoras, like many Greek thinkers, drew on the sand. This place is a sandpit where kids throw sand in each others' eyes. The last thing one thinks of is clear, gracious and accurate writing. Shackled as we are by POV-obsessed rule-orchestratiom rather than collaborative composition, we are left rattling our chains to make the right noises, while dreaming of the freedom of Bix Beiderbecke's trumpet to phrase around the lead. You're dead-right and wrote the right score, but we play trash here, and the word 'fiddle' is the operative word for what we can do, rather than what we would like to do.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Support Version C Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries about driving me away! I was offline for a while, but I'm back now.

The reason I've been supportive of having "control" rather than "sovereignty" in there is because I somehow imagined that "sovereignty" is a controversial term that denotes legal, rather than actual, authority over a location (which is in dispute), whereas "control" is a more generic, less controversial, term that refers to the actual physical reality on the ground (which is not in dispute). Maybe I was wrong, and if the majority of others agree that "sovereignty" is better, then I see no reason to oppose that wording.

Regarding the new concern over what the first sentence should be, I think it would be somewhat disingenuous of us to deviate from the long-held standard of beginning articles on capital cities by noting their status as capitals. For others it's simple; for Jerusalem it isn't very simple, but I think we've come up with some good compromises that are reasonably succinct and address most concerns that have been raised. Anyway, I'll stop right here and note that I:

Support Version C. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Control, not sovereign. "Sovereign" is the wrong word here. Because the PA does consider itself sovereign in East Jerusalem. The fact that East Jerusalem is occupied (in the eyes of the Palestinians) by a foreign power, which by force of arms does not allow the Palestinians any control over the territory, does not alter the fact that they consider it an integral part of sovereign Palestine. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa is right. Wikipedia shouldn't say "though Palestinians have no sovereignty over the city" because it isn't a fact, it's one of several opinions. This is discussed on pages 72-74 of Ruth Lapidoth's "Jerusalem: A City and Its Future" ISBN 978-0815629139 Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, as usual, is right, and Evanh2008's instincts are sound. I'd support C if, as per several editors we simply change sovereignty to control. I.e. The key is in 'C minor', sorry 'minus'.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. To my mind, "sovereignty" represents an abstract legal concept, whereas "control", as I said, is a more concretely definable physical thing. Good call, Nishidani! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well ill support the no control over the city" rather than sovereignty. If this change is implemented i hope that neutrality template will be removed at the same time. If that is going to stay there, then i wont support any change at all because this will clearly be about a political agenda rather than making reasonable improvements to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the neutrality tag should be associated with an active neutrality discussion, if there is no neutrality discussion going on we can remove the tag. --Dailycare (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree regarding the neutrality tag. If there are no unresolved problems, it doesn't belong there. Are we approaching something close to a consensus, then? The discussion seems to be winding down but I haven't seen much opposition to the revised wording (soverignty --> control) for C so far. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Version "C for Control" per Ravpapa et al. As reasonable a compromise wording achievable for such a contentious topic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't support any of the proposed versions. If the international recognition of J as I's capital is mentioned, then so too should the international attitudes towards J as the sole capital of the State of Palestine. Ankh.Morpork 18:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite get your point. -asad (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The international attitudes towards Jerusalem as Israel's capital are cited in the lead. That being the case, the level of support for Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine should also be mentioned.Ankh.Morpork 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So what is your lack of support for "any of the proposed versions" based off of? -asad (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that sources mention levels of support for Palestine's claim to Jerusalem nearly as often as they do that Israel's claim is unrecognized. To the contrary, sources tend to say that Israel has proclaimed it the capital, but that isn't recognized and Palestinians also want E.Jer as their capital. Incidenatlly, that's what Prop C says too which is why I support it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to go with "C" with the exception of changing "sovereignty" to "control"?-asad (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus. --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"I don't agree that sources mention levels of support for Palestine's claim to Jerusalem nearly as often as they do that Israel's claim is unrecognized." I accept this but I don't agree that Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine is mentioned nearly as often as J as the capital of Israel. Yet you wish to include this? I repeat that NPOV requires that if we elect to assert the lack of support regarding Israel, so too, this must be presented with regards to Palestine. Ankh.Morpork 20:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I wish to include it, it's in fact what Prop C is all about. NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints are represented and this is a significant viewpoint, per reliable sources. You haven't established that what you're proposing to add is significant, much less significant enough for the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose change to Version C. The article currently states, "The Palestinian Authority regards East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state." That's a much mellower way of stating what the situation is from the perspective of Palestinians than what's being proposed for the lead. I would support something like, The Palestinian leadership seeks East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. But it shouldn't be in the same sentence as the one explaining the status of Jerusalem in Israel's context so as to avoid implying an equivalence that isn't borne out among reliable sources. It can go at the end of the first paragraph.—Biosketch (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do mention the Israeli and Palestinian claims next to each other: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And how many of those sources advocate terminology such as that being pushed for in version C? The answer is zero.—Biosketch (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, as discussed immediately above, these sources are listed here to establish that reliable sources exist that mention the Israeli and Palestinian claims next to each other. If you have a separate, terminological concern, you're of course free to share it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi to you too. None of your sources are about Jerusalem in the general sense that sources being used to generate content in the first paragraph of the lead should be. News articles that deal strictly with one aspect of Jerusalem – in this case the political situation as relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – are obviously going to highlight dimensions of the city that are relevant to the story the articles're covering.—Biosketch (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in WP policy does it state that the sources in the lead have to relate to the "general sense" of the article? -asad (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening

It's been said before above, but bears repeating: the opening sentence is a disappointing product of some who seem determined to bring wikipedia down from the role of "impartial encyclopia" and into the role of propaganda.

A 'Capital' is where the government is seated, but also where embasseys are located, where other nations consult the leaders of the nation. The lead sentence completely disregards international consensus and simply state the Israeli position on the matter. The first sentence of this article is equivalent to the following statement:

"I am the world's greatest lover, though the women of the world do not recognize me as such." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.Oz (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A capital is the location of a state's seat of government. Its status is the result of internal policies, not those of foreign governments. It is not a matter of consensus from the International community; it's a mater of facts and practice. Embassy locations are rightly pointed out as indicators of international opinion, but the subsequent clause - "though not internationally recognized as such" - already makes this clear.
The consensus you're speaking about is the community's opinion on what's right; the consensus Wikipedia is concerned with is academic consensus on what's true (WP:V). The International Community agrees that the actions of several states around the World aught not happen, but that doesn't change the fact that they do.
While I'm sure the lead could be worded more concisely (and perhaps have a sentence flowing the capital statement elaborate that several other parties lay claim to the city), the lead section already devotes a whole paragraph to the issue. There is only so much we can do (WP:DUE).
—Sowlos (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Positions on Jerusalem

Recently a number of editors have felt that the lead of Jerusalem needs tweaking. Remember that the lead is supposed to summarize what is in the body of the article. To begin your planned reform by changing the lead might lead to dispute if you haven't carefully studied the later part of the article which it is trying to summarize. The main Jerusalem article is not the only place these issues are discussed. One might assume that Positions on Jerusalem would contain the most detailed explanation of the diplomatic status of Jerusalem, according to the UN and various governments. Why not read that one over first if you think that there is some imbalance in how Wikipedia currently describes the status of Jerusalem. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem is a settlement, not a city

Before I take any other action, I wondered if editors here have any ideas about how to deal with Jerusalem "neighborhoods/residential areas/places" that are considered settlements. Some editors have taken the position that A) being a settlement preclude these places (ex. Gilo) from being anything else, and have consistently replaced any descriptive terminology with "settlement", or that B) "neighborhood" etc. is a POV attributable to Israel, secondary to the majority POV of settlement. The sources clearly demonstrate that even pro-Palestinian advocates talk about these places as neighborhoods that are also settlements, so that we now, on Wikipedia, have created a novel position and redefinition of the English language that neither Israelis or Palestinians advocate. I've found that it is extremely difficult to get editors to address these sources, or even to bring their own. I am open to everyone's thoughts. Sources below:

• Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO's negotiating department {...} also Jewish neighborhoods like Ramot and Gilo are settlements for all intents and purposes."
• A new Israeli Neighborhood on the lands of Jerusalem city
• "As opposed to the large neighborhoods built in East Jerusalem, Ir Amim uses the term "settlements" in Jerusalem mainly for Jewish construction in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods at the initiative of settler organizations,"
• "In East Jerusalem and its environs, which Israel annexed to the municipality of Jerusalem after 1967, there are 12 large Israeli neighborhoods that are also deemed settlements under international law."
• "This will be the first new Israeli settlement neighborhood established in East Jerusalem since Har Homa. "
• "In these annexed lands Israel built 12 Jewish neighborhoods,"

Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Settlement neighborhoods seems like a good compromise to me. Futurist110 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The point made here is quite good in a sense. Exclusively Jewish settlements on the West Bank have been declared unilaterally by the Israeli government to be a part of Jerusalem, sometimes leap-frogging over Palestinian towns. So it might be an idea to describe Jerusalem in fairly bland terms as something like an "ancient" city over which different sovereign entities compete. So if the idea of Israeli claims are to be taken seriously, then the extent of those claims should be pointed out. Abedwayyad (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're title is misleading. A city is a relatively large and permanent settlement. Jerusalem is a city. The dubiousness of Israeli settlements in the West Bank on the other hand are relevant and should be discussed in the article, in a proper section.
—Sowlos (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Repetition in lead

The lead stated ...is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." This is despite a different paragraph in the lead discussing the legality of Jerusaelem which includes the sentence, "The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital". I have removed the initial statement regarding international recognition as this repetition seems unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that single sentence is reasonable for the first sentence.. however the proposals that some seek to impose on this introduction are totally unreasonable and would cause needless repetition with little benefit but to bias the article in favour of the palestinian POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not proposing to alter the POV presented in the article; that is being exhaustively discussed in other threads. What I would like to understand is why the current POV is being presented in the manner that it is, namely, repeated twice within the lead in separate paragraphs and why this is necessary. Ankh.Morpork 12:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

By your argument, the whole line should be removed, including "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," as that note is repeated as well ("Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's 'undivided capital'"). Arguing for one, but not the other, really makes your point seem like disingenuous POV-pushing that is wasteful to everyone's time. -asad (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am happy for all that information to be consolidated. I suggest you explain why this duplication is necessary as opposed to resorting to OTHERSHITEXISTS arguments. Ankh.Morpork 17:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you edit less hypocritically if you don't like to be called out on your blatant POV-pushing. -asad (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Ankh.Morpork 18:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It didn't include statements about other editors, it included a statement about your hypocritical editing. -asad (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Ankh.Morpork 19:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your interpretation of WP:NPA is noted. If you choose to leave the discussion, you are free to do so, but please refrain from further off-topic discussion. If you have an issue with an editor, take it to their talk page or the appropriate discussion board. -asad (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since your comments have been confined to editors and not article content, this may be interpreted to mean that there is no content dispute regarding the proposed changes. Ankh.Morpork 23:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If that is your interpretation, then you would be wrong. I object to your proposed change for the following reasons:

1. There is a long ongoing discussion on how the first sentence should be phrased (as you can see above). I would recommend to wait for the outcome of those discussions before this one is opened.
2. If your argument for removal is based on repetition, then all repetitive statements should be removed, not just the one that says, "though not internationally recognized as such."
3. I would not agree to the removal of this information on the basis of "duplication." If anything, it needs to be removed because I do not think that is the most relevant information to have in the first line of this article.

But thank you for taking the time to explain what your interpretation of my comments were. I hope all is clear now. -asad (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

1) None of them address this point as you are well aware

2)OK

3)Whatever. An additional reason reinforces the need for its removal.

Based on your points above, there is no related discussion to this aspect and since I am amenable to all duplication being removed from the lead, I presume that you are now in favour of this change?Ankh.Morpork 10:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would love to see that information removed from the first sentence. Be it duplication or not, I do not see the need for such recent history to be given so much prominence in an article that is about one of the oldest cities in the world. That being said, I do hope you realize the extent to which this will effect the conversation taking place above. Yes, your proposal has no direct relation to what they are talking about, but your proposed change would suddenly make all their discussion become irrelevant. If you would like to tread into these waters now, the decision is yours to make and I will not oppose. But I cannot say I favor the change out of good faith and respect for the ongoing attempts to build a consensus as seen above. So, again, I would only oppose the change if not all duplicate information is removed (similar to your original edit), otherwise I abstain. -asad (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

POV templete can not be inserted in the middle of sentence only on its end.Tritomex (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Better wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These ad hominem claims ("bad faith", "pretty stupid", "broken" agreement) don't relate to article content and are therefore not persuasive. Concerning the sources, it's true (as has been discussed) that there exist sources, especially Israeli and American ones, that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. These sources represent Israel's side of the argument and don't change in any way how we should write this article. In particular, they don't change the fact that the issue of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital is a significant controversy, as we've established from reliable, international, sources, and should (per WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy) be described as such, without taking sides. The same applies to sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital, or that Tel Aviv is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with DC. See for instance the official UK position[6]: "Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognized by the UK and the international community. The U.K. locates its embassy in Tel Aviv.". Israel's position is a minority opinion viewed as no more than "a claim" which is rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including Israel's allies. The current formulation gives undue weight by asserting the minority opinion as fact in the wikipedia voice and not giving enough weight to the one held by the majority. It is not neutral per WP:NPOV.Dlv999 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@NMMNG that is a clear misrepresentation of the situation. Bona fida RS describe Tel aviv being the capital of Israel as a fact. See e.g. The Guardian, whose position was upheld by the Press Complaints Commission.[7] The British government has described Israel's position on Jerusalem as its capital as "a claim" not a fact. A claim that is in fact rejected by the overwhelming majority of the international community. Pretending that this is not the case does nothing for your credibility and will not help moving towards consensus. Dailycare has already refuted your WP:OR assertions that seat of government=capital. Dlv999 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

@DLV - You're a bit behind the times. The Guardian has corrected their silly editorial policy [8], and the PCC has withdrawn its ruling [9]. Please try again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

there current style guide reads, "Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel: it is not recognised as such by the international community. While the Knesset has designated the city as the country's capital, a UN resolution of 1980 declared this status "null and void". Jerusalem is the seat of government and Tel Aviv is the country's diplomatic and financial centre." [10] Dlv999 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just checked CIA factbook regarding Israel, not just Jerusalem is listed as Israeli capital but Eastern Jerusalem is counted within Israel (regarding population and territory) [11] So if we consider US to be part of "international community" the opening sentence in this article can be interpreted only as POV against Israel. This further underline the need to open discussion regarding eventual POV and the insertion of adequate templates at in all places where international community is defined as solid, uniform block denying Jerusalem as Israeli capital- Considering UN General assembly resolution 63/30 it has again nothing in relation of denying Jerusalem as Israeli capital [12] but condemning Israeli actions in occupied eastern part of the city as well as reinsurance that the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is not considered legal by UN GA;

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

There are plenty of sources which categorically state that the United States does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. See e.g. The Washington Post "The United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital". [13]. Or Haaretz "Most of the world, including the U.S., does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The U.S. and others keep their embassies in Tel Aviv." [14] Dlv999 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Considering the US, you cant compare newspaper article with official documents. Here is US congress resolution regarding Jerusalem [15]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote you, "We're also entitled to use our common sense." (Dailycare, 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC))[16]

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

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

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

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

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

Filibustering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try, try again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here is my suggestion for the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are running out of bits

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

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

-- MeUser42, 5 October 2012

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Comment It is beyond strange to bolt on a meta discussion about whether editors personally think it is possible to find consensus within an arbitrary time frame to a good faith discussion to actually find a consensus. If people insist on having the the meta discussion it should have been kept to the section that has already been started [17]. It is disruptive of efforts to find consensus here. Dlv999 (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest we rephrase the question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

|}