Talk:Israel/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

The area of Israel

Why is it the article states the area of Israel without Golan and East Jerusalem. Wikipedia is an encylopedia that states fact. De facto, Golan and East Jerusalem are apart of the Israel state, it is proper to state that the international community is against it, and doesn't recognise it, but that does not mean Wikipedia has, doing so is clearly a point of view. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. I do not think Wikipedia should make a judgement on this issue (as with the discussion about Jerusalem, above). It should be acknowledged that there are different POVs on the matter, but no pariticular POV should be preferred. The article inlcudes area figures for Israel proper and for Israel including EJ and GH. This is as it should be. You deleted the lower figures, which seems to go against Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV.

Incidentally, whilst EJ and GH are, as a matter of plain fact, under Israeli control, this does not necessarily make them a de facto part of the Israeli state, because the status of land is a question de jure. --FormerIP (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But under Israeli law, they are de jure and de facto part of Israel. We should only be stating the facts, and then offering the international view. Having EJ and GH excluded is stating opinion. The Arab League doesn't even recognise Israel, this is a huge multi-national body, does this mean we should delete the Israel article? Or should we rename it 'Occupied Palestine'? Excluding EJ and GH go against WP:NPOV, because it endorses the opinion that those areas aren't part of Israel. You mention de jure, meaning of the law, Wikipedia is an encylopedia, which has the plain facts, de facto AnOicheGhealai (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The article now has the area both with and without the occupied areas. That presents both sides of the issue, including the opinion that the territories would be part of Israel. I don't see a problem with that. --Dailycare (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still being biased. Seriously, how hard is it to just stick with the facts? AnOicheGhealai (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

AnOicheGhealai, please reconsider that last comment. --FormerIP (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear AnOicheGhealai, as anyone here will tell you, I'm considered one of the "pro-Israeli" users (you can see my comments in discussions above, for example). However, I also support the current phrasing, giving both figures. The reason - while Israel applied its civilian law to the GH and EJ, it specifically explained that it does not annex them. So, we have three different kinds of territory in Israel:

1. "Israel proper", what's considered by Israel to be its own territory (and generally internationally recognized as such) - this is basically Israel in its 1949 borders.
2. Occupied areas, under military control - Israel doesn't claim these territories to be part of it, and doesn't apply its civilian law there - the West Bank.
3. And GH and EJ - with Israeli civilian law (including an offer of citizenship to the Arab residents), but expressly not annexed, meaning Israel does not claim them as part of its permanent territory.

Thus, it makes sense to give the figures for Israel proper both with and without the GH and EJ, given their special status. okedem (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...Okay, I'll accept that AnOicheGhealai (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, while people who were born in Israel proper and have no other nationality are Israeli citizens by default (with some reservations, which I'm not going to detail here), non-Israeli people who lived in EJ and GH prior to the implementation of the Israeli law there, received a permanent resident status, but not citizenship. They can apply for citizenship, but the final decision is at the hands of the Ministry of the Interior (subject to the Supreme Court's oversight). Generally speaking, Israel tends to accept such such applications of Duruze from GH and much more reluctant to grant citizenship to EJ Arabs. On the other hand very few ever applied for citizenship in both regions. DrorK (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel, protection against user or ip "vandalism".

Israel, is currently under protecting eg locked down. due to user or ip or both, "vandalism" probably thinking. Just a quick question if Israel, will be back to editing open for all users/ips anytime this year? Thank you. --SexonfireKOL2010 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it happening any time soon. There is a lot of tension around Israel, and it's actions. Removing the Lock is just inviting people to vandalise. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only semi protected so you will be able to edit it on Friday once your account is confirmed. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel is not a republic.

Hey guys. I only just joined to say this: Israel is NOT a republic. I live in Israel and we are a Parliamentary Democracy. Even the source used in the "Republic" section (Source number 2) of the CIA shows that Israel is a democracy. Please change that if you can.

I'm referring to that frame that shows a lot of (Good) information about Israel, it shows that its form of rule is a parliamentary republic (You can press Ctrl F, type "Republic" without the quotations and find what I mean) when it isn't.

I know this is a relatively small matter, but it's very important to me that people know everything about my nation and know the truth, so factual errors like this, of course unintended and I dare not blame anyone nor say that anyone should be blamed, irritate me. Besides, whilst small, differences very much exist between a republic and a democracy and Israel is a sure democracy.

I appreciate you guys took the time to read this and hope this will be addressed. I would also like to thank you for protecting this article, it's very well written and I'd hate to see it ruined by vandals. Nazgul-Killer (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you are confused about the meaning of the word "republic". A republic is "a democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them" (Princeton); or "a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch" (Wikipedia). The words republic and democracy are used pretty much interchangeably. Perhaps you are thinking of some other word that would be less appropriate? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he means Israel is a parliamentary democracy (President as head of state and Prime Minister as head of government) as opposed to a presidential republic (President as both head of state and head of government). These are the terms most often used to refer to the respective political systems.--Ptolion (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Republic is often used off of Wikipedia. I noticed that the World Almanac uses just "Republic" while the CIA Factbook gives the full breakdown with "parliamentary democracy". Whats Britannica and others say? This actually might be a good catch that is easy to fix.Cptnono (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I thought this discussion was over, and I went ahead and changed it. I hope there are no objections. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No oops required. Paying too much attention to the talk page history and not the articles over here. Badass. All's well that ends well.Cptnono (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In the context of system of government taxonomy, a republic is the opposite of monarchy, i.e. it is any of the systems in which the rule is not transferred by inheritence. It can be either a democracy or dictatorship, as long as the ruler's heir is not pre-determined as his closest competent relative. So, Israel is indeed a republic. BTW, there are democratic monarchies, e.g. the United Kingdom. DrorK (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it guys, you've been a great help. However, just for the record - A democracy doesn't have to be a republic, yet it usually is. A republic is the rule of the elected government, a democracy is the rule of the people. In Israel, we're the rule of the people.Nazgul-Killer (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I added the following essential information to the lead, that has been in fact omitted in the whole article. It's about the reason why the Arab leaders were against the partition of the British Mandate into a Jewish and Arab part. The source comes from Peter Mansfield, who was a journalist for the Financial Times, The Economist, The Guardian, the Indian Express and other newspapers in the Middle East. But the user Okedem deleted my adjustments because he said "1. way too detailed for lead; 2. generally, most Arab leaders refused any form of partition on principle, regardless of the exact percentages."

I disagree; the Arabs were against partition of the British Mandate of Palestine because they owned almost all the land and formed the vast majority of the population, at that time. This is the whole essence of the wars and conflicts that followed, and that is the whole thought behind their 'principle' of refusal.

Before I change it back (or adjust and/or change it back yourself), I would like to know what other wikipedians have to say about it. This is the text I added:

The Zionists welcomed the partition because it recognized a Jewish state which covered 55% of a country in which Zionist landholdings still amounted to less than 8% of the total. The Arabs, on the other hand, were outraged. At the then present time they owned almost all the land and formed about 70% of the population, but were left with 40% of the British Mandate. The partition leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states (...)

Okedem changed it back in:

In November 1947 the United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states (...)

According to me, by adding the actual figures of landownership and population back in those days, the reasoning of the Arab leaders become much more clear and understandable and less bluntly aggressive. --Andre Kloer (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The rule is: you can't say things in the lead that are not supported in the article. So if you want to add this information, add it in the appropriate place in the article. Then you can discuss including it in the lead as something that is a central issue in the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Arabs were on record over a decade before the Partition Plan saying they wouldn't accept any partition, so saying that the main reason they rejected it was because they weren't happy with the specific land allocation is a bit controversial. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, there's more to Israel than what Arabs say about it. We get it; there's a conflict. Please don't clutter the lead up with more about it. -- tariqabjotu 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I find your first sentence to be an offensive and dismissive generalization that has little to do with article improvement Tariqabjotu. Could you please strike and/or rephrase? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I said what I meant, and meant what I said. -- tariqabjotu 16:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming (once again) that you are in no way an uninvolved admin when it comes to the I-P subject area. If I see you undertaking any admin actions in this domain again, I will be sure to bring to attention this comment (among others) which exemplifies your general bias and hostility towards Arab editors. Tiamut^talk 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And I will, again, ignore you. People have said that I have been biased against a multitude of groups on many occasions, and rather than indicating a bias of mine, it generally indicates a bias and unnecessary defensiveness on the part of the person making the accusation. You disagree with me a lot. Fine. You may even dislike me. Fine. However, you are in no position, especially based on your apparently thin skin against any comment involving Arabs and Palestinians, to judge me. So, as I said, your judgment of my opinions will have no effect on my actions. I will continue to involve myself in the Israel-Palestine subject area in the manner I have done so in the past. -- tariqabjotu 16:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your disdain of the concerns of your fellow editors only further confirms how unsuited you are to be an admin acting in this arena. Tiamut^talk 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What don't you understand? It's not a disdain for the concerns of my fellow editors; it's a disdain for your concerns. -- tariqabjotu 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of your hostility towards me. So I expect that you will heed my erlier request not to involve yourself as an admin, at least when it comes to me. Tiamut^talk 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Arab leadership rejected any partition on principle; see, for instance, Plascov, Avi (2008). The Palestinian refugees in Jordan 1948-1957. Routledge. p. 2, and Bovis, H. Eugene (1971). The Jerusalem question, 1917-1968. Hoover Institution Press,U.S.. p. 40.. You can easily find more sources explaining this - now some claim the rejection was due to unfairness in land allocation, but back then it wasn't the point at all, but a complete rejection of the concept of partition. okedem (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the percentages sound like too minor data to be included in the lead, and that they're not the only reason the Arabs rejected partition. Even that the zionists accepted and arabs rejected the partition is IMO too minor a detail to be in the lead (it's also a bit misleading), and removing it would de-emphasize the conflict in the lead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The acceptance and rejection are vital when mentioning the partition plan, and there's nothing misleading about them. They explain the ensuing war and the status of Palestine following it. To remove those facts is to create a narrative in which the reader is to assume the Jews prevented the Arabs from creating their state (if you say there was a plan for two states, but now there's only a Jewish state - what will people assume? We all know the answer here). okedem (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with okedem. The acceptance/rejection is a very important detail. Why each side accepted/rejected (which can't be summed up in one paragraph, IMO) belongs in another article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see the need to include a one-sided and incomplete description of the Arab position (which was multifaceted) in the intro. Its controversial and POV and is not essential information to the lead if its not going to be balanced out with an explanation for that position (as adopted by some). I think the whole thing should be removed from the lead and discussed further down, where space can be given to make it more NPOV. Tiamut^talk 16:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Come now, "multifaceted"? Maybe, if all facets said the same thing - "reject".

There's nothing controversial about this, and calling simple facts "POV" doesn't make it so. I know it makes the Arab side look bad, but those are the facts. The Arabs rejected the plan. Now, you may claim they were perfectly justified in doing so, the plan was unfair, etc. But those details are for the article's body, not the lead. Mentioning the rejection isn't a value judgment of the Arabs, but simple fact.

If we want to mention the partition plan (and it makes sense to do this, as Israel is one of the few countries created as a result of a UN decision), we probably want to say it called for two states, Jewish and Arab. Now, to say just this, and not mention the Arab response would be extremely misleading to the reader. I know the prospect of the reader thinking - "Oh, those Jews must have prevented the Arabs from having a state" must be appealing to some, but we're not here to write an anti-Israel manifesto, but to provide accurate facts. So, we must provide the response of the two communities, being essential to the events that transpired, and the current situation in Palestine. okedem (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Andre Kloer. As pointed out by the user above the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. So please put the information in the relevant place in the article first. And Okedem -- Dailycare used the terms "zionists" and "arabs" in his argument and you responded back with "jews" and "arabs". Not all jews are zionists so please don't change the terms another editor is using to frame the argument differently. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your issue with Okedem's use of the term Jews is quite petty, and, frankly, quite wrong in this context. When considering only the pre-1948 population of Palestine, as we are in this context, it seems perfectly acceptable to use either "Jews" or "Zionists". In fact, I'd prefer the former when used as a noun due to the negative connotations often (unduely) associated with the latter. -- tariqabjotu 16:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not petty or wrong. Its the correct terminology to use. Arabs had a problem with Zionism, not Jews. My grandmother breastfed her Jewish neighbor's kids before Zionism made a mess of everything in Palestine. RomaC and Dailycare are usng precise terminology. If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be editing this article. Tiamut^talk 16:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this is petty, so I will practice what I preach and neither respond further to the point of fact nor your provocation. -- tariqabjotu 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Ah yes, the good ol' "the Arabs and Jews got along fabulously before Zionism" fable. Your personal anecdote aside, the Arabs at the time often used Arab/Jew rather than Arab/Zionist, as I'm sure you're aware. Tariq is entirely correct above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not a fable. I realie personal anecdotes are not WP:RS. Other sources indicate that your assessment (and Tariq's) is incorrect. For example, Arabs in Palestine in the late Ottoman period often referred to native Jews as abnaa al-balad (sons of the country), 'compatriots', or Yahud awlad Arab (Jews, sons of Arabs). The First Palestinian Congress of February 1919 issued its anti-Zionist manifesto rejecting Zionist immigration, and extending a welcome to those Jews, "among us who have been Arabicized, who have been living in our province since before the war; they are as we are, and their loyalties are our own." al-Shami and the Predicament of the Arab Jew in Palestine. Please use precise terminology. Tiamut^talk 16:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In pre-1948 Palestine there were two major communities, Arab and Jewish. Not "Zionists", which are members of a specific movement or ideology. This is similar to Arabs, and a movement in the Arab community of Arab Nationalists, or Pan-Arabists. Specifically, in pre-1948 Palestine, the overwhelming majority of Jews were also Zionists, but that's beside the point. The point is that the leadership of the Jewish community in Palestine (not the "Zionist community", which isn't an existing term) were the ones discussing and accepting the plan, and we're discussing the actions of those two communities in Palestine (and not, for instance, the response of Zionists worldwide, e.g. Zionist Organization of America). This is why most sources I've seen use the term "Jews" in various ways ("Jewish community", "Jewish leaders", etc) in this context. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a source say "The Zionists accepted the plan". I'm sure one can find such uses, but they seem to be rare. Like it or not, the correct term is for the community, "Jews", just like "Arabs", and not the ideological group, "Zionists" and whatever ideology might be relevant for the Arabs (Arab nationalism?). okedem (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite a good differentiation between "Jews" and "Zionists", Okedem. The UNISPAL documents from that time invariably refer to Jews and Arabs. Stellarkid (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I also have trouble with this sentence in that user:Andre Kloer wants to add: "The Zionists welcomed the partition because it recognized a Jewish state which covered 55% of a country in which Zionist landholdings still amounted to less than 8% of the total.[14] " While I assume it is properly sourced (I haven't looked), the fact is that there were many feelings about partition in the Jewish community. Most just wanted a place to make their own laws, in particular with respect to immigration, since there were so many refugees from the war that needed somewhere to go to be allowed to live as free human beings. Some leaders felt that it was way too small, and the Mandate had promised them a much larger home, which had become Jordan a few years earlier. When Jordon was established it was supposed not to prejudice the rights of others, but Jews were not allowed to live in Jordan, which was against international law, though no one was around to champion Jewish human rights in the area. Then there were many Jews who were not at all happy with the UN decision to internationalize Jerusalem. And with plenty reason as it turns out, as Jerusalem was immediately seized by Jordan, and never became "internationalized" at all. So there were reasons to welcome partition and reasons not to welcome partition, and the various groups of Jews had different ideas about it. I am certain that first statement is not even vaguely accurate, giving motive as it does to a whole people (the Jews), and calling that whole people "Zionists." Stellarkid (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

language in lead

Arabic and Hebrew be official language of "Israel" and Arabic be official language of Palestine. Historically people in Palestine Mandate, area now occupy by "Israel", speaked Arabic. Since arabic be both historical language of land and one of official language of "Israel", Arabic translate should be list before Hebrew. Also, if list translation by language name, Arabic come before Hebrew if you use alphabetic sort. Ani medjool (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The heavy majority of the population in Israel speaks Hebrew, not Arabic. Stop being petty. Breein1007 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not if include peple living under occupation in Judea and Samaria, land area that "Israel" also claim be part of it. Ani medjool (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ani medjool. The article does not say that the West Bank is a part of Israel. Hebrew is the more widely used of Israel's two official languages I see no reason to change the listing order to alphabetical unless there is a Wiki convention or policy on that point. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ani, even if the land of Judea and Samaria is taken into consideration, the majority of people living between the sea and the river Jordan speak Hebrew, even without adding to that the majority of Arabs who also speak Hebrew. --Shuki (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with editors saying that Hebrew is the majority language in Israel as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli Supreme Court's decision from 2000 which ordered the Israeli authorities to add Arabic inscriptions on all road signs, on the account that it is an official language of Israel, also states that the "first official language" and language of preference is Hebrew. The Israeli law does not apply in the WB&Gaza, hence these territories are irrelevant to this disccussion. DrorK (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"largest city"

I have brought this up a few times, but inside the "capital" section it got little response. The line "Israel's largest municipality, both in population and area, is Jerusalem" and in the lead the line on Jerusalem being the largest city (without specifying pop or area) is incorrect, or at best misleading. Jerusalem is the largest city "in Israel" iff you include the area and population of E. Jerusalem which is not "in Israel". Either it should be clarified that Wikipedia, in its "neutral" narrative voice, includes occupied E. Jerusalem as "in Israel" or some other wording is needed. nableezy - 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there should be some sort of clarification in regards to population as a whole vs. population minus E. J'slem. It would be helpful if we could get population estimates for both stances... --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the necessity of clarification. East Jerusalem#Demographics has some information on the population figures for that part of the city as of 2006. These can be subtracted from the overall Jerusalem figures for 2006 provided by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, which does not differentiate between East and West in its census undertakings. Tiamut^talk 06:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A suggested rephrasing:

• "Occupied East Jerusalem is included by Israeli authorities in Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, making it Israel's most populous city."

Alternatively, we might consider removing all references to this from the lead, since it really does need a more lengthy explanation, with population figures of the East and "the united city", as suggested by Nsaum75.Tiamut^talk 07:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in fact a bit more complicated even than this, since Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not recognized any more than it's sovereignty over East Jerusalem. It's foreseen that under an agreement with the Palestinians Israel will be given West Jerusalem since the PLO has indicated it will cede the land between the partition plan borders and the '67 green line to Israel, but until a final agreement is reached this is not a legal fact. The '67 lines (with minor and mutual modifications) are expected by all major parties to act as the final borders, so W-Jer is slated to become Israeli sovereign territory (but is not yet). Having said that, I'm not advocating mentioning all (or indeed any) of this in the article, but I do feel that certain care should be exercised with statements relating to this. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not recognized any more than it's sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Uh... what? Anyway, I'd advocate removing mention of largest city from the lead. There isn't enough room to provide more detail and the current way of saying "if including occupied East Jerusalem" seems like mentioning this "Jerusalem: is it or is it not Israeli?" point too much. -- tariqabjotu 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the figures, I'm with Tariqabjotu on this one. Explanations will take up way too much space (for instance, Jerusalem's status is much less clearly "occupied" than "disputed"; some of current EJ was originally villages in the West Bank, etc). Better to give this the space it deserves in the article itself. okedem (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

...what about the infobox ? It's listed there as the largest city at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Sean.hoyland. I've removed it per the concerns raised in the discussion about the need for elaboration if it is to be included. Clearly, the infobox is not a place for that discussion. Should we list Tel Aviv instead? Tiamut^talk 07:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't say Tel Aviv is the largest city, since that ignores the complexities of Jerusalem's situation (we usually treat a city by considering its municipal boundaries, not rather random armistice lines). However, we can simply use a different term - we can list the largest urban area, which is Tel Aviv. Technically, this can be done by using the parameters "|largest_settlement = Tel Aviv", and "|largest_settlement_type = Urban area" (See also List of urban areas by population).

By the way, I have no problem with stating Jerusalem is the largest city, as many sources do (for example - "Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa", "Columbia Encyclopedia" and "Encyclopedia of World Geography"), but I'm also fine with a compromise. okedem (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

human rights violations

i was wondering why human rights violations as stated by the UN and amnesty international arent covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you've actually read the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

...and I was wondering what specific changes you would propose. --FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a link to the main Human rights in Israel article in the Israel#Government_and_politics section via the phrase, "seeks to defend human rights and liberties in Israel. There's also a link to that article and other articles via the Articles Related to Israel template at the bottom of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment/Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

Comment by Dailycare

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• Many sources, particularly professional ones that have country overview articles, do not include any footnote when specifying the capital of Israel. See More sources on this page.
• No sources have been provided that say that non-recognition has any effect on a city's status as capital.
• Foreign officials meet their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem regularly and foreign ambassadors present their credentials there, implicitly recognizing Jerusalem as the capital.
• Other countries whose capitals are not recognized internationally such as Taiwan have no footnote in the infobox on the country page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems User:Dailycare has failed to provide a single relevant source, opting instead to list irrelevant news articles. Why are they irrelevant?

No one here is claiming Jerusalem is recognized by other countries / the UN as the capital. Thus, all the sources saying it's not recognized, are fully irrelevant. I ask User:Dailycare to remove them, being nothing but a red herring - no one is disputing non-recognition, it's not the issue here.

The question is, how do we treat the following, undisputed, list of facts:

• Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government.
• Jerusalem is designated as the capital by Israel.
• Jerusalem is under Israel's full control.
• Other countries don't formally recognize Jerusalem's status as capital, not having embassies there, though they all come to Jerusalem to conduct official business (meet with Israeli officials).

Now, in the course of this discussion, several points have become clear:

• A "capital", per any dictionary I've ever seen, is "seat of government".
• No sources has been provided to show that international recognition is in any way a factor in a nation's designation of its capital, or somehow a prerequisite for a city to be a capital.
• I've examined a long list of sources, to see how they handle this. When I say sources, I don't mean a news article in the New Zealand Herald focusing on Jerusalem, but encyclopedias etc., that have an entry about Israel, just like we do. The great majority of these simply say Jerusalem is the capital; some of them mention the dispute in the article's body, and some don't. The minority have some note, or qualify Jerusalem's status as capital in some way.

So the question is, how do we present this data? No one is suggesting we remove the information from the article itself. It's covered nicely, and is notable. However, it seems (per the sources), that, when discussing Israel (and that's the article we're on), it is but a minor issue; the sources seem to indicate that despite non-recognition, there's no problem with calling Jerusalem the capital, and mentioning the dispute in the text. Thus, I argue we should do the same.

In the past, the footnote was suggested as a compromise solution - list Jerusalem as capital, but place a footnote for the dispute. Now, as a glace at academic publications can show, the footnote mechanism is equally valid for notes and references, and is used for both. Our own policy, WP:FOOT supports this use. Thus, I hold that we should maintain the status quo in this matter.

I must say I'm dismayed to see User:Dailycare mislead the editors here, when he claims "Mentioning only Capital: Jerusalem is in my opinion POV, since it presents only the minority (Israeli) view." This is demonstrably false, as the sources I've presented show, which is why he had to resort to the long list of news pieces mentioning a fact not in dispute. His choice of advocating "[Nb 1]", instead of the more common option (mentioned above) "[A]", is an attempt to further politicize this entry, in effect trying to make the article say "Capital: Jerusalem [BUT NOT REALLY LOOK AT THE BIG NOTE]". okedem (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to bring this article in line with the dozens of other Wikipedia articles which say that Israel's actions to make the City of Jerusalem its capital are considered illegal. That is not a insignificant fact that readers should have to glean from the fine print of the footnotes. In the jurisprudence of many countries, states have a legal obligation not to recognize sovereignty of otherwise legitimate regimes over any territory acquired in violation of the United Nations Charter. NNMNG is trying to conflate diplomatic relations law with the laws governing recognition of states and recognition of governments. Those are separate subjects in the Foreign Relations Law of the United States and many other countries.

Many countries have laws which say that regimes that acquire territory by illegal means will be denied access to their Courts and will not enjoy the normal legal immunities for their acts of state. Okedem is saying that Jerusalem nonetheless operates as a de facto capital, but doesn't want to call attention to that fact in the info box. harlan (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to give the relevant information, not your personal interpretation of the finer points of international law. okedem (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction, that's not my personal opinion. It is a legal position adopted by more than 160 other countries. harlan (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no precedent anywhere that says one country or group of countries has any say whatsoever regarding the location of of another sovereign country's capital. None. Further, Wikipedia does not qualify any other country's capital. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; if that's not considered proper by some or another group, that can be discussed in the appropriate place. The infobox is for brief and concise information; nuanced discussion (such as other country's opinions of Israel's choice of capital) can go in the body of the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the depiction of the footnote is extremely trivial; I don't think it's a big deal if the superscript is changed to [a] or [i] or even [nb 1], but I also think it's fine the way it is. However, the introduction of unrecognized as a direct qualifier of capital anywhere, but especially in the infobox, or the addition of any text that suggests that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel is completely unacceptable and not based on fact. This issue is so tired I will devote no further time to talking about it. -- tariqabjotu 22:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• From the RFC. Nations choose where their capital cities are, and there is no issue about international recognition. If there were any doubt about the matter, then look slightly behind the definition: the capital city is the location of a nation's highest administrative functions. The government is centred in Jerusalem; the Prime Minister's official residence is in Jerusalem; the Knesset meets in Jerusalem; the Supreme Court of Israel headquarters is in Jerusalem. The only aspect of Israel which is not centred in Jerusalem is due to the financial centre being in Tel Aviv, but that is hardly unusual (for example the financial centre of Germany is Frankfurt but Berlin is undoubtedly the capital). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have this recurring fantasy that if I say something enough times, someone will agree with me. It hasn't happened yet, but for the umpteenth time, I will propose my compromise to this quandary:

We all agree that Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's government, and the proIsrs contend that "capital" means "seat of government". So why don't we simply change the word "capital" in the lead to "seat of government"? I believe that everyone will agree that that statement is indisputable. On the other hand, no reader other than us politically hypersensitized editors will notice the difference. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That suggestion, to be frank, is in poor taste. Really. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

?? in what way? "Seat of government" is actually more precise; our Capital disambiguation page provides a pointer in that direction, saying "Capital (political), the area of a country, province, region, or state, regarded as enjoying primary status, usually but not always the seat of the government." As Ravpapa points out, it's indisputable that Jerusalem is currently Israel's seat of government; the term doesn't seem to carry the political and semantic load that "capital" does. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ravpapa and Jpgordon (and can only express confusion at the idea that it is in "poor taste"). We could also take put the redundancy of saying in the lead that "Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government ...". The major point about keeping it saying, unqualified, "capital" is that it is the seat of government. So why not just say "seat of government"? Brilliant in its simplicity. nableezy - 18:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Though every other country has a "capital" listed, and not "seat of government". The disambiguation page is mainly because of the economic term capital, and several terms that include "capital" (e.g. financial capital). There's no confusion here. If the infobox said, as a standard matter, "seat of government", I wouldn't argue to change it, but there's no justification for special treatment here. I remind you, that no source has been provided that says international opinion is in any way relevant to a city's status as capital, and that the great majority of RSs simply say it's the capital. Political pressures are not a valid argument. Just as it is indisputable that Jerusalem is the seat of government, it is indisputable that it's the capital, per the very meaning of word, and the RSs. It's also indisputable that other countries think Israel's designation of it as capital is unacceptable / illegitimate. It's just not very important, and irrelevant to its capital status. okedem (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources say simply that Paris is the French capital. Of Israel, they say that Israel claims Jerusalem is the capital, but this is not recognized internationally. Here in Wikipedia we should go with reliable secondary sources, so it should be clearly presented that there are two sides to the issue of Israeli capital. If non-recognition wasn't significant, secondary sources wouldn't waste ink mentioning it. In my opinion we can achieve this by changing the link to ^{[nb 1]} since that means "please note", see nota bene. A mention in the lead is also in order, IMO, since secondary sources characterize the Jerusalem issue as one of the core controversies in the Middle east. Happy new year, --Dailycare (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, repeating a falsehood will get you nowhere. The majority of relevant sources (not news article about building in East Jerusalem or something, which will obviously discuss the controversy, as that's their point; I'm talking about encyclopedias etc.) don't give this too much space, and don't qualify Jerusalem's status. okedem (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's so obvious that non-recognition is significant to a city's status as capital, it should be trivial to find a couple of sources saying exactly that. So far you have been unable to find any. Your opinion on what newspapers would "waste ink" on is, well, just your opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I stand corrected about Paris ;) Okedem, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, whereas we should primarily rely on secondary sources such as reputable newspapers. See Wp:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. You're advocating using a tertiary source for not conveying something in this article which is a bit weird, frankly. We typically source statements, not omissions of statements. That there are two sides to the issue of "Israeli capital" is clear. Don't you agree both should be presented? Happy new year, --Dailycare (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The question isn't the veracity of the non-recognition issue, but how important it is. Naturally, news articles focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will mention the dispute over Jerusalem prominently; however, as I've shown, sources similar in nature to Wikipedia, such as encyclopedias, choose to give this issue much less space, and only rarely qualify the statement in any way. Thus, if we do any differently, we take a minority position. In our articles about the conflict, it makes sense to highlight this issue. In our article about Jerusalem this is discussed at great length, including in the lead. However, this article isn't about the conflict, or about Jerusalem, but Israel.
2. "...not conveying something in this article" - if you can't write accurately, don't write at all. The issue is covered at length in this article, we're just discussing if it should additionally be in the infobox. As I've cautioned users on this misleading phrasing before (claiming I've trying to omit the information from the article), I can no longer assume good faith, and must conclude you are intentionally trying to mislead other editors here, so they think I and other users are trying to hide information. This cannot continue. okedem (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Jerusalem is already mentioned as the capital of the State of Palestine, a country that does not actually exist and yet is presented as a de facto and de jura state in en-wp (many Palestinians and Israelis talk about the need to establish it, which would be ridiculous if there were already such state). Since this is the case, it seems logical enough for en-wp to designate another capital for Israel, let's say Hadera or Bat Yam (sorry for the sarcasm, but it is unavoidable here). DrorK (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I agree with that proposition as well. Tiamut^talk 19:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That would work if you go and change every country page on wikipedia to say "seat of government" instead of "capital". This encyclopedia is supposed to be consistent. If it's just Israel, you're once again implying Jerusalem is not really the capital, an idea we have yet to see a single source for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not recognizing means that the international community does not consider Jerusalem to be the capital. That's why I said saying that Jerusalem is the capital is POV, namely the POV of the law-breaking party. Championing this POV all the way down to resisting the link change from ^[1] to ^{[nb 1]} is absurd. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that you provide a source that says non-recognition has any influence on a city's status as capital. You have been unable to do so. Jerusalem being the capital of Israel is a fact, supported by you not being able to provide a source saying it isn't. Your OR regarding what non-recognition means is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Here's my hand (use our imagination). And here's a hint: I think the reason why you get so few comments is because so few people care about the difference between ^[1] and ^{[nb 1]}. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, between "capital" and "seat of government". As Henry Kissinger said, the reason academic arguments are so vicious is that there is so little at stake. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

GHcool: of the sources you quote, those that I have been able to access all qualify the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is exactly what WP should do, in whatever way. The statement: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" is not very clear at all. I am the most beautiful man in Western Europe, as it happens, although this is not recognised by most of the international community...

It would be a bit of a jaw-dropping indictment of Wikipdedia if the idea that "Jerusalem is the capital of Isreal" needs no futher clarification were allowed to stand. I think that Dailycare has the least ridiculous take on this. --FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It has always been the capital of Israel. Wikipedians can talk till they are blue in the face, but Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel. Please channel all that pent-up energy and creative footnoting into improving the thousands of other articles on WP Israel/Palestine that sit there forlornly, consisting of half a sentence and a bunch of OR. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, please see the sources I've reviewed above, under "More Sources." okedem (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

In what sense does a nation's capital have to be 'recognised' by other nations in order to be its capital? There is no procedure for doing so. The most commonly indicated fact is that foreign embassies in Israel are generally in Tel Aviv, but that really does not help. The Comoros has its United States Embassy in New York City (sharing with its UN Embassy) and not Washington DC. That does not mean that the Comoros disputes that Washington DC is the capital. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sam, according to Wikipedia rules, articles should reflect the main or majority viewpoint. When one single country - Comoros, choose to have their embassy in New York, it is not for any political reasons, while in Israel, all countries have chosen to not have their embassys in Jerusalem and this is for political reasons. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What political reasons? It was a blackmail ultimatum. Leave Jerusalem or have your oil cut off. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Political reasons even mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, It is not acceptable when you take something from someone else that doesn't belong to you, and this act is not recognized. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Gilabrand. OR hyperbole with bigoted undertones does nothing to help the discussion. Tiamut^talk 19:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps you could provide a source that says that where embassies are located has any bearing on what a country's capital is, since you're obviously unable to provide a source that says non-recognition changes a city's status as capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, you say that the majority of tertiary sources don't give any qualification to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. What sort of survey did you conduct in order to determine this? I'd suggest that it probably depends which sources you choose to look at. Britannica, CIA World Factbook and Infoplease use the qualification that Jerusalem is Israel's "proclaimed" capital CIABritannicaInfoplease I think this would also be appropriate for Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, have you read the section I wrote on sources above ("More sources")? If not, please do. I wrote down every source I could access, never omitting a source based on its phrasing of this. This is why I listed Britannica (with some more details), or Encarta. CIA was already mentioned, so I had nothing new to say about it. Infoplease, as their site says, takes their information about countries from the CIA handbook (which is why their phrasing is exactly the same), and so is not a separate source. Additionally, note that the CIA factbook simply lists Jerusalem as the capital, and only adds a note in the bottom of that section, similar to our footnote (they don't use footnotes).

If you have access to other sources of this kind, please present them (not cherry picking them, of course). okedem (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC guidelines on terminology for reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict offer some useful information on how to report neutrally on Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. About Jerusalem, it says: The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians ... Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war. That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.

I don't see how editors here who claim that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is not a controversial and completely disputed statement can continue in that illusion. Its clear that it is disputed and its clear that to achieve NPOV in this article, if you do make such a blanket statement at all, it must be heavily qualified. Tiamut^talk 19:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo about the BBC being the end-all of editorial considerations. Please forgive me for presenting actual sources. Somehow, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Columbia, and many others don't seem to agree with the BBC's stance, and have no difficulty stating Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Are they all suffering from these illusions? Or are they on the take from the Zionist cabal? okedem (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, I don't believe there is such a rule as "first one to ten tertiary sources wins". There are clearly an awful lot of secondary sources that the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is something about which there are various POVs. The question here is whether the article/infobox should ignore that and exclusively reflect one POV. Your argument seems to be that this is what respectable tertiary sources do. However, I would say that the fact that a number of tertiary sources do not do this is enough to defeat your argument. Or else, in what respect do you think Britannica (for example) has erred? --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please enumerate the other POVs. I have yet to see a single source that says Jerusalem is not Israel's capital. They mention non-recognition (this relates mainly to not recognizing unified Jerusalem as the capital, but lets not waste time on details), or they mention the embassies are elsewhere, but the "thus Jerusalem is not really the capital" part is somehow always missing. Do you know why that is? Because other countries don't have a say in what a sovereign country's capital is. It's really that simple. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, please be accurate - not a single person here has suggested that the article ignore the dispute, so please don't create that impression here.

The point here is extremely simple - Jerusalem answers all the definitions of capital. Other countries dispute Israel's right to make Jerusalem its capital, so keep their embassies elsewhere. The question is - does this non-recognition actually affect Jerusalem's status as capital? Or is it just other countries' opinions, incapable of changing the fact? Not a single source has been provided that shows that a city's status as capital in any way depends on recognition, or embassies, or the UN.

You seem to be using a straw-man argument; I've never claimed that "this is what respectable tertiary sources do", so the different choice of Britannica doesn't "defeat" my argument. I said, and say, that this is what the majority does. Wikipedia should not take a minority position, and that includes in phrasings such as this. If the majority of similar sources (tertiary) don't qualify Jerusalem's status - why should we? To qualify is to take the minority view. Why did Britannica choose to use "proclaimed" (the most extreme stance of such sources)? I don't know, nor do I particularly care. I've done my best to present a fair review of sources, to see where we stand. At this point, it's clear. If you can't provide more sources, the conclusion doesn't seem to change. okedem (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You may think that Jerusalem answers all the definitions of a capital and that's all there is to it. However, there are other POVs on this, and that diversity is something that should be reflected in the article. Your question about how international non-recognition affects Jerusalem's status is, I admit, interesting. However, it is not for WP to determine an answer and act on that basis, just to make an appropriate representation of the different viewpoints that there are.

I'll tell why I think Britannica chooses to use the word "proclaimed", it is because the authors obviously believed that to be appropriate and neutral. --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The diversity is reflected very well, by giving this issue lots of coverage in the text of the article (including the "null and void" resolution), and in a footnote.

What you are advocating is for Wikipedia to take a stand, to reach a certain conclusion - that non-recognition means that Jerusalem isn't the capital. It seems (and you're free to prove me wrong) that Jerusalem answers the definition of capital, at least any definition that I can find. You claim that non-recognition somehow affects that - the onus is on you to provide evidence for this claim. So far we've seen exactly one source (Britannica) to think so. All the others don't; some think non-recognition is notable enough to be mentioned, some don't, but only Britannica thinks it actually affects the capital status. okedem (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment' -- Taiwan, a political state not even recognized as a legitimate sovereign nation by most of the world, has its capital listed as "Taipei" in the infobox and article. Why? Because Taiwan presents Taipei as its capital, its seat of government is there, and if any nation wants to do business with Taiwan, they must travel to Taipei. In regards to Israel: Israel presents J'slem as its capital, its government is seated there, and even though most/all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv, whenever embassy officials want to do business with the Israeli government, they must still travel to Jerusalem. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The dispute over Taiwan's statehood has nothing to do with its capital. Even those who dispute that Taiwan is a state, have no problem recogniing that Taipei in the capital of that region.

It is uncontroversial to note that Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government. But it is highly controversial to state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. International consensus is that Jerusalem does not belong to anyone at present and its fate is to be determined via negotiations. Hiding these facts from our readers does them a disservice and also fails to abide by NPOV. Tiamut^talk 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

...or, it could be spun the other way. If we admit that the international community does not recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that a UN Resolution has explicitly invalidated Israel's declaration of Israel as it's capital, then Jerusalem is not legally the capital of Israel and should not be considered as such. In fact, we should not attempt to spin in either direction, we should attempt to provide factual, neutral information. --FormerIP (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with your "spin" is that we have yet to see a source that says that non-recognition or UN resolutions have any bearing on a city's status as capital. In other words, you're engaging in original research. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't put it any better than Meowy's last comment. It is really as simple as that. We will never reach an agreement in this issue because people are coming at this from strong POV perspectives and refusing to accept the simple fact that it's a very clear matter of semantics. Everyone arguing against the fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is continuously ignoring the undisputed fact that Israel gets to choose its own capital, and that when we on Wikipedia provide the basic facts in the info box, we cannot argue that Jerusalem is NOT Israel's capital. International recognition is another issue. It is covered elsewhere in the article. The infobox doesn't have a section about international recognition. We are discussing how to deal with the "capital" section in the infobox, and that's it. And Jerusalem happens to be the capital of Israel, as selected by Israel, and nobody else. Legally, officially, and in any other way you want to try to spin it, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The UN, or any individual UN member states, have no say in the matter. They do not get to choose Israel's capital. Breein1007 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No. "Israel gets to choose its own capital" is one of a number of possible POVs. Perhaps the view of the international community is relevant, perhaps it is not. That's a debate that is outside our scope here. The bottom line is that the matter is not clear-cut (indisputably - am I being asked to provide cites for this? A number have been provided and the BBC cite above will do), and the article should not present that there is a definitive answer to the question. --FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Say Israel decided to change its currency from the shekel to the "bekel", but the international financial community doesn't like so it decides not to recognize it. Is there any question what Israel's currency is? Of course not. Israel is a sovereign country and gets decide the name of its currency. The same way Israel gets to decide where its capital is. The fact that other countries don't like it is irrelevant to any discussion as to where its capital is.

• This whole discussion is sort of funny. We have a bunch of people sitting behind their computers trying to challenge reality by changing its wikipedia description. If you want to change the reality, a crusade/jihad may be a better idea. But until then, wikipedia only represents reality, nor our dreams.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No-one is trying to "change reality", we're trying to change this article to say what secondary sources say. If there were dozens of reliable sources saying that the currency name "bekel" wasn't internationally accepted, then that would be mentioned. The infobox in State of Palestine says "Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed)", so there is a neat precedent for modifying it. Concerning what recognition, or non-recognition, means, users may consult dictionaries. Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in 1990 wasn't recognized, and the UN proclaimed it "null and void". Sound familiar? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest making a comparison between the secondary sources and how they define Jerusalem. This should end the dispute once and for all.Imad marie (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And by mentioning State of Palestine you prove my point - in that case, a proclamation is all we have. The SoP (or the actual body, the Palestinian Authority) doesn't control an inch of Jerusalem, and doesn't have any government institution there. So the strongest possible thing we can say about Jerusalem as the capital of SoP, is that SoP proclaimed its their capital. Obviously, this is extremely far from the situation with Israel, which proclaimed Jerusalem as the capital, but also actually made it the capital. okedem (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I still favour the deliberately simple and pragmatic approach of aligning the infobox entry with Britannica, 'Capital: Jerusalem (proclaimed)' for the reasons I listed i.e. it has 100% WP:V compliance based on an a reliable uncontroversial source, it's neutral, it adds information, it allows readers to verify the information transparently, it eliminates the need to discuss competing decision procedures that attempt to measure the capital-ness of a city and it's true. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple, but why should we follow the most "extreme" source we found (in their choice of phrasing), as opposed to the majority of sources who made a different choice? okedem (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Because that way we get the strongest implication that Jerusalem isn't really Israel's capital. Duh. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is Israel's capital and has been proclaimed as such. That's why I favour this simple approach. Anything we chose will obviously have problems from someone's perspective. I think we do need to openly acknowlege in the infobox that something is non-standard in this case. Simply adding the word 'proclaimed' is relatively painless, less 'extreme' and more positve than 'disputed' (or something similar). It seems to me that the much of the chaos on this issue is caused by a lack of consensus on decision making methods. Everyone is approaching the issue in a different way, sampling the vast pool of sources and interpreting them in a way that produces the result they probably already favour. It causes the usual editing spiral of death so popular here. If we are going to do that then we might as well be honest and straightforward about it, select a sensible result/infobox entry that doesn't oversimplify or overcomplicate matters together with the associated source. Having said that, I also support Ravpapa's "seat of government" proposal as a nice solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• CommentThe '08 World Almanac handles it similarly with "Jerusalem (most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv)" A line like that would work well in the last line of the lead already discussing both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. This can be viewed as an opportunity to present relevant political information about the country and not as a way to beat up on Israel. A note is not unheard of on Wikipedia, but it also does not appear to be mandated (List of countries with multiple capitals might be an interesting project for those more concerned with the MoS side of things). Using the quote parameter in the first reference wasn't a bad idea but it currently is a little long for our purposes. That same source has a more concise version that resembles the Almanac with the CIA World Factbook stating: "Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv." in its infobox like list.

Finding consensus at Template:Infobox country might also help the project in the future. Also, Ravpapa might be interested in the multiple articles calling Paris the capital. I'm not sure of those articles assessment grades, but it looks to be the assertion on Wikipeida. A few quick ones: Paris, France, Paris (disambiguation), Capital region Cptnono (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not liking the language used by several editors here. Please avoid allusions to theft, jihad, crusades, illusions, etc and focus on ways to bring this discussion forward. Editors with strong conflict of interests, please make sure that you are trying to listen to the other people's perspective and try to avoid circular repetition of the same arguments. Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Sorry, but no. It's not as simple as that. I just need to point out as respectfully as possible that we are going in circles now. All of these arguments have been covered over and over again in the discussion above. You say that we now have "precedent for calling a capital a 'seat of government'" when the status is in doubt. However, it's not the case for Israel. France and Israel are not in similar situations. France has not selected Paris to be its capital. Israel, on the other hand, has selected Jerusalem as such. Breein1007 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap. I wasn't trying to start a fresh debate on another subject. I saw two people make a couple mentions and thought it would be something interesting to follow-up on. Sorry about that.

With this article. Does anyone else think the quote in the first reference is too long? We have shorter quotes available, Wikilinks for the article, and maybe even a link to a source.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment by Joe407

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

• Comment -- A country declares its capital, it is its capital. It is not up to others to claim otherwise. That is why most other tertiary sources call Jerusalem the capital without making a big deal of its so-called disputed nature. I agree with Joe407 that the context of Israel (ie this article), as opposed to the context of Jerusalem, makes a big difference as well. It is not as if there is no mention of the "dispute" in the article. There is no need for special handling such as "seat of government." As someone else pointed out, as far as most of the Arab & Muslim and even some other nations are concerned, Israel itself is illegal, and is only considered a "Zionist Entity" by them at this moment in history. Should we exclude the name of Israel, make a large note to that effect, or include "Zionist Entity" in the info-box, or perhaps embolden it and add it as a separate name to the lede? I don't think so. No special handling. Jerusalem is Israel's stated capital and all the sources agree on that. Stellarkid (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the gathered sources (the 43 above, BBC and Okedem's sources), most say something along the lines of proclaimed+Jerusalem+not recognized. The most extreme sources, either way, say either "Capital:Jerusalem" or "Capital:Tel Aviv". For the record, I'm OK with either the "Seat of government" or "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" proposals that have been floated here. Saying the capital is either "Jerusalem" or "Tel Aviv" is IMO POV. Joe407, the international community has since 1950 made a point to not recognize this particular political move. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I oppose "seat of governemnt" unless it is applied to every other country article on wikipedia. I allow oppose "proclaimed", "so-called" and "they wish".

Still waiting for a single source that says non-recognition has any bearing on a city's status as capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that you have brought no sources, but random news articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or just quotes from the UN and the EU, showing (how unexpected), the position of the UN and the EU. Many/most of them don't dispute Jerusalem's status, but just add that other countries don't recognize it as such - a fact not in dispute here, and an obvious thing to mention when discussing the conflict. I've shown that most actual sources (like encyclopedias), knowing all the facts that we do, have no problem simply stating the Jerusalem is the capital. You've presented no sources to show that the UN's opinion (or international recognition in general) has anything to do with a city's status as capital. I conclude that other countries may choose to express their disagreement by non-recognition, but this move is just a part of diplomacy, and has no effect on the capital's status.

In, even the Al-Jazeera link you presented seems to support this conclusion: "Israel's borders remain undrawn, its capital unrecognised,..." - not "its claim to Jerusalem as capital", or any such thing, but "its capital" - this text fully acknowledges that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but just says that other countries don't recognize this. Even Al-Jazeera... okedem (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

(Incidentally, I think Paris is the capital of France. The poster who pointed out above that its parliament sits in Versailles must have been reading an extremely old newspaper.) --FormerIP (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You forgot one undisputed fact - Jerusalem serves as Israel seat of government, fulfilling the definition of "capital", which is why the majority of sources similar to us simply say it's the capital. To use language properly, one usually consults a dictionary. In this case, any dictionary will tell you that capital is "seat of government". As Jerusalem fulfills that definition, I see nor reason not to call it the capital. Unless you can prove that international recognition has any bearing on a city's status as capital, this is nothing more that just another detail, similar to the many others covered in the article's body. Saying "I don't think this is primarily an issue about sources" does not exempt you from the requirement to present sources. okedem (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Some of them note that it is not recognized by the international community. We do not have a source that says this non recognition has any bearing on its status as capital as opposed to just being an anecdote. Thus your claim that this is a POV is WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians always decide whether things represent a POV by making judgements. We don't look in sources to tell us. The idea that it is possible for a claim of POV to be OR makes no sense. Do you mean something else other than "anecdote"? --FormerIP (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem. You are wrong to suppose that "capital" is synonymous with "seat of government". Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, but it's government sits in The Hague (which is not its capital - see the piped link for confirmation). Edinburgh has been the capital of Scotland since the fifteenth century, but for most of this time Scotland has not had a legislature.

There is also no basis to the idea that the Israeli view about its capital is more important than any other. The Burma article testifies that, as far as WP goes, the view of the government of a country is not even decisive in determining what the name of the country is.

The bottom line is that there is no cold hard fact that can answer the question of whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital or not. There are only opinions and it depends who you ask. This is what the article should reflect, not the superiority of any particular opinion. --FormerIP (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Burma is a very bad example, because the there are evidences that the current regime there was imposed on the people, and that the name change was not done according to the laws of the country itself and is not popular among its people. Jerusalem was proclaimed capital of Israel by an elected parliament and according to the regular procedures of relevant country. As for the international non-recognition, it does not go beyond maintaining the embassies in Tel Aviv. Very rarely have there been leaders who insisted on meeting Israeli officials in Tel Aviv rather than in Jerusalem. Israel holds official international events in Jerusalem and only a very small number of delegates ever refused to attend due to the fact that it was held in Jerusalem. The diplomatic corps even regularly attends the official opening ceremony of the Israeli Independence Day held in Jerusalem. DrorK (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying that non-recognition has an effect on a city's status as capital is indeed OR unless you can find a source that says it. This is not a judgment call. It's WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments I make on the talkpage cannot possibly be OR. Unless I am misunderstanding something, you seem to be employing a strange logic here, NMMNG. If the question is "is international law and opinion at all relevant when discussing the status of Jerusalem as a capital?", then the answer seems to be so obvious that a request for sources is simply frivolous. I could equally demand to see the sources for the case that Israeli law and opinion is relevant in this regard. But that would be equally frivolous, so I decline to do it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how "Jerusalem (most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv)" as seen in the World Almanac and various online sources isn't a great solution. SeanHolyland pointed out that Britannica did it similar with "proclaimed". I think "proclaimed" disregards that it functions as the capital, but it might work as well. Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Would something like "proclaimed and de facto" or "proclaimed and seat of government" deal with this reservation? (Although, personally, I think "proclaimed" will do and that concise is better). I don't like "most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv" because it is wordy, because it may be confusing to uninitiated readers (I know what it is meant to convey, but some may struggle) and because I think it is a formulation which is more likely to lead to future dispute, with editors on both sides of the POV divide seeking to delete or amend it. I also don't like "disputed" because it is likely to meet with the approval of a more restricted group of editors and because it is inexact IMO (there are various shades of opinion on this - "disputed" tends to imply you have a quarrel with Israel, which may not always be the case). Plus it is a negative word, whereas "proclaimed" is positive.--FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "proclaimed" disregards function but it is in Britannica and you do have a point about brevity. If we were to go that route, should we use an inline citation to Britannica with the quote parameter, a footnote in the infobox, or no note at all (simply "Capital(proclaimed)")? Concerns over it being the equivalent to "HEY LOOK AT THIS!" are valid so it makes me a little cautious about how it is presented.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What about a wikilink to either Proclamation (although that article is not great as it stands and is rather England-specific) or Jerusalem#Political_status (which would probably be most helpful to the reader, and would help deal with concerns that the infobox is not offering full disclosure)?

A footnote is probably, strictly speaking, unnecessary IMO, but it might help deter future POV editing. It could be to Britannica or it could contain a short explanation with a link to an RS giving a fuller explanation (if one can be found) - that would be better.

I agree with "HEY LOOK AT THIS" (come to think of it, someone should do an essay on that), although I'd add that any wording in WP that doesn't want anyone to look at it is a bit pointless. I think the worst examples of WP:HLAT are where the wording immediately strikes you as the uncomfortable product of an edit war. But I digress. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

okedem's original phrase was "BUT NOT REALLY LOOK AT THE BIG NOTE". I'm not sure if WP:BNRLATBN or WP:HLAT is funnier.

See reference number 1 currently used. It is a whole separate article with its own inline citations. I'm still looking at it trying to figure out a solution but drawing a blank. Overall, we could be looking at two separate issues here: How to handle the infobox and how to handle that reference? Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not merge the current footnote into Jerusalem#Political_status and then provide a footnote pointing there? You are right, it is a mini-article rather than a footnote, but it also seems to be accurate AFAICT. I suppose there is the risk that the section in the Jerusalem article may degrade over time, but WP will always require vigilance. --FormerIP (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that whatever point that is trying to be made about questioning Jerusalem's status as seat of government "capital" should have a section either in the Jerusalem article or the Israel article rather than something in the info box. To my logic, the point made earlier about Taipai in Tiawan fits here. The Israeli seat of government is Israel regardless of it's status in global politics. A capital is what a govt says it is. By the line of reasoning of the person who started this Rfc, it would be more appropriate to question Israel's status as a country (As evidenced by the large number of people in the Arab world who fail to recognize its legitimacy)rather than Jerusalems status as a captial. Within Israel itself, Jerusalem itself is the captial no disupute there. It seems to me that the whole basis of this Rfc is rooted in POV.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true that Israel is not universally recognized as a state, but the majority of the world's nations do recognize it and it is a UN member, therefore the "Israel doesn't exist" view is a small minority view. To the contrary, "Jerusalem isn't the capital" is a view subscribed to just a year ago (most recently) in the United Nations by 163 countries (source #14 above). On the other hand, I don't believe any country disagrees with the statement that Jerusalem is the proclaimed Israeli capital. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The term "proclaimed" implies that Israel cannot exercise its proclamation, and in this case it is definitely not the case. Israel proclaimed the city as its capital and made it its capital for real. DrorK (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The term 'proclaimed' implies only that Israel proclaimed it; the ref attached only indicates more information regarding that word's usage. I doubt it implies anything more; how it has exercised its proclamation is well known and a whole new topic. Wallowing in the might that created the facts provides little benefit to the discussion, except to point out the considerable differences with a right that others accept. Proclaiming something is one side of a two-sided coin; the other side is the recognition of that proclamation by others. To a large degree, it is similar to the difference between de facto and de jure. The facts are one thing; their acceptance by others is different; both are true from their respective points of view. At the same time, having facts shoved down one's metaphorical throat is much different than accepting them and swallowing them on your own. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using "proclaimed" for the reason Drork mentions above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CasualObserver: Proclaimed disregards function and if a couple editors here have concern with it than it probably means even more will if it is in the main space. People assume all sorts of stuff. I am not totally against it but can't see using it if there is already so much friction. If "proclaimed" "de facto" or similar terms are considered ambiguous to some and mention of Tel Aviv is too long, then scrapping the idea of a qualifying note in parenthesis might be best.Cptnono (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the formulation "proclaimed and seat of government" (or, if preferred, "proclaimed and de facto") would fully deal with the concern about stressing functionality. As I said above, I would prefer the clarification to be as short as it can be. But if it is crucial to some editors to stress that Jerusalem is a functioning capital, then OK. --FormerIP (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn between objecting to this on the basis of the opening brace before "proclaimed and seat of government" implying a sad face or a right ear. It's difficult to know whether to take the Western or Asian position on this important issue. Other than that this proposal seems reasonable. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sean, you'll need to explain the thing about the "opening brace" a bit more. --FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I also object to "proclaimed" on the basis of only one source actually using it in such a manner.

I think Sean was attempting to dismiss the concerns about the implications of "proclaimed" while attempting to be funny. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I understand your new objection or not, NMMNG. Are you saying that you object on the basis that you can find only one source that is syntactically the same and combines the word "proclaimed" with the use of parentheses and an information table? It is too much to hope that, rather than being a serious objection, this is just an illustrative example intended to help me understand the comment made by Sean? --FormerIP (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

See Emoticon. I wasn't dismissing concerns. I was raising potential new concerns about content changes based on my personal views on the implied meaning of the '(' symbol to the entire population of people who might read this article. With hindsight it seems disruptive, irrational and unhelpful to do that kind of thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, we have yet to see a source that supports the notion that international recognition is somehow relevant to a city's status as capital. While CasualObserver claims "Proclaiming something is one side of a two-sided coin; the other side is the recognition of that proclamation by others", neither he, nor anyone else, has bothered presenting sources to support this claim.

So far we have many respectable sources calling Jerusalem the capital; we know that it answers the dictionary definition of capital; and it's designated as capital. We don't have any source regarding recognition's importance in this; to the contrary - we have multiple sources that don't even bother mentioning recognition, or mention it somewhere in the text, but not their infobox. okedem (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the demand for sources runs the risk of looking purely tactical. It might be reasonable to point out that there is room for debate about how Israeli law and international law may interact, what significance UN Resolutions or statements made by various governments may have or not have. But to demand proof the these matters are relevant at all does not look at all reasonable. What sort of source do you suppose would ever address such a non-question anyway? It doesn't even appear to make logical sense. I can provide sources to show what the view of the UNSC is, for example, but to find sources that bother to discuss whether this view is meaningful would be very difficult. Plus, as I said above, there is no less reason to demand sources to prove that Israeli law is relevant on the same topic. However, I remain determined not to engage is such foolishness.

Anyway, to get back to the point, I think you are also arguing against a straw man, okedem. I don't think anybody proposes that Jerusalem should not be identified as the capital of Israel. However, it remains clear beyond reasonable doubt that there are a range of POVs as to how appropriate this is, and so it can't said to be true without qualification. --FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that confirming to WP:V is "purely tactical"? It is one of the pillars of wikipedia, as I'm sure you know.

If I read you correctly, you're saying the effects of non-recognition on a city's status as capital are a "non-question"? It would be unreasonable to expect someone to write something along the lines of "because it is not recognized as such, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel"? Seriously? I think you're trying to dismiss this issue precisely because you can't find any sources making that claim. Perhaps you should take a second do think why that is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is a policy requiring that statements made in WP articles should be supported by Reliable Sources. It does not apply to arguments made on talkpages.

Ample sources have been provided to show that there are diverse legitimate POVs on the subject of Jerusalem's status as a capital city. I believe that is all that is required to make the case that it is inappropriate to present a claim about Jerusalem's status as if it were uncontested.

The further challenge that has been made appears to be "provide a source that proves that these opinions are not irrelevant". This seems to me to be an attempt to narrow the debate and demand something that is more or less impossible, barring the possibility that I could get God to make a statement on the matter. Opinions cannot be "proved" in the way that seems to have been demanded. However, I do not need to "prove" the relevance of any opinions. The fact that they exist (within reason, in the mainstream) is enough.

On the other hand, if all that is being asked is to demonstrate that the view that international opinion/law casts doubt on Jerusalem's status as a capital exists and that this is not something I have made up all on my own, then obviously that will be easy to do (once again).

Please note that it is not my case that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, so I do not feel I need to either demonstrate this or rebut any evidence that it is.

As a gesture of goodwill, I will go to the trouble of googling for a source that supports something like the claim you demand in your most recent post (ie the view of the international community is relevant in determining how appropriate the description of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is). I will perform only one search, thinking of the best search term I can, and pick what I think is the best source from the first page of results. Just for fun, you can watch the timestamps and see how long it takes me. --FormerIP (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Please don't hype the BBC's neutrality. There's a reason they waste public money to keep the findings of their bias investigation secret. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, Okedem, what's your suggestion on how to take the view of the 163 member states of the UN into account, who just recently said they don't consider Jerusalem as the capital (source #14 above)? You've been critical of suggestions put forward by others, but so far less vocal on proposing solutions of your own. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I am interested to see their suggestions, I can't see any response but: "The UN isn't Israel so who cares" (in better words I'm sure). I suggest:

• Nothing" "Jerusalem[1]" [1] is an inline citation. Under the references section the quote parameter is used in a much more concise way than now
• "Jerusalem (see positions on Jerusalem)"

Either way, it isn't for us to label and the lead can be adjusted to give a quick summary:

"Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem is as the country's capital. It is the seat of government, and largest city, while. Israel's main financial center is its second largest city, Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is not recognized by many countries as the nation's capital so most embassies are located in or around Tel Aviv.

It doesn't offer so much weight that it overpowers the lead but still says enough to get the point across. Tweaks can be made to make it completely accurate and readable. More and more detail can be shoved into related articles or in below sections. Unisgned comment by Cptnono

I think that there's another side to the WP:HLAT coin. The clarification should be concise and accurate, but it should also be immediately visible, so I don't think that burying it in a footnote will do. WP:SHHH! would be my term for this.

I think your proposal for the lead looks basically okay though, assuming it meets WP:V. --FormerIP (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hot damn, we need to start writing essays.

How about using see "see positions on Jerusalem". Proclaimed is causing concern and explaining it is too long. We summarize it as appropriate in the prose of this and related articles.

I didn't completely check the minor details for that line so small tweaks may be needed. It also has to be worded as carefully as possible so we aren't ignoring the dispute or giving it excess weight.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be minor things with the lead (I think I'm right that Tel Aviv is actually the biggest city in Israel for example).

I think the objection of NMMNG and okedem is really to the idea of clarification per se, rather than to "proclaimed" in particular. I still think that is the best solution, and it seems to be the one that has gained the most support overall. I'd point out that other alternatives seem, to my mind, less favourable to the pro-Israel POV ("disputed", "Tel Aviv" or even "none" could all be argued for).

Some variant of "see positions..." might be okay, but it still needs to contain some explicit clarification so as to directly indicate the existence of other viewpoints (and, again, I can't think of anything more accurate and neutral than "proclaimed", but maybe someone else can). --FormerIP (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I strongly oppose using "proclaimed", BBC editorial policies notwithstanding.

I also reject your accusation that I'm trying to hide something. The article Positions on Jerusalem is linked to no less than four times in this article. Not enough?

Instead of making up silly policies like WP:SHHH! you should be reading WP:AGF. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue going on and on saying the same thing about why the current text is appropriate. I'll just say that you are incorrect; Jerusalem is Israel's largest city, not Tel Aviv. Breein1007 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Silly policies, NMMNG? On the contrary, I condfidently predict it will be one of the pillars of WP within my lifetime.

I'm not trying to accuse you of trying to hide anything and sorry if it came across that way. The only proposal you seem to approve of, though, is the one where no qualification appears alongside the word "Jerusalem". Because of this, I don't think your objection to any partiuclar word should be taken as a reason to reject that word in particular. If I'm wrong and you have a preferred formulation of your own, I don't think it is too late to throw it into the hat. --FormerIP (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not too late to throw anything into the hat since your suggestion to change the current long standing text and to qualify in the infobox has very little support. I count you, harlan, Supreme Deliciousness and Sean, and I assume Dailycare and two others will support anything that implies Jerusalem is not the capital. On the other hand there's okedem, jpgordon, tariqabjotu, Sam Blacketer, Jaakobou, DrorK, GHcool, Gilabrand, Meowy, Breein1007, brewcrewer, Joe407, Stellarkid, Elmmapleoakpine and myself who do not think it should be qualified in the infobox. So that's 6-7 for, 14 against so far. I may have missed a couple on either side, or misunderstood someone's position, but that won't substantially change the consensus (or lack thereof) here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's see your suggestion then. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a vote NMMNG. What counts is what arguments are put forward. The only viable argument I can detect on your side is that the the opinions of the UN, every government in the world (except one, obviously), the Canadian supreme court, the EU, the BBC, the Times style guide, Britannica (and so on and so forth) should all be ignored because they are not the government of Israel. That seems like a very weak argument. And it clearly contradicts WP:NPOV, so I don't think it is viable after all. --FormerIP (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This indeed isn't a vote. You obviously do not have consensus to change the long standing text. That you think your arguments are better is quite irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I agree completely. My case is that there is more than one legitimate perspective on this question, and nowhere on the page should the validity of any one perspective be asserted without qualification. --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a source that says the capital is where other countries maintain their embassies? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think above it was discussed, that we don't need to resolve that issue. There are two sides (perspectives in your words) to the issue, and at stake is that some editors feel that Israel's perspective has undue weight since the lead and infobox do not qualify Israel's claim that Jerusalem would be the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

True, often the term Zionist entity is used in media in the Arab & Muslim world to refer to Israel; Maybe the name "Israel" should be given an "*" denoting that fact. Its all a matter of perspective, after all. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No that's clearly daft. As far as I'm aware, neutral sources never refer to Israel as "Zionist entity". As I say, there are different legitimate viewpoints, but that isn't one of them.

On the question of embassies, I guess different people will have different opinions about that, which is my whole point. If you want my personal opinion, I guess it's a clear sign of non-recognition, but I'm not sure embassies necessarily make a capital any more than any other single factor. Maybe some countries put their embassies in Tel Aviv because the restaurants are better.--FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, neutral is a matter of perspective. What isn't neutral to you or I, may be neutral to someone else. Certainly the BBC or NBC isnt considered "neutral" in the muslim world. If we are going to question the neutrality and WP:UNDUE of listing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, we should also make sure that the name of the nation isn't given the same undue weight. Afterall, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan, none of Israel's neighbors recognize the nation. Nor does most of the muslim world... Seriously, a line has to be drawn at some point, or every article will be laced with notations and exceptions. Sadly, this whole debate reminds me of a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a line should be drawn somewhere, I just don't think it should be drawn neatly around the POV of the Israeli government to the exclusion of any differing opinion. Good luck with your campaign to change the name of Israel. --FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some things that are POV and some things that are fact (much like the sky appears blue). This seems to be an attempt to change a fact and replace it with an opinion because some people in the world do not like the reality of things.--nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

nsaum75: Obviously, the status of Jerusalem is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Clearly, there are a lot of opinions about it.

NMMNG: I don't think it is at all clear that there is a consensus in favour of the present version. There are a lot of supporters (as well as a lot of objectors), but consensus is measured in good argument, of which I see little from your camp at present. I haven't done a headcount for myself, but perhaps you are right to suppose you have numbers on your side. But, given that an edit war is naturally guaranteed never to happen in this type of article, numbers don't really count. Also, the RfC has a while yet to run, so don't assume anything.

I think I have already said quite a number of times that it is not my POV that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, just that various views on the matter are out there, which has been more than adequately sourced already. --FormerIP (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better to strike out comments like "If you find some sources that support your POV that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel..." because a) no one is proposing that Jerusalem should not be identified as the capital of Israel (apart from Ravpapa's proposal to avoid the issue and just have 'seat of government') b) strawman statements like that are the reason this is going around in circles and most importantly c) new editors who come along to comment might be misled. The question is 'Should the capital status of Jerusalem be qualified in the lead and infobox of the Israel article, and if so how?' That is the strictly limited scope of this discussion. Let's just stick to that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if there's no dispute regarding the fact that Jerusalem is the capital, there's no reason to qualify this in the infobox. So far we are all aware of the lack of formal recognition, but no one has presented any sources that support the notion that this is somehow relevant to Jerusalem's capital status. okedem (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A few quick options if anyone is interested

• I don't hate "(proclaimed)" but I see the concern. At least two other editors are against it.
• I love "(most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv)" but this seems too long and could possibly only tell what not why.
• I'm also a big fan of "(positions on Jerusalem)". Thoughts? Is it a cop out?
• I suspect that "(disputed)" or anything similar (ie: "disputed by the international community")is a non starter.
• Doing nothing seems to also not be an option for some even though I would not be completely against it since we already have an inline citation.

Cptnono (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I could also live with "(positions on Jerusalem)". Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So could I; my initial choice for formatting the limited space would be: Jerusalem, positions vary. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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

If, by the 'nothing' solution, you mean just a linked Jerusalem, then I totally concur. I too can live with anything rather than that "nothing" solution. If, by that specific wording, you mean leaving the current ref'd^[1] I also concur, because that symbolism is insufficiently DUE, based on the many varied positions of other RS'd sources, as Daily notes below. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Of those listed above, I'm only not comfortable with doing nothing or saying "embassies are in Tel Aviv" as that fails to connect to the dispute on Jerusalem's status as capital. The other suggestions are in my opinion OK. NMMNG, it does make a difference if your arguments are viable or not. If you're simply saying "no because no" or "no because only Israel's POV matters", you're not presenting reasoned objections, just objections. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have stated my policy based objections above. Several times. I don't know what you think your repeated requests for me to state them again exactly accomplishes, nor do I understand what you think misrepresenting my views where everyone can read exactly what I said is going to get you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, NMMNG, I don't see where you have done this. Looking over your comments, I can see a lot of debating tactics deployed. The one kind I'm having difficulty in finding is any policy-based defence of your position. Perhaps it is there, but it would be helpful if you could succinctly restate it. --FormerIP (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's try a different approach

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

It means the same thing as in "Amsterdam is the capital of Holland". You'll notice that the seat of government and foreign embassies are elsewhere, but Amsterdam is still the capital. I could not find any mention of international recognition of Amsterdam as the capital. Apparently, the Dutch get to decide what their capital is regardless of what other countries think or where they put their embassies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If Israel's capital is not in Jerusalem -- regardless of where Israel itself says its capital is located -- then where is it? Is there reliably sourced information saying that Israel's capital is in Netanya? or maybe Yafo? or Eliat? Who has the right to say where a country's capital is? Does the PLO say where Israel's capital is? or maybe that decision lies with Hamas? or the United Nations? Bolivia has two capitals, maybe we should say "Jerusalem: Israeli Seat of Government and Wishful Capital" with the addendum "Internationally Accepted Capital: Location Unknown". Or maybe "Jerusalem: Palestinian Capital currently occupied by the Israeli seat of government & hopeful future capital". Or we could just put "Location Unknown due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT".

Seriously people, this is silly. We are trying to say a country's capital isn't its capital because some people don't like the fact that the country in question maintains its government there and says it is its capital. If you insist on saying that listing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a form of pro-israel bias or give undue weight to an Israeli POV, then you might as well say calling Israel -- well..."Israel" -- is exhibiting undue weight and pro-israeli bias...because it is... for the exact same reasons you are using to protest listing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. But, I dont see anyone clamoring to change the article to list "Zionist Entity" or "Occupied Palestine" as alternative names for Israel.

Btw: Why is Istanbul called Istanbul when for most of recorded history it was Constantinople, and who told Turkey they could move their capital to Ankara? -- nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Options again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proclaimed kind of sucks. If disregards function. Not the worst of proposals by any means but if there is not even close to consensus on it I really don't see how it can work. Think about it, enough editors already poopey about it means that it more than likely isn't OK if looking at it from an alternative perspective. And keep in mind with (see positions...) we can back that up with prose and the quote parameter (which should be the bulk of this discussion since attempting to label something in the infobox speaks ill of all of us). It is the less abrasive from both views.Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification already exists via the footnote. The problem is, does Wikipedia have the right to change the status of a country's declared capital, simply because some people in the world don't like it? Or are we going to contradict ourselves in the same article by going beyond a footnote and changing the essence of the meaning in one place while preserving it in another. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But "proclaimed and seat of government" does not ignore function, and I don't perceive that anyone would be WP:Poopey about this other than those users who feel that way about any qualification whatsoever.

I should say that, even though I feel I should stick to my guns as far as "no Jerusification without qualification" goes, I guess the whole picture does count. If something like your previous proposal for the lead can be achieved at the same time, then that will certainly help. --FormerIP (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I'm sure a few other notes were raised in the discussion. One which comes to mind is that it is the actual sovreign power over the city. Yes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget it. Editors have tried to find alternatives. Bent over backwards to find a resolution. If editors refuse to find a middle ground that is accurate and correct then screw it. My vote is ZERO change to the article until others can play ball. Stop fighting or go away. everyone who knows my editing style can insert fuck wherever they feel appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I think editors should focus more on the actual sources presented (arabic Wikipedia is not a source). In terms of assessing consensus, do we need to take into account editors who say "no because no", or can their submissions be ignored as disruptive? ((on talk pages) "disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus") I believe Ravpapa's point is that if "capital" in the lead reflects the israeli proclamation, then saying proclaimed capital would be exactly the thing - am I correct? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this. If the RfC you start doesn't go the way you want, accuse the people who disagree with you (who happen to be most of the people who commented) of being disruptive and say they should be ignored. Perfect.

I'm done here. If someone comes up with new sources, please let me know. In the meanwhile let me state again that as far as I can see, there is no consensus to change the lead, infobox or the way the footnote is marked in the infobox. By a wide margin. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with No More Mr Nice Guy, There is an element of this RfC in which some editors who are intent on revising facts based upon WP:IDONTLIKE, are dismissing those who disagree with them as being "disruptive". It is evident that there is no consensus for change and recycling the same position under different techniques is not going to change that outcome at this time. Just because the consensus does not go your way does not mean that you can dismiss or ignore opposing editors until you reach a preconceived outcome. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to underline that I wasn't calling merely disagreeing with a suggestion disruptive editing, to say that is a mischaracterization of what I wrote. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position; However that does not change the fact that some editors continually try to dismiss anything and everything that those who disagree with them say, regardless of how they try to spin the response - ie: either through suggestions of disruptive editing, ignoring the content of the comments all together, or trying to de-emphasize the points made by editors with differing viewpoints. Anyhow, this discussion is not constructive in regards to moving forward with the RfC, and should probably end now. We have more important things to do -- like getting back to discussing article content. Cheers. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, Dailycare, Arabic Wikipedia is not a source; must you be so impulsive in your responses? What I am saying is that the Arabic Wikipedia, which has a less broad readership than the English Wikipedia and -- let's be honest -- a readership more inclined to take issue with the Israeli stance on Jerusalem formulates its infobox exactly how we currently have it here. There seems little reason then (not, obviously, just for this reason) to go beyond that. -- tariqabjotu 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that the claim about Arabic Wikipedia does not appear to be true. The infobox in the Arabic article states "Largest city: Tel Aviv". Jeruasalem is not referred to in the lead. The issue is dealt with within the body of the article in a section titled "Dispute over capital". Looking at the article history, none of this appears to be any different in the recent past. (With thanks to Google Translate). --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what: are you calling me a liar, an idiot, or both? Seriously, please tell me, because you feel compelled with your knowledge of Arabic coming solely from a misreading of Google Translate to declare that I would be so low as to completely make up an easily verifiable point. I myself am not fluent in Arabic, but I know more than enough to know exactly what it says in the infobox. The first line says العاصمة (capital) and adjacent to it القدس (al-Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem). Later on, under Section 12, entitled المدن الإسرائيلية (Israeli cities), it says -- in the first line --

“ القدس، العاصمة الوطنية لإسرائيل ”

(Jerusalem, the national capital of Israel). I understand that Google Translate makes errors sometimes, but even with me running the article through Google Translate, you should at least be able to see that Jerusalem is mentioned in the infobox. Please don't treat me like an asshole. -- tariqabjotu 19:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ravpapa, that wording could work towards a compromise while maintaining factual correctness. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The part of the infobox that identifies Jerusalem as the Israeli capital currently has a link to a footnote which explains that there are acknowledged real world issues/disputes regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The footnote does not say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, rather it provides some sourced information about the undeniable issues/disputes. This is NPOV, this is what Wiki does. However, the link to the footnote now displays as a superscript [1], meaning it is formatted exactly the same way as a normal source reference([1]). Recent suggestions by various Wiki editors were made that there should be a formatting adjustment to differentiate the link to the footnote -- to make it something like [nb 1] or [A] -- in order to make it clear that it is a link to a footnote, and not a link to a source reference.

These were simple suggestions about formatting for clarity. The suggestions were, however, strongly opposed by some very determined editors. It is difficult to understand how pro-Wikipedia editors would oppose formatting for clarity; unless perhaps they preferred that the link to the article's single footnote display exactly as if it were a link to one of the article's 287 source references. What would compel some editors to support this opaqueness? That is the matter that needs to be addressed here, and taken to the next level if necessary. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the vast majority of footnoted texts, including PhD theses, scholarly books, and, yes, Wikipedia articles, do not separate out citations from comments in their footnotes; rather, all the footnotes, whether citations or additional information that doesn't fit into the body of the text, are numbered consecutively. This is not to say that such numbering couldn't be done - it certainly could be done, though how much it would add to the clarity of the text is debatable. Anyway, I personally don't think this really marginal change in format is worth the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of words that have been spilt in this discussion. In fact, I don't think it is even worth the few dozen words that I have just spilt. So that's that for now. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that any notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead, so in my opinion if we mention the capital issue we should also mention non-recognition in the lead. BTW, it's also pretty controversial to say that Jerusalem is "Israel's largest city" since that assumes the view that Jerusalem is in Israel which, again, is not accepted internationally. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead does mention the notable controversy: "Some international borders remain in dispute". Do you consider the controversy over Jerusalem to be something other or separate from the controversy over borders? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me that the border issue might include non-recognition of Jerusalem as the capital, I understood that to relate to the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza. At least the last sentence does not convey that there is controversy as to whether Jerusalem is the capital, or is in Israel to begin with. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The border issue is the whole ball of wax. If Israel had not annexed the eastern half of Jerusalem, no one would object to Israel making Western Jerusalem its capital. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case, as at least the United States was was commenting already in 1952 that Israel should not move its offices to (West) Jerusalem and was warning other nations against situating their embassies there. (East Jerusalem was occupied in 1967) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need to try to work out what the situation would be in a parallel universe, but Dailycare is right on the substantive point. WP:LEDE states that significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead. It does not state that significant controversies can be omitted from the lead if other significant controversies are included. --FormerIP (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will agree that the lead needs to make reference to this specific controversy. Perhaps something along the lines of:

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, seat of government, and largest city, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv. This [[Status of Jerusalem|status]] is currently [[Positions_on_Jerusalem#Palestinian_position|disputed]] by some members of the international community."

This notes the position of Israel (that J'slem is its capital) and states that other countries/organizations dispute that status -- in addition to giving a link to the article on the Status of Jerusalem and an embedded link to the Palestinian position on the status of J'selm. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the version proposed earlier by cptnono:

• Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as the country's capital. It is the seat of government, and largest city. Israel's main financial center is its second largest city, Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is not recognized by many countries as the nation's capital so most embassies are located in or around Tel Aviv.

--FormerIP (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up: Second "largest city" is from Wikipeida and not a source so I cannot say it is for sure.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this, merging elements from the versions above:

• Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as the country's capital. It is the seat of government, and largest city. Israel's main financial center is its second largest city, Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is [[Status of Jerusalem#United_Nations_position|not recognized]] by other countries as the nation's capital and most embassies are located in or around Tel Aviv.

Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times you guys need to be told... you won't get consensus on any of this "proclaimed "declared" "tried to make" "wishes it was" nonsense. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If you use wording that brings any shade of doubt to that indisputable fact, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your version is fine, Dailycare. --FormerIP (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

This version won't do at all, because it states a matter of opinion as if it were a fact. This is a question of POV, and it should not be presented otherwise. Either of the versions by cptnono or Dailycare are fine by me. --FormerIP (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is POV to say that a country's capital is not where said country has established its capital. A number of countries, and the U.N. consider the Republic of Macedonia's name to be "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". While that position is addressed in the lead, the name of the country -- the name Macedonia calls itself -- is stated as a fact not an "opinion". Why? Because a sovereign nation has a right to decide its name, its capital, and laws in the area that it controls. You don't change the status of something simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, yet that is what a number of editors seem bent on trying to do. Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 12:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, it would also be unacceptable POV to positively say that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital. We should not specifically support either POV, we should simply accurately describe the different grounds on which the different POVs may be held. We should not say (or give the impression): "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, even though some consider that it is not". Equally, we should not say "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel,even though Israel considers it is". We should combine the two POVs into a single formulation, which would basically say "Israel considers that Jerusalem is its capital, although some consider that it is not". --FormerIP (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that again denies the ability of a sovereign nation to decide internal policy. Using that logic one could also suggest we should change the article title to :"The land bordering the Med. sea, called Israel by the occupying political entity and Palestine by number of other nations", as its expresses the POV of both the govt currently controlling the land, the nations surrounding the land area, and a number of other countries in the world. ... However, I don't think there would be much support for that. It is possible, however, for both positions to be expressed in the article without denying or discrediting a fact established by the sovereignty of a nation -- unfortunately using "proclaimed" or "declared" does not satisfy that. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Right, business as usual. When someone presents a point, especially one that tries a new approach, the opposition plays "I didn't hear that", reads only what they want to read, and then responds to that. Dailycare, you know exactly what I said and what I meant, but if you want to play that game, fine; I'm not going to waste further energy on defending a point against an indefensible counterpoint, especially if that counterpoint is supported by word games like this one. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly a new point, and previously it was supported by sources (albeit only tertiary ones). I refer you to my post timestamped 13:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC) on this page for discussion of it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a different approach

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

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

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

Israel is a developed country and a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage. The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's legislative body. The economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, is the 44th-largest in the world. Israel ranks highest among Middle Eastern countries on the UN Human Development Index. Israel has declared Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the largest city, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv.

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

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

It is, indeed. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The question you are pointing to here seems to be about whether national law or international law is more important when considering whether a city can properly be termed a capital city. I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question. I am not denying Israel's ability to name its own capital. I am questioning whether this translates into an undisputed fact that the city in question is a capital for Wikipedia purposes. I don't think it does. It just translates into a fact that Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital, which is what we should report. --FormerIP (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the fact that nobody has been able to provide a source that says non-recognition has any influence on a city's status as capital.

The minority that wants to change the long standing text keep claiming this is about "opinion" not "fact" because they can't find facts to support their opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Equally, no-one has been able to provide a source that says that the proclamation of a government has any influence on a city's status as capital. Neither would make any sense to me. My opinion is that there are two POVs at play here. The facts that support that opinion are clear - "here is one POV, here is another". --FormerIP (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you being serious? "no-one has been able to provide a source that says that the proclamation of a government has any influence on a city's status as capital"? Do I really need to respond to this or were you trying to be funny? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm being serious. I think we've been over that before. Demanding proof that Israeli law is relevant to to Jerusalem's status as capital would be absurd. Demanding proof that international law is relevant to the same question would also be absurd. Asking whether Israeli law makes international law irrelevant or vice versa barely makes sense as a question IMO and is outside our scope here in any case. We report facts, rather than making interpretations of law. --FormerIP (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some facts: The parliament, president, supreme court, and countless offices are in Jerusalem. There are concerns from the international community on Israel's claim on some of the land. The capital is clearly gproclaimed and functioning out of the city. The asterisks that some editors want deserves little weight. There is an opportunity to mention it but keep it minimal since it really is little more than an asterisks. The real problem is Israel's claim to the city. Address it somewhere else where it is more appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

One important fact is that the Jerusalem Law was declared nul and void by the UN. That's not an asterix. --FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN doesn't designate a capital. The international community's feelings on the capital and Israel's claim to land is important but don't change what it is. It just doesn't work in the infobox. A solution might be possible but editors expressing disdain over Israel grabbing the city need to edit articles discussing it. At least we are one step closer to fixing the problem with an end in site on how to fix the lead just below!Cptnono (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What does that resolution mean, anyway? That Jerusalem is not the capital? Source please. The resolution certainly doesn't say that, nor does it address the previous 1952 law that made Jerusalem the capital of Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I like it for the most parts. Three notes not meant to delay any change: I prefer "chosen" over "selected" (minor), "most populated" over "largest (two different things when you are only looking at data), and more info on Tel Aviv would be good (another line saying it is a big city basically).Cptnono (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree "chosen" is better, or possibly "designated". I also don't see what was wrong with "declared" in the first version. On a completely anal point, I think "most populous" would be the correct English. There's quite a lot of info in there, so I can't immediately say that I know for a fact that it is all correct, but I think we know what the most contentious bit is, and the rest can surely be tweaked. --FormerIP (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Designated and populous sound great (oops!). I see no reason not to make the edit if someone has the balls to go for it. Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also OK with Ravpapa's idea to bundle the Jerusalem issue with borders and refugees, and "designated" is IMO better than "chosen". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

With all due respect, over 20 people have commented on this issue. Making contentious edits without giving people time to comment is not right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Chosen is not good enough. This is not an issue to compromise on. Jerusalem is the capital and that's what needs to be written. Chosen is misleading: some people will see it as "ok they chose it so it is the capital" but others will see "oh they chose it but its still not really the capital). That doesn't work. Breein1007 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was agreed upon and the RfC has not been closed. Its in poor taste to make unilateral changes and calling them "agreed upon" when they're only "agreed upon" because you are choosing to dismiss anyone who differs with your viewpoint. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bree, we cannot write in the article that "Jerusalem is the capital", that's a non-starter. WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (emphasis in the original). Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem the capital, and the UN has explicitly un-proclaimed it. This is what we must write, the exact wording makes no difference. I'm sorry if I misestimated the state of the discusion concerning Ravpapa's suggestion, however that remains to be seen. --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel made Jerusalem its capital in 1952. The 1980 UN resolution is about a specific law that the UN declared "null and void". Before the Jerusalem Law the UN did not make any resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, AFAIK.

Anyway, your opinion on what is fact and what isn't doesn't belong here. You have failed to provide sources that say Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel or that non-recognition has any bearing on a city's status as capital, so your claim that Jerusalem is not the capital has not even been established as an opinion from reliable sources.

The current text has been like it is now for over a year and you're going to have to get consensus to change it, not ignore what 14 other editors have said (or call them disruptive) or declare things as non-starters. You certainly shouldn't be changing the article on the basis of a couple of people who agreed with you from the get go agreeing with you again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The UNGA resolution doesn't refer to the 1980 law, but the issue of Jerusalem as capital. "My opinion" is WP:NPOV, which does belong here. Does yours? Warm Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion lacks WP:RS and thus fails both WP:NPOV and WP:V. Why can't you find a RS to back up your opinion? It's pretty weird for something so "obvious" not to have much written about it, particularly since it pertains to one of the most written about conflicts on earth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

With all due respect Ravpapa, in light of the edits by User:Dailycare -- making changes without a clear consensus being reached yet calling it an agreed upon solution -- I am requesting that when the time comes to close the RfC, it be closed by an uninvolved third-party administrator, who will also implement any decisions reached in the RfC. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to any phrasing that omits the fact that Jerusalem is the capital. To say "designated", "chose", "selected", "declared", etc., is simply omitting the fact that it actually is, placing Israel's status in Jerusalem on the same level as that of the PA, who also "chose" it to be their capital - yet couldn't possibly implement their choice.

I saw that FormerIP tries to wiggle out of presenting any sources, using the absurd claim that Israel's designation of Jerusalem as capital is meaningless, but that's not even that relevant, and we shouldn't waste time on that claim. The designation isn't the main point here. The fact is, the word "capital", defined by any dictionary, means "seat of government". Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government; ergo, it is Israel's capital. No one has been able to present any sources supporting the notion that international recognition is in any way relevant to a city's status as capital.

Beyond this, I strongly oppose this attempt to make the lead more and more about the conflict. Despite what some may think, Israel is an actual functioning country, with history (not just military history), culture, geography, science, and an interesting economy. We already have an entire paragraph of the lead discussing wars, which is quite enough. This isn't some newspaper, which can't sell if not discussing war and conflict. This is an encyclopedia article, meant to give a wide breadth of information about a topic. If someone wants to learn more about the conflict, we have dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of articles about it. Don't turn this into yet another one-dimensional article, discussing a single topic. okedem (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Arab League and the most Islamic country no recognize "Israel" be soverign nation. In the stead those country, and many other, say it be Palestine under occupy by zionist government organization in violate of UN partition plan. This fact need be represent and take into account in lead paragraph. Too, since Jerusalem be lawful capital of Palestine as made by Palestinian Authority legislation, and since entity that current occupy Palestine be do so in violation of UN partition plan, then Jerusalem cannot also be capital of jewish state. Ani medjool (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm surprised no-one started an RfC about changing every occurrence of "Israel" to "Israel(proclaimed)/Palestine". Yet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Ani, then maybe you need to open an RfC to change the name of the article, but right now we're discussing Jerusalem. Please avoid straying from the topic at hand. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎}

I don't say that the Israeli POV here is meaningless at all, okedem. What I would say, though, it that it is indeed a POV and that its meaningfulness does not extend to it having the status of a universal truth. The proposition "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law" is not precisely the same as "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", and there are other factors which point in a different direction.

At the end of the day, I think this is about being pragmatic. The correct answer can only be "here is one point-of-view, here is another".

I don't think that the objection that Ravpapa's proposal fails to present the Israeli POV as if is were a plain matter-of-fact is a valid one in accordance with WP policy. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP policy says you need reliable sources to say stuff you want to put in the article. It's called WP:V. I suggest you read it.

Your "other factors that point in a different direction" is your OR that says that non-recognition has any effect on a city's status as capital. This is wikipedia. "pointing in another direction" doesn't really meet WP:V standards. You need a RS that explicitly says it.

Where is the reliable source that says Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? That's the piece missing in your OR puzzle. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We've also been here before, NMMNG. Policies like V and OR apply to articles, not arguments set forward on talk pages. I haven't actually even edited the article page. As far as content intended for the article is concerned AFAICT everything in Ravpapa's proposal is sourced and conforms to WP policy.

I do not need to find reliable sources for statements I do not agree with and do not wish to see included in the article (eg "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel"). --FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you said that before. As if we're just shooting the breeze here rather than you making arguments for changes you'd like to see in the article. You won't get reverted for not complying with WP:V on the talk page, but you sure won't be taken seriously when the stuff you say is obviously your own personal opinion.

Anyway, if you don't think that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" should be included in the article (or to be more precise, you can't find any sources supporting that statement) there's no reason to not say in the article that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I'm glad we have that settled.

I know, I know, you claim there's some "other POV" (which you can't source) that you think is implied by non-recognition. That's the part that doesn't meet WP:V. Find a source that explicitly supports your argument and we can consider putting it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has dragged on a bit, so you may have forgotten that large numbers of mainstream sources have been provided that differ from the Israeli POV and represent various shades of opinion.

Here is a selection: [2] (that Jerusalem is a procaimed "capital" recognised by virtually no foreign country - Le Figaro, their quotation marks); [3] (that Jersusalem is not to be used as a metonym for Israel, because it is not recognised as its capital - The Times style guide); [4] (that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel - the Candian Supreme Court); [5] (that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel - El Pais); [6] (that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel - The Japan Times); [7] (that Israel claims Jersualem as its capital, but that the UK Govt and international community does not recognise this - UK Government); [8] (that it is incorrect to refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - BBC statement).

Please note that the point is not whether any of these POVs represent the truth, it is just that they exist in a wide range of respected mainstream sources from around the world. --FormerIP (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you really believe style guides and editorials are RS, why not push to say that Tel Aviv is the capital? You should add that to the "Israel(proclaimed)/Palestine" campaign. The discussion has not dragged long enough for me to forget that a Japan Times editorial or the Times style guide are not RS while the CIA factbook and Columbia Encyclopedia are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

NMMMNG, in fact your memory has failed you and you should re-read WP:RS. News organizations such as the Times are prime sources, whereas encyclopedias are not. Ravpapa's proposal, which is what we're discussing and which appears verifiable to me, doesn't state that Tel Aviv would be the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper style guides and editorials are reliable sources only as to the opinion of the news organization, not to facts. You're the one who should re-read WP:RS.

If you really think these are reliable sources, why don't you want the lead to say Tel Aviv is the capital? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply because it is one of various POVs on the question, and WP should not support any particular one of those.

We are dealing exlusively in opinions here (because, per WP:NPOV, there is no such thing as an unbiased source). A style guide or newspaper editorial is perfectly good place to find an opinion. The opinions of governments, media organisations and even individual commentators may all be relevant. Per WP:RS tertiary sources such as encylopaedias may be used on WP, but are considered less valuable than secondary sources such as newspapers. In any event, it has been discussed previously that tertiary sources in this case do not agree amongst themselves.

I'd add that the volume of available sources in this case means that it would be a little futile to go through them one by one trying to think of policy arguments against them. --FormerIP (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken regarding the applicability of such things as editorials and "style guides" as RS. We can take it to RS/N if you like.

There's a reason it took you days to come up with an editorial and a style guide rather than the many many published academic works and books one would expect on such an issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit it did take me a while to realise that it might be necessary copy and paste the same sources from higher up the page yet again.

I don't think RSN would be the correct forum for this, NMMNG. The only answer I can see is "source x is an RS for the opinions of/contained in source x", which no-one disputes. If you see things differently, I invite you to go there.

The question you want answering, I think, is "are the following categories of sources capable of being referenced as containing a 'view' for the purposes of NPOV". This would be a valid question for WP:NPOV/N if you want to post there instead. --FormerIP (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The question I want answering is "are editorials or style guides reliable sources regarding anything other than their publisher's opinion". I believe the answer to that is "no", in which case none of them belong in this article or can be used to support "views" such as that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, which most people will tell you is pretty ludicrous.

I have to ask again, if you think these are RS and their views just as good as any other view, why don't you want the lead and infobox to say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the two sources you mention, the question turns on whether they reflect editorial policy in the respective organizations, and the answer is transparently yes. Of course, the argument that there is more than one POV to the topic of Israeli capital doesn't stand or fall with those two sources (contrary to what you claim) since we have several on record here. Ravpapa's proposal, which we're now discussing, doesn't say the capital is Tel Aviv so that's the end of that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't Ravpapa's proposal say the capital is Tel Aviv if you have reliable sources that say it is? What happened to WP:NPOV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're like a stuck record, NMMNG. Because it would be a breach of WP:NPOV to state any of the various POVs on this matter as if it were a clear, undisputed fact. Write it down somewhere so you don't forget it again. --FormerIP (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be upset because you don't understand the question. Why isn't the "opinion" that Tel Aviv is the capital mentioned in the lead and given due weight per the "reliable sources" you have provided? That would not only not be a breach of NPOV, it is required by it. Was that clear enough? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not upset, but that wasn't the question you originally asked several times. There does not seem to be any reason why the opinion that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel cannot be included in the lead if it is a notable opinion and the way it is included does not give it undue weight. What form of words are you proposing? --FormerIP (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It also need be clearly state in lead paragraph that "Israel" be consider by MANY country and organization to be non-soverign entity and illegitimate occupy power of land area that really be soverign nation of Palestine. It also need to specific state that government of "Israel" be create in violation of UN Partition Plan. It be flagrant violation of NPOV to NOT give equal mention of this fact. Right now article read like it be unquestionable fact that "Israel" be soverign and legitimate nation, when this actually be pro-israel POV OPINION which many country (islamic countrys, middle east countrys, arab league etc) dispute. There be reliable source that exist for all this so must be include as it important to balance opinion of those who side with "Israel". Ani medjool (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny; I was about to say the same thing, but just in a slightly more sarcastic tone. -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was asking. I did not ask about saying Tel Aviv is the capital exclusively, I was asking in the context of your "there are no facts only opinions" idea.

I am proposing that the idea that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel is absurd and that the sources you have provided that say this are not reliable sources. I am asking why you are not trying to get this into the lead and infobox, since you seem to think that you have provided reliable sources that say this and if that is the case, NPOV would require it. Do you think the infobox should say "Capital:Jerusalem/Tel Aviv/none"? If not, why not?

I'm trying to understand your way of thinking since we obviously read WP:V very differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any statement about Tel Aviv in the article has to conform to WP:5P. This entatils conforming to WP:V and WP:NPOV. In addition, any statement should conform to WP:N. "Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel" conforms to WP:V because there is WP:RS material that supports this statement. I'm not sure if it conforms to WP:N or not. I would probably need to look at more sources and perhaps consider the arguments of other users. For argument's sake, let's imagine it does conform to WP:N. The real problem is that it does not conform to WP:NPOV, because it is a claim which is in diagreement with opinions expressed in a significant number of RSs (even though, as stated, there are also RSs that agree with it).

However, the statement "some media organisations consider Tel Aviv to be the capital of Israel" looks more likely to pass WP:NPOV because, although it can be denied that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, it cannot be denied that some media organisations consider it to be true. Provided this statement is also acceptable under WP:N (the media organisations might be relatively insignificant; or it may be the case that God says that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, in which case the media sources are made to seem insignificant and God should be cited instead), then the statement is includable in the article. But this does not necessarily mean that it has to be in the lead. This will normally be a matter of editor preference and talkpage discussion, always with reference to WP;NPOV, which is non-negotiable WP policy.

Similar tests can be applied in the case of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". This clearly passes WP:V and WP:N, but fails WP:NPOV because it is a claim which is in diagreement with opinions expressed in a significant number of RSs. Howver, the statement "Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital" (as in the revised version of Ravpapa's proposal) passes WP:NPOV (the fact that Israel did this is not the subject of significant dispute), so that can go in the article lead.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes this be point i try make. To say Jerusalem be capital of "Israel" be not NPOV because many country agree it be capital of Palestine. Also to state as fact that "Israel" be soverign nation be in violate NPOV. This like why article title need be give (*) and it be make clear in lead paragraph that significant number of country and organization not recognize "Israel" as soverign legitimate nation and in stead many country and organization consider it to be "govement and military force" that be occupy soverign nation of Palestine in violation of UN partition plan. Reliable source exist for all this but it not neutral pov present as "fact" that "Israel" be soverign nation. Ani medjool (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"So and so does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is not precisely the same as "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". Since "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" does not pass WP:V, while "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does, qualifying the city's status does not pass WP:NPOV. It is your OR that non-recognition has any bearing on a city's status as capital and should prompt us to qualify the city's status in the lead and infobox.

Other than editorials and style guides, do you have a source that explicitly says that because it is not recognized as such (or for any other reason), Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? You need that in order to comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV if you want to qualify the city's status. Without those sources the view that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel is not "opinions expressed in a significant number of RSs" as you put it. It's your interpretation of what the sources say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to be doing it right, NMMNG. "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" passes WP:V because there are RSs that say it. It fails WP:NPOV, however, because it is not an undisputed claim. This means it can't be included as a statement on WP. We don't actually need to debate the reasons for that, though, because we seem to be in agreement that it can't be included. So we can just ignore that statement forevermore. I don't need a source for it, because it is not something I am seeking to have included in the article. It is also not my interpretation of anything, since I am not claiming it and I am not seeking to put it in the article (ie it makes no sense to accuse me of OR because you believe something I am not saying is an interpretation of a source I am not using).

You seem to be quite hung up on this. Are you imagining that if it can be shown that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" fails policy then "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" must therefore pass policy? That's is not how it works at all.

The most relevant arguments here are about what can be included, not what can't. The statement "Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital" appears to pass all policy requirements, so it can be included. "Israel is the capital of Jerusalem" fails NPOV, so it can't. Those two sentences are really the crux of the whole thing.

I don't know how you can claim that qualifying the city's status fails NPOV, btw. Qualifying is an action, not a statement. Only statements can fail NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is denying controversial elements in Israel/Jerusalem/Palestine, and attempts have been made to broaden and include those differing viewpoints, however I am begining to think this debate is not about improving an article but instead is being used by several editors to make WP:POINT. There seems to be a concerted effort to de-emphasize, denigrate and remove concrete facts -- some of them drastic -- about Israel under the guise of WP:NPOV. The fact that attempts to insert changes into the article by declaring it "agreed upon", when the only reason "agreement" was reached was because editiors with opposing viewpoints was ignored, further concerns me.

This debate has gone on for some time now; RfCs are designed to seek out the consensus position amongst editors, not to keep hammering for a change until everyone either agrees to the change or just gives up...unfortunately, the latter seems to be the path this RfC is going down. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 02:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your reference to WP:POINT. Do you just mean that editors are trying to make a point? That often happens on talkpages. --FormerIP (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Several people here are repeatedly denying controversial elements and it's not helping. Several people like to argue repeatedly about what makes a capital a capital. It's like arguing over the exact value of Pi. We aren't trying to measure the degree to which Jerusalem is the capital of Israel based on sets of documented rules that define what makes a capital a capital. We're aren't going to put numbers in like 'Capital: Jerusalem (100%)' or (0%) or (50%) etc etc. We're trying to find a way to encapsulate the vast amount of text used by sources to describe this matter so that readers get a better understanding of the issue. We can't ignore the indisputable fact that sources routinely say the equivalent of 'It's Jerusalem but...'. We need to deal with the but. This has always been about improving the article. If people aren't capable of dealing with 'It's Jerusalem but...' in a sensible policy based way I really don't understand how they think they are helping by commenting here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The "but" has been dealt with, its how much weight we are giving the "but" -- are we going to give some vocal members of international community the same weight as that of the country whom the article is about? If thats the case, we are going to have to replace a number of instances of "Israel" with "Zionist Entity" or "Occupied Palestine", because only using the name "Israel" is giving too much weight to one side. Sometimes a NPOV article is not possible, especially on controversial topics like this one, where even the name and legitimacy of the country in question is disputed. Are we going to end up with everything being followed by parenthesis or notated with asterisks, just to ensure the opposing POV is clearly marked when a term or word they don't like is used?? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we stick to the issue being discussed, namely Ravapa's proposal? How much weight we should give the "but" is not something we judge ourselves but something we observe from reliable sources. We're seen that a huge number of reliable sources use "but" (in one form or another), which makes it something we not only can, but must include in the article (and in the lead, per WP:LEAD as it's a significant controversy). There is no policy stating that if we have dozens of RS saying something, we'd need further RS saying the dozens of RS make sense, so this case is a slam-dunk case. This discussion would have concluded already a long time ago, were it not for some editors who appear to object for the sake of objecting. I can understand that they may feel "patriotically motivated" in their actions, but they should realize they're not helping to improve this article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

nsaum75, I'm not sure what you mean by dealt with but as far as I can tell it hasn't been dealt with yet. When several perfectly reasonable editors consistently say that doing nothing, leaving things as they are isn't enough (including the infobox. please let's not forget that), provide plenty of sources and sensible arguments/suggestions, we haven't dealt with it. If we had, this discussion would be over. I take Ravpapa's point that changing the infobox is silly. I agree. It's very slightly more silly not to change though in my view. This article is viewed 300,000+ times/month. We should do our best to try to find simple pragmatic solutions and stop the partisan chatter. For example, nobody died when Britannica took the decision to use Jerusalem (proclaimed) in their infobox so at least we know that the world won't end if we put Jerusalem (something) or at least make a baby step towards openly acknowledging that it isn't quite as straightforward as other places. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So, clearly, it doesn't matter what the consensus is, you'll drag the discussion on and on until everyone else just gives up. Got it.

Of course, again you choose to mention Britannica, the source that chose the most extreme treatment of the subject, and ignore the fact that the majority of such sources view this issue as much less notable, if they even mention it at all. I remind you, that news articles discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will obviously mention this issue, as it is central to the conflict, and so their choice is meaningless for our analysis here. okedem (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey now. I'm all about telling editors to knock it off when it looks like they are only complaining and not working to fix what might need fixing. There is a point that "(something)" isn't a horrible idea. Not saying go for it. Just saying it should be considered. If editors are going to debate the issue and not the content here then never mind. For now, SHL has a valid reason to bring it up and hasn't shied away from the content side of things. "Proclaimed" is not the best but doesn't mean that something similar is garbage.Cptnono (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I agree 100% with nsaum about there being a a concerted effort to de-emphasize, denigrate and remove concrete facts -- some of them drastic -- about Israel under the guise of WP:NPOV. This is not the only article this is going on in.

Second, if we all agree that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel then there is no need to qualify that statement with weasel words that make it seem less like a fact and more like an opinion. I would be glad to discuss the "but" part now that we're all in agreement that Jerusalem is the capital. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But it not complete fact that Jerusalem be capital of "Israel", it only opinion of "Israel" that it be it capital because other country claim it and many nation recognize other country claim. It not NPOV to promote pro-"israel" view at expense of view of Palestine and Islamic world. Ani medjool (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, as editors we don't need to concern ourselves with what the capital "really" is. We do need to concern ourselves with what WP:RS say about the issue, and as discussed above the balance of them say Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem, but and Ravpapa's suggestion is one way to convey this in the lead (in a very gentle way, IMO). If editors feel uncomfortable with tension between WP:NPOV and Israel's official view, then Conservapedia may be an option, which I understand is less stringent on NPOV. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare be right. As long as alternate source exist that say Jerusalem be rightful capital of Palestine, then it total not acceptable to state as fact that Jerusalem be capital of "Israel". This not about fact, this about make sure that the "Israel" position be balance with that of Palestine and many other nation in world that a) not recognize Jerusalem as capital of "Israel and b) not recognize "Israel" as legitimate successor to Palestine Mandate under UN Partition Plan. Ani medjool (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The balance of the sources do not say what you claim. Most of the sources you provided talk about the annexation of East Jerusalem which is not the issue here. Some are not WP:RS (as discussed above). Many simply say Jerusalem is the capital but...

I also suggest that if you don't enjoy discussing things with people who disagree with you maybe it's you who needs to look for a different venue for your political agenda pushing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I know of number of source that say all of Jerusalem be capital of Palestine, but currently occupy by "Israel" and claim as capital. It not political agenda but state ment of differing fact and opinion. Also how we address issue that many source do not recognize "Israel" as legitimate nation but as occupy Palestine. NMMNG you seem avoid this very important issue. Ani medjool (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, like your jab about Conservapedia, generally hurt, not help, a sinking argument. It's no different here. -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Once more, the balance of sources (especially secondary sources) we've seen do qualify Jerusalem's status one way or another. To humour you, I counted the sources among the 43 I listed above that mention the dispute exclusively in terms of the "annexation" of E-Jer, and I counted only 13 so your claim isn't true. However even if it were the other way around and we'd "only" have 13 sources specifically qualifying Jerusalem's capital status as such, it would still be a well-sourced view that would be included in the lead. Even further, even if we only had sources qualifying the status of East Jerusalem, that again would be a significant view. Yet even further, if we had a majority of sources that didn't qualify, and a (significant) minority that did, the qualification would still be a well-sourced significant view. So your argument fails in four different ways. My comment on Conservapedia wasn't a personal attack, but a genuine suggestion. If an editor feels WP:NPOV is a "political agenda" then that venue might be just the thing, as it was founded for that purpose.

In terms of moving the discussion forward, what's your suggestion? I can think of a few: 1) Ravpapa's proposal, 2) Tag the article as "neutrality disputed" and agree to disagree, keeping the discussion active for new proposals to be assessed, and 3) Mediation. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "exclusively about East Jerusalem" and I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar. What do you think these little jabs accomplish for you and your argument exactly?

What do you mean that the balance of sources "qualify Jerusalem's status in one way or another"? When the second source you provided above says "Jerusalem is not recognised internationally as the capital of the Jewish state", does that say Jerusalem is not the capital? Is the status being qualified or is that your OR?

Anyway, lets go to mediation. This is long past pointless. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(see below)RomaC (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hmmmm...Is that so?? Can you produce WP:RS that states that? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Summing up

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

The issues

There are two issues being discussed here:

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

Arguments

In favor of the changes:

• The almost universal international contention of the designation of Jerusalem as the capital behooves us, in the name of accuracy, to refrain from a bald statement that Jerusalem is the capital.

• The dispute over Jerusalem's status as capital - as well as other central disputes in the Israel-Palestine conflict - is an outstanding factor in any description of Israel, and therefore deserves a place in the lead of the article.

• Because the lead currently says "Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and ..." the question was raised, what is meant by the word "capital" in this sentence, which is different from "seat of government"? The answer was that the information being added here is that Israel has designated Jerusalem as the capital. Since this is the intent of the word in the sentence, it should not be a big issue to make that intent explicit.

Opposed to the change:

• The single determining factor in what makes a city a capital of a country is that country's determination. International opposition to that determination does not render the city a non-capital.

• An infobox is not the place to attempt to deal with complex political issues. It is simply a place for casual readers to easily glean basic information about a country.

• Adding the word "(declared)" or changing the format of the footnote adds no clarity, and, on the contrary, obfuscates. How many readers will see "Jerusalem (declared)" and understand from that that there is something fishy about Jerusalem being the capital?

• A change in the footnote format is a deviation from the footnoting style used almost universally in scholarly publications. For the casual reader, it certainly will not make anything any clearer.

My proposal

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

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

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

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

Israel is a developed country and a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage. The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's legislative body. The economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, is the 44th-largest in the world. Israel ranks highest among Middle Eastern countries on the UN Human Development Index. Israel has chosen Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the most populous city and seat of government, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv.

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

Support or oppose

• Support --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - not just "chosen", but the city serves as capital; omitting this fact is a disservice to the readers. okedem (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  The proposals comprise no omission of facts, rather an inclusion of facts -- note that the proposals do not in any way say that Jerusalem is not the capital. RomaC (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that the proposal doesn't omit anything, but then state that by omitting the mention that Jerusalem is the capital (keyword capital) of Israel, the article does not necessarily say that Jerusalem is not the capital. It is indeed true that the absence of the word capital does not mean Jerusalem is not the capital, but the absence of the word capital also does not indicate it is. And that's the crux of the proposal. We're not stupid; we all know the aim of the preference of the term "seat of government" over "capital", and even though many in support of changing the article have said "seat of government and capital are basically the same thing, so why do people oppose us using seat of government?", they are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. If someone were to say, "how about taking Ravpapa's proposal and changing "seat of government" to "capital"?", I can guarantee you most of the people voting support now would change it to oppose. The whole issue here isn't about the word "chosen" or even "proclaimed"; it's the word "capital" by itself, and there's a clear division between people who are willing to accept that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and people who want to deny this fact and use evasive language such as "seat of government", "proclaimed capital", or "unrecognized capital" and disingenuously claim that it's basically the same thing. Again; we're not stupid. We understand the problem. It's the word capital. So, let's not play word games. -- tariqabjotu 12:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose You did a wonderful job summarizing each side's arguments, so I definitely want to give you credit for that. However, I disagree with your proposal for reasons similar to what okedem said. It's not just that Israel chose Jerusalem as its capital; the city functions as such in every sense of the word. There is no compelling reason to use such evasive language. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support (2) but (a) This is chiefly about NPOV, which is a non-negotiable policy, so a poll carries little weight; (b) my impression was that there was agreeement to change "chosen" to "designated". --FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support The weight of the controversy around Jerusalem‎ deserves to be in the lead. Imad marie (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose + considerations - I oppose changes to the infobox and dilution of reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with weaselwords like: declared, proposed, chosen. A nation chooses its capital, not the international community, and there is abundant WP:RS from Israeli govt. documents and third party sources stating Jerusalem is the capital, in addition to it housing all governmental functions associated with capital cities. That said, I fully support detailing the extent of controversy regarding the city as well as inclusion of information about East Jerusalem being the capital of the future State of Palestine, links to the Positions on Jerusalem article, discussion on Embassies etc. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support The word used by many sources and the UN is "proclaimed", but I might survive with "chosen" too. --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pantherskin (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose While I see merit in nsaum's conditions above, they would need to be brought up and discussed on their own. In this issue, attempting to marginalize Israel's legal right to effectively choose its own capital, and not only theoretically choose it but imply that this choice has not been implemented, is entirely inappropriate. What other country's articles state that they chose or designated or proclaimed their capitals? None - because it's ridiculous. If Israel chose Jerusalem as its capital, then it is natural that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Ergo, there is no substantive justification to avoid this clear wording that is consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The existing note regarding Jerusalem in the infobox is by itself a major compromise that was reached after extensive discussions. Jerusalem was not just "chosen" as capital. It is the capital of Israel, as overwhelming number of reliable sources state. As a sovereign country, Israel, and only Israel, can decide which city is its capital. Noon (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per okedem and Noon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• strong support - It be very important that make clear that Jerusalem be not unquestioned capital of "Israel". To say Jerusalem be capital of "Israel" support antiarab antipalestinian pov and not be neutral. Zionist entity that be occupy Palestine only be declared in 1948 and be inviolation of United Nation Partition Plan. Most of Islamic and Middle East country view "Israel" as Palestine under force occupation, so it be falsehood to state it be undisputeabel fact that country be name "Israel" and it be falsehood if article state undisputeabel capital of "Israel" be Jerusalem. Also arab league not recognize that zionist entity that occupy Palestine be country name "Israel". Jerusalem be recognize as capital of Palestine by all Arab nation and Islamic country, no one nation in world, except "Isreal", accept zionists capital be Jerusalem. Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC).
• Support Israel did choose it. It is the seat of government. I assume someone reading the lines without any knowledge of this discussion would not jump to any conclusions. The line might need little tweaks but I don't see an overall problem.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'll be against it if it turns into a 1000 tiny steps equaling one big one.06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Breein1007 and Noon. Any country can choose its capital and if many or all of its main government offices are locate there, then no special distinction is needed in the lead. --Shuki (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose for reasons clearly enunciated by okedem, Breein1007, Noon, Shuki and Tariqabjotu. It is the capital. It is not the job of Wikipedia to give weight to those unhappy about that status, whether they be mildly displeased or rabidly hostile. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Do not see this as a question of whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but rather a question of whether or not the article should recognize a real-world issue: No country other than Israel recognizes Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Surely this extraordinary situation passes Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion and ought to be reflected, i) on first reference; and, ii) in a formatting-for-clarity edit to differentiate the present footnote (sheesh it's only a footnote) from the article's hundreds of regular source references. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As FormerIP states, this is about compliance with non-negotiable policy. Any steps, including small and imperfect steps towards a more accurate, precise, policy compliant summary of the totality of reliably sourced information are welcome whether they are in the lead, the infobox or elsewhere. We are obligated by the sanctions to try to "provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Sean.hoyland - talk 05:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  As I've shown, encyclopedias like Columbia or Merriam-Webster don't have a problem with this. Are they not "encyclopedic"? Still, you have not shown any source to make the leap from the fact that the status is mostly unrecognized, to the claim that this means it's not the capital. okedem (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  This may clarify things. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support this very modest step toward NPOV per Sean.hoyland, Former IP, RomaC etc. The introduction still needs a lot of work to be in line with that non-negotiable policy, but at least Ravpapa's proposed changes bring the article a little closer to compliance. Tiamut^talk 05:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Caveat: Regarding "the most populous city" line, there is a section below where the incomplete and misleading nature of that statement is being discussed below. Tiamut^talk 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Thought long and hard on this one so even coming in late. I applaud Ravpapa's attempt at a compromise, and it is well worded. The problem for me is that Israel is not merely a modern state recently come into being, but a state with a long long history in the region and within the wider Jewish community. As part of that long history, Jerusalem has also always been the spiritual capital of Israel, and has been for centuries. In the context of this Israel article, Jerusalem is Israel's capital and the disputes with respect to it are amply dealt with in the body of the article. Stellarkid (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per arguments of Okedem and Noon. This seems to have just devolved into a power play to further delegitimize Israel and its claims to the city. Having Jerusalem as Israel's capital does not deny Palestinian claims to the city or the possibility that East Jerusalem will become the capital of the Palestinian people.Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - All due respect to editors pursuit of NPOV, Jerusalem is Israel's active capital and the language suggestion seem somewhat insulting. The leas should be conservatively written and the claim to Jerusalem by the Muslim world can't be addressed by making suggestions that Israel's "choise" is a whimsical wish. I also stated that the [nb] thing is redundant in this case and I am against it.
  p.s. presenting wishful thinking of conquest and delegitimisation of a people through a project of knowledge is not neutral, it is propaganda. Give it a rest. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been going on too long, what people refer to as international law does not have jurisdiction over what is a capital.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Great quote from WP:NPOV_dispute

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

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

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

But where are the sources that disagree with the first party? The first party's "fact" is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But what's the competing claim? That it's not? We don't have any sources saying that, so that couldn't be what is mentioned when the essay says "a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us". Or is the competing claim that the capital is unrecognized by the rest of the world? Plenty of sources say that, but even the first party acknowledges that so that couldn't be what is mentioned here. Your allusion appears to be inapplicable. -- tariqabjotu 16:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The essay's point is that if an editor thinks that something (say, "Jerusalem is Israel's capital") is a fact, it follows that stating it would be neutral. As we've discussed, at least 163 countries agree that Jerusalem is not the capital (source 14 above). I'd say that that means that not everyone agees that "something" is a fact. Think about it. The competing claim can be either "Jerusalem isn't the capital", or "Jerusalem is the capital, but..."--Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no, and no. How many times does this need to be said? Non-recognition, in any fanciful language, does not mean "no, that's not true". If you were to say, for example, that you didn't recognize his sexual advances (pardon the example; it's the only one I could think of), it means either one of two things: (a) you did not realize he was making sexual advances, when he in fact was, or (b) you realized he was making sexual advances, as he was, but you ignored them (most likely because you weren't interested). Neither one of these meanings suggests that the advances didn't occur. Part (b) is essentially what we have here; clearly Jerusalem is, and is treated as, the capital of Israel, but most of the rest of the world -- for punitive reasons -- has ignored and snubbed that. That doesn't mean Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. In fact, non-recognition requires that the point not being recognized be, in reality, true. -- tariqabjotu 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow this logic of yours Tariqabjou. You say "In fact, non-recognition requires that the point not being recognized be, in reality, true.". Let's suppose I declare myself the "Pope of Europe", make a point of getting some nice hats and printing some gilded stationary. Costa Rica and El Salvador recognize my claim, but the rest of the world does not. Does this mean that, in reality, I am the Pope of Europe?

Anyway, as has been pointed out many times, this is not about whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. Some editors who insist on trying to frame the discussion in those terms are making a straw man argument. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll accept that example and revise my point to say that non-recognition does not necessarily mean that the unrecognized point isn't true (or that the people not recognizing the fact don't believe it's true).

Anyway, as has been pointed out many times, this is not about whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. Not buying it. First off, Dailycare said that at least 163 countries agree that Jerusalem is not the capital. He's clearly raising the claim that countries do not believe Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; I'm not sure how you missed that.

Further, as I said somewhere in the mix of things, swap "seat of government" and "capital" in Ravpapa's proposal, and I would have supported it. But I'm also certain that several of the members of the current support contingent would have rejected it. If you truly don't believe that's the case, I think we have a winning solution. Pretty much everyone who rejected Ravpapa's proposal stated that the proposal simply says Israel chose Jersualem as its capital, rather than that it is the capital, and so the swap would meet their concerns. But, as I said, the smoke screen is rather transparent; the issue is with the word capital. -- tariqabjotu 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Failure

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

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

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

Post-mortem

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

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

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

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

• I like the way you misrepresent the other side's view while at the same time accusing them of doing the same thing. There are people here who are unwilling to say "the sky is blue" without qualifying it. We never got to the "and it has some white clouds" part. That's the problem. Take your own advice and be more careful about reading what people have written. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• See above. You are once again misrepresenting the side you don't agree with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, people can stop raising this issue over and over again. This issue has been resolved in a multitude of ways and when it gets defeated for the umpteenth time, the defeated side again complains about how those supporting the current formulation are ignoring wiki policies, ignoring the other side, pro-Israel, etc., etc., vowing, in the process, to raise the issue again in three or four months' time. The people in support of changing this seem unwilling to be satisfied until they win. That's not how discussions work, and that's the real problem. -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck fixing that problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Further honest attempts at policy-based mediation of course. Tariqabjotu, question please, whom do you refer to with "people" in your comment "People can stop raising the issue over and over again" and "The people in support of changing this seem unwilling to be satisfied until they win."? Also you appear to use the word "resolved" and "defeated" interchangeably in reference to this issue. Can you explain this stance please? RomaC (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As the archives show, this is not the first time this issue has arose and no consensus for change was achieved. I'm sure you know this since you participated in several previous discussions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, NMMNG, but I specifically asked Tariqabjotu about his comments. RomaC (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Further honest attempts at policy-based mediation of course. I honestly don't think so. It's beating a dead horse.

Basically what NMMNG said. I don't need to name names, but there are certain people in support of the change who use any Tom, Dick, and Jane's fleeting comment about Jerusalem to start this excessively protracted debate again. Obviously, there are people who come here for the first time and raise the issue. That's fine; I don't expect them to understand the years of debate surrounding this on Wikipedia, and that person usually receives a response rather quickly (pointing to the archives, etc.). However, then certain editors, who most certainly are familiar with, and were often participants of, the past debates, come out of the woodworks, as if on cue, to complain about this issue as if the fleeting comment is suggestion that there absolutely needs to be a change. Regarding the use of "defeated" vs. "resolved", there's a (rather obvious, albeit trivial) grammatical error that might be leading to some confusion. The issue is what is being resolved, as I said, but the opposition to the status quo is what is being defeated (what I originally wrote might suggest that the issue is being defeated). So... there... I'm sure you could have figured that out without me, though. -- tariqabjotu 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

And I'm not... -- tariqabjotu 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comments about mediation. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Tariq, thanks, I understand this better now. One thing that concerns me, however, is your statement that "certain editors, who most certainly are familiar with, and were often participants of, the past debates, come out of the woodworks, as if on cue, to complain about this issue." I'd like to ask you, would you say there are also certain editors who regularly appear (I prefer not to use the derogatory "come out of the woodwork") to oppose anyone suggesting these sorts of edits? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course, but my problem isn't that there are people who follow this article and comment frequently. It's that there are people who raise this issue over and over again... as I said... I dunno... two comments ago. None of the people content with the current formulation are regularly bringing up the issue. They're responding to comments, sure, and participating in the debates, but they're not using fleeting complaints by readers to restart a debate it seems like we just finished yesterday. You do realize that the person who made the latest complaint about the Jerusalem issue has not commented beyond his/her first statement. -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Sean, you haven't referred to sides but have certainly argued for a certain side and criticized only one side. I gather you're not going to address what I actually said about your one-sided criticisms. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I suggested aligning the infobox with Britannica for a number of what I regarded at the time as simple pragmatic reasons and then went to look at some art in Singapore. I'm skipping details. My criticism, if you want to look at it negatively, is aimed at individuals not sides and it includes Ani medjool who made a number of very unhelpful statements that were quite spectacularly inconsistent with all sorts of policies. I don't have a problem with either 'side' and I'm not on a side (which is why I find people being upset by the entirely positive word 'proclaimed' quite amusing...although I understand the various objections). I just think there are some genuine issues with policy compliance that need to be dealt with somehow. I don't have strong views on how but I do think there are problems with the way people are talking to eachother and dealing with sources (which is just data to me) that could be improved. We're not supposed to be trying to solve or participate in the I-P conflict. Not sure whether that addresses what you wanted me to address. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen little evidence from that most of those calling for change have such simple motives. From this latest compromise proposal, we explicitly had several people saying that they supported the proposal, but that it didn't matter if it failed because the only thing that mattered was policy (which naturally supported their position). We had others say that they support the proposal, but that this was only the first step; even if it passed, they'd want even more. Consensus on a compromise? Not if people don't recognize the point of one (and some may argue that the footnote deal is already a compromise). -- tariqabjotu 14:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

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

Pull the trigger or don't. A handful of editors don't see a problem as is.Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. You said you'd like to take it to mediation, I said go right ahead. I'm not interested in wasting more of my time on this. I think the way the article is now is fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your words were "lets go to mediation", but you may of course change your mind. Are you (or other "no qualification" editors) willing to participate in mediation? An alternative way to proceed would be arbitration. --Dailycare (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to clear up your misunderstanding of what I was saying. Since I am for keeping the status quo, I'm not really inclined to take any active steps in relation to this issue. You do what you need to do and I'll see how I respond. I doubt any forum for arbitration will listen to the case before you tried at least a couple DR avenues, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Who else wants to be a party, and who wants to volunteer to initiate it? That's not really how it works. Select who you think is pivotal to the dispute, open a mediation request, and see if they all agree to mediation. The consent of all involved parties is necessary for a mediation request to be accepted, but you can't just say you're going to only invite those volunteering. If there is one editor, for example, who is a major party in the dispute, but s/he does not want to go to mediation, the mediation cannot go forward. You can't just say, "oh well, I'll just exclude him/her from the list of parties".

An alternative way to proceed would be arbitration. Not really. Mediation is the point of last resort for disputes regarding content and arbitration is the point of last resort for disputes regarding editor behavior. ArbCom does not rule on content disputes. Now, you could somehow say the content dispute remains, if you say, unresolved because of inappropriate behavior on the part of certain editors, but that will (a) probably not fly and (b) not do a whole lot about the content. -- tariqabjotu 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can open a mediation request inviting the editors I mentioned above (and maybe a few more), although it'll be my first such request, which is why I was initially a bit reluctant to do it myself. I'm not pessimistic on mediation and consider it entirely possible that a workable solution can be found there. Concerning arbitration, I appreciate that arbitration concentrates on user conduct, however as you noted above, you feel the main problem to be that editors bring this issue up again and again. This is user conduct. For me, the problem is that some editors WP:Disrupt discussion aiming to change the article content to deviate even in very slight ways from official Israeli WP:Propaganda. This is a conduct issue. In light also of the fact that these discussions have been ongoing for a while, a decision from ArbCom would be useful if it brought closure. Of course, it's up to the arbitration committee to choose which cases they take up. Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So, users who disagree with you are "disrupting", and are spreading "Israeli propaganda". Good to know that about you. okedem (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's (still) not what I wrote ;) --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the way you see it I suggest you go directly to arbitration. There isn't much potential for mediation with such disruptive POV pushers. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is about finding common ground and "mediating" out differences, but when one side labels those holding opposing viewpoints as being "disruptive" simply because they disagree with them...or states that opposing editors viewpoints are just "propaganda"... well... there's not much to mediate. I suggest we stick to content and not criticizing other editors. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum, that's (still) not what I wrote. There are POVs around, including propagandistic ones, but mediation is aimed at improving the article. I do as a matter of course agree that we should concentrate on content. --Dailycare (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Israeli propoganda, eh? And that's why I said I don't want to participate in mediation. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Off topic but I've said this before and I'm going to say it again, the Zionist Movement has produced some superb propaganda posters over the years both before and after the establishment of Israel as a state and yet this fascinating topic isn't covered by Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Look at the quality of this stuff. Someone really ought to do something about that because readers might appreciate being able to read about this aspect of 'Israeli propaganda'. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely off topic. This isn't the right place to be bringing it up... if it's something you're interested in pursuing, go ahead and make the article. One point though... I hope you have some WP:RS that labels those posters as propaganda (which is defined with a characteristic of being misleading). Breein1007 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, I know I said I didn't want to participate in mediation -- and I'm still not particularly optimistic anything useful will come out of it -- but you were taking forever to initiate the request, so I created one for you (and, by doing so, assented to mediation). -- tariqabjotu 15:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tariq - I take it informal mediation isn't a compulsory step then before formal mediation? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that informal mediation is normally expected to be pursued first. I suppose that the case may be accepted if it is felt that informal mediation is unlikely to resolve the issue. Otherwise we will probably be asked to pursue that option first. --FormerIP (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get that impression. They just don't want people to run to the Mediation Committee anytime a dispute comes up; they want them to try to work things out themselves and through other channels first. Obviously, we have tried things ourselves. If the case is rejected, that most certainly won't be why. -- tariqabjotu 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the impression comes from "the MedCom will usually not become involved in a dispute that has not exhausted the methods detailed above", where informal mediation is one of the methods above at WP:Requests_for_mediation/Common_reasons_for_rejection#Failure_to_demonstrate_sufficient_prior_dispute_resolution_attempts. Tariqabjotu as a former mediator though knows these issues very well, I imagine so we're likely OK from this respect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the hidden summary it says: "If you haven't attempted at least article-talk page discussions and informal mediation, it is unlikely your RfM will be accepted". Maybe the practice is different - hope so. --FormerIP (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is still ongoing, as it seems to have gone to mediation, but here goes! Only real comparitive situation than sprung to mind when reading the dispute was that of East Germany naming Berlin as it's capital, despite the fact that Berlin was internationally recognised as a "free city" under the rule of the four occupying states. I understand that there are major differences in the history, background and politics surrounding the two issues, but East Germany declared that Berlin was it's capital, and established it's seat of Government there. France, West Germany, the UK and the USA all disputed their right to do so, as did a large amount of the international community. It is interesting to note, therefore, that Berlin is listed as the Capital of East Germany on it's wikipedia page. Not "proclaimed capital" or "declared capital" or anything else. Infact, none of the city was officially part of East Germany. There's no dispute on the East Germany page in relation to this, I think because the issue is 20 years old, and people aren't quite as sensitive about it as they are this situation. I think this probably supports the "status quo" it's not up to anybody except for Israel to declare there capital city.212.74.97.195 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP, we have not reached consensus so the dispute remains unresolved. Your information on East Berlin is interesting, I suggest you bring up the relevant sources on the Berlin or East Germany articles and discuss there. --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Give the vast lengths of the arguments on this it should therefore go to mediation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Because we've failed to reach an agreement to mediate, I have added NPOV tags to the use of the word "capital" in the lead and infobox. --FormerIP (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to add an NPOV tag to your NPOV tag. I dispute the use of an NPOV tag on the word capital in a feeble attempt to trivialize the Jewish people's right to self determination. Breein1007 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't try to stop you from adding a second tag if you really want to. The tag is actually a feeble attempt to denote that there is an active NPOV dispute over the use of the word, which there is. --FormerIP (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead tag is redundant and a little obnoxious since there are two inline tags now. We should probably be trying to figure out a way to make it neutral instead of bickering over tags though.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the section POV-tag is sufficient and probably trumps individual tags. With the section tags in place, additional in-article NPOV tags could be taken as an attempt to WP:POINT#Examples. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If the mediation is rejected (assuming it will be) and immediate improvement is not made, it will be necessary to take this to Wikipedia:Featured article review since it fails 1.e and potentially 1.d. The good thing about this is that the content driven editors who focus on making the best of the best over there might have some ideas. The drawback is that seeing an article delisted (the worst case scenario) would be a sad moment.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It happened at Jerusalem, but I won't let it happen here. There it was maybe a paragraph, if not less, that resulted in the article being delisted (although other parts of the article were deteriorating). Here, it's maybe one sentence, if not less. That's no reason to delist an article. The article is not at all unstable so much as it under constant scrutiny. Annoying, perhaps, but not a reason to delist. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well we'll have to figure it out then. An article with multiple tags and people raising neutrality concerns doesn't exemplify the best work on Wikipedia. Hopefully we can do it here. If not, maybe some new eyes can help us figure out what to do. If the answer is "It is good as it is" then we need to find consensus to get editors to stop raising the issue (basically telling them "tough, you are wrong, get over it").Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaced the tag in the infobox beside Jerusalem, but for the record I would be fine with a simple differentiation of the link formatting so that readers would be aware there is a footnote with information on the issues about Jerusalem. RomaC (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree in part with Cptnono's suggestions above, but would ask if we might also need to find consensus to get editors to stop repeatedly opposing edits which address the issue. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

C'mon. Three tags to contest the same point? That's not simply saying there is a dispute over this point; it's saying this is wrong. You've now set it up so that, no matter what, those interested in changing the point have wedged their position in. We have two options: change what the article says about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel or keep all three tags in the article, which are, when combined, effectively negating the point made by the article that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Succinctly, the footnote does not say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. (Neither do I, but that doesn't matter.) I restored the tag on the infobox because I support clarifying the formatting of the link to the footnote only so that so that readers might be aware that it is a link to a footnote. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it doesn't say that. But the use of the POV tags in triplicate casts doubt on the validity of the statement, more doubt than is necessary. -- tariqabjotu 12:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. Your position has been heavily discussed, even though you completely fail to present sources to support your claim regarding the importance of recognition to the capital status. The conflict is already addressed in the article. Your position has failed to gain support. You cannot continue to hold this article hostage until all your demands are met. Eventually, we must come to a conclusion; it is abundantly clear that any phrasing here will leave some editors displeased, and we cannot leave tags on forever. To address these issues, a footnote was set up, but that is now presented as the favorite version of "pro-Israel" editors, and by at least one user as the "propaganda version" . No compromise will satisfy some here, because every compromise is just another step to reach the version you like. Enough. You've had your fun, you don't have support for a change. okedem (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Condescension is not helpful, please change your tone. RomaC (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this is it. You fail to present sources, fail to justify your position, and fail to gain support, and yet hold this article hostage, just because you don't like what's written there now. I don't like what written in plenty of articles, but I don't have the gall to try to force my position against consensus, and without sources. I am sick and tired of editors characterizing others here as "disruptive" just because they don't want to change the article from "Israeli propaganda".

As nothing short of full compliance with your demands will ever satisfy you, this is the place to draw the line. You've been given every opportunity to present sources and arguments, and yet fail to convince. Don't like the article - live with it. okedem (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, the discussion is continuing below I will respond there. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would rather just leave it as "Jerusalem". Jerusalem is the defacto capital of Israel, and that which Israel enforces militarily and by law. The dejure opinion in reality is irrelevant and POV. While it is useful to mention these disputes in the article, the debate doesn't belong all over an Infobox. 72.13.154.237 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagine if germany won WW2 and made London its capital, it would be the capital of the germans but it wouldn't be recognised by the countries not OCCUPIED by the germans, the same thing applies to jerusalem.161.76.194.174 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)