Talk:Israel/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Post Mediation Attempt

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

I really don't understand the point in having a neutrality tag in the infobox. There are three possibilities: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel with certain factual reservations. None of these three possibilities involves problems with neutrality. Let's look again at the facts: (1) Jerusalem is the Israeli seat of government (the presidential residence, the parliament, the supreme court, the central bank and the ministries HQs are all located there, save the Ministry of Defense which is located in Tel Aviv). (2) Israel declared Jerusalem officially as its capital and treat it as such for every purpose (3) Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is contested by some countries, and most countries do not recognize it as the Israeli capital (4) All foreign diplomatic delegations to Israel are located outside Jerusalem on purpose and per UN SC resolution, however the entire diplomatic corps attends official Israeli events held in Jerusalem (5) The Palestinian leadership demand that the eastern part of the city become the capital of the future Palestinian state. So, actually, the third option is the relevant here. Jerusalem can be said to be the Israeli capital with certain reservations, that should be described properly, and I believe they are already described. WP is about describing the facts on the ground. The current state of affair is that Jlm function as the Israeli capital, and this is not an issue of neutrality - like it or not, it's a fact. Greek Cypriots don't like the fact that Nicosia is divided, but it is. The Argentinian government doesn't like the fact that Islas Malvinas are called Falkland Islands and has affiliation to the UK, but this is a fact on the ground. Describing facts is always neutral. The reservations should also be present, since they are relevant, and as far as I can see they are described in the proper places. DrorK (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For you to stop trying to force your views on the article, even though you don't bother presenting sources, and the majority is against change.

I really don't like being so blunt, but this kind of behavior brings it out. It's fine to raise concerns and try to work something out. But after incredibly long discussions, every few months, where claims don't gain support, there comes a time to admit - you are in the minority, others do not share your view, and the article doesn't have to change. Raising it over and over, with tags and all, is not productive, but is just an attrition tactic, hoping that at some point you'll manage to tire enough editors to have your way. There will always be issues; there will always be dissatisfied editors. You need to accept that. okedem (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As no one denies that there is a dispute over the infobox and introduction and that the dispute centers around one group of editors who view the current presentation as POV and another group who denies that, its clear that the article should remain tagged with NPOV tags until that dispute is resolved.

To answer RomaCs question, there are a number of proposals that were floated to deal with the POV issue:

• Changing the footnote format to distinguish it from regular references so that the content of the foonote which explains that Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital is not recognized by most of the world is better highlighted.
• Adding the words proclaimed, disputed, or unrecognized in brackets before or after the word Jerusalem in the infobox.
• Changing the wording in the introduction from "capital" to "Seat of government", since no one disputes that it functions as Israel's seat of government at present.

I'm sure there are other that I have missed, but others should feel free to add them here for consideration and further discussion. Tiamut^talk 14:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no POV issue. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Who disagrees that? It does not say Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel or Jerusalem is widely recognized as the capital of Israel; it simply reflects the current state of affairs -- that Jerusalem, regardless of whether anyone (you, Israel, Syria, China, the UK, the US), likes it or not. There have been no reliable sources presented that conflict with that statement.

Several people, including you, have persistently presented the statement as an issue that must be addressed. In your mind, it seems, there is no debate here: the article will change, and the only question is by how much (and how quickly!). You are unwilling to hear the arguments of those who oppose you, and we have had others -- perhaps you as well -- say quite clearly that no matter what any RfC or discussion concludes about this issue, unless it supports changing the article, its results are invalid since, after all, consensus cannot trump policy (as interpreted by you). No wonder people were hesitant about mediation; this is not a climate for discussion and compromise. -- tariqabjotu 15:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stating that "there is no POV issue" because that's what you believe to be true doesn't make it so. In the list of sources presented by Dailycare, not only were there sources that qualified any statements of Jerusalem being Israel's capital with notes on its lack of recognition or embassies being situated in Tel Aviv, but there were infact sources that directly contradicted that notion. (eg. 22 ("Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital") and 26 ("Capital: Tel Aviv" in an infobox on Israel. (El Pais))

Your second point is one I could parrot right back at you, but I won't because I don't think it will help us to make any progess toward resolving this issue. If you don't respect the people with whom you are discussing, there is little hope for forging an agreement. You might want to work on that. Tiamut^talk 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "There is no POV issue. Period." I said there is no POV issue because there have been no sources to suggest that another side disagrees with this point. We've heard a lot about non-recognition, a point no one here contends, but nothing about Jerusalem not being the capital of Israel. Those sources that directly say that are very, very few and far between to the point of being a minority viewpoint that warrants no mention in the article (are we, for example, going to include the claim in El Pais that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel?). The ynet source, despite what the headline says, does not say that Canada has stated that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. According to the article, it says that the court ruled that Jerusalem is under dispute and therefore it is not appropriate to say 'Jerusalem, Israel' on a Canadian passport. Frankly, I'm not sure why ynet even mentioned the capital aspect.

I mentioned nothing about respecting you. I simply said that you are unwilling to listen to opposing opinions, as you are so convinced they go against policy or otherwise are flat-out wrong. I heard your side -- I've been hearing it for years now. And, unfortunately for you, it has never gained consensus. Even after all this time, I'm still asking you to present sources and still commenting on the merits of your sources. If you still think that, despite that, I don't respect you, fine; I really don't care. -- tariqabjotu 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada does in fact list Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel (see here). nableezy - 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiamut, I believe those are the most relevant proposals ("proclaimed" is used in sources more than "chosen"). In terms of policy, the issue is very simple and boils down to a few points:

• is it a reliably sourced, significant view that the capital status of Jerusalem is not accepted internationally? (I believe there is no disagreement on this: yes)
• Is it a "notable controversy"? If so, then per WP:LEAD it must be mentioned in the lead (we have WP:RS saying it is) Saying "proclaimed" and "the status of Jerusalem remains in dispute" in the lead, not necessarily even in the same paragraph, accomplishes this. These are small and non-offending edits.

Failing to agree on those changes, or others that would resolve the issue, here leaves us with a dilemma - per WP:NPOV it is a non-negotiable policy, which I understand to mean that each article must comply. If this one can't be edited to comply, then (I guess) logically the article would have to be deleted. My vote is to edit, not delete. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If this one can't be edited to comply, then (I guess) logically the article would have to be deleted. We don't need any more ultimatums, especially one that ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Ravpapa. Though I appreciate your attempt to solve the problem, your suggestion values vagueness over clarity, and sacrifices accuracy to appease. This is the way to write an election platform, not an encyclopedia.

Tiamut, there will always be a dispute, until you have your way. Enough. Stop holding this article hostage. The majority opposes change, so this ends now.

Dailycare, since you think to disagree with you is to be disruptive, and that those opposing the changes are for the "official Israeli propaganda", I see no possible way to discuss this with you. okedem (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So, when it comes to Jerusalem we can deal with words like largest and the notion of largeness in a calm and rational way but we can't deal with a word like capital and notions of 'capitalness'. Yup.

Wikipedia can profit from this. I suggest that the next time someone makes a classic statement like "I dispute the use of an NPOV tag on the word capital in a feeble attempt to trivialize the Jewish people's right to self determination." or "You cannot continue to hold this article hostage until all your demands are met.", amusing as they are, has to upload a picture from the Library of Congress to Commons. Start with this aerial image of Jerusalem from 1931 with no known rights restrictions. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, don't misrepresent what I've written since that at least doesn't move this discussion forward. Also, instead of discussing the NPOV tag, let's concentrate on resolving the dispute, shall we? After all, once the dispute is resolved we can all agree to remove the tag. --Dailycare (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And since you won't accept the fact that you don't have support for a change, the dispute will go on forever, and the tags will stay on forever - unless users like me finally give up, and let you have your way. You simply can't accept that you have failed to convince. And don't claim you didn't write it, we can all read it - you claimed this article is "official Israeli propaganda", and that there are users who are "disrupting", though you didn't bother to present a shred of evidence for that claim. okedem (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okedem writes: Tiamut, there will always be a dispute, until you have your way. Enough. Stop holding this article hostage. The majority opposes change, so this ends now.

Wikipedia doesn't work by majority rule. It works by WP:CONSENSUS aimed at ensuring our articles comply with WP:NPOV. I'm not alone in my concerns here either. I count at least three other editors participating in this discussion who share them. So please stop personaliing the debate, pretending there is no debate by reverting out POV tags on the article, and using emotive language, and instead, please try addressing the issues raised and the specific proposals being put forward to deal with them. 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What I see here is a minority of editors trying to push their views. You act as though we have to change the article. I discussed every single proposal and issue here, I addressed every point you or anyone else here raised. Stop pretending I (and others) haven't. We addressed them - we simply don't agree with you. Accept it. okedem (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What I see in this section is three editors telling five editors that they are in the minority. I also see some stonewalling and the evasion of sources that are presented that directly contradcit the claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I won't accept being treated as though I am being disruptive for insisting that we continue to pursue dispute resolution of an issue that has not been dealt with to the satisfaction of a number of a editors. I don't have to accept your position as the gospel truth Okedem, nor do I have to accept that because you are tired of discussing it, everyone else should stop raising the issue for discussion as well. If you don't want to engage substantively on this issue anymore, stop participating in the discussions. Otherwise, I expect that you will cease disaparaging those who disagree with you and trying to sideline their position and take up the discussion of it with due seriousness. Tiamut^talk 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How can anybody discuss this seriously anymore? The discussion is over. It was over a long time ago. It's hard to take you guys seriously when you argue a simple fact that a country chooses its own capital. The thing is, you don't even argue that fact... you ignore it and repeat over and over again that the world doesn't consider Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. That has absolutely nothing to do with what the capital of Israel is. Recognition is not a prerequisite. I'm done with this. There are no new ideas being brought to the table, and there haven't been for weeks. And for the record, there are a lot more than 3 vs 5 editors involved here. You know that. Breein1007 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't discuss it seriously, don't discuss it. No one is forcing you to participate. OR discussions about how capital's don't need to be recognied by others are a distraction from the subject at hand. Sources have been presented that directly contradict the claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (though they are only a few) and tens of sources have been presented that say that capital claim is contested and unrecognized. NPOV requires we represent all signifcant viewpoitns, not just the ones that some editors like. So let's start discussing how to do that. Tiamut^talk 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"What I see in this section is three editors telling five editors that they are in the minority." - you know full well that's false. The discussion isn't limited to this very second, but includes the extremely long discussion we had above, along with an RfC, in which your position was in the minority. Don't pretend it didn't happen. okedem (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sean, we dealt very calmly with this, with an incredibly long discussion, RfC, and what-not. We've presented sources, explained what "capital" means, explained how Jerusalem is the capital. You've failed to show anything to explain why international recognition is so important. It's over. Your position did not gain support. Please accept this, and move on. okedem (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the word calm is a bit different from mine. If editors continue to sample the bits of the sources they want to sample (e.g. the bits that say 'Jerusalem is the capital..') and seek to bury the inconvenient complexities (e.g. the highly notable and almost universally agreed bits that come after the 'but..' ) this will never end. It shouldn't be any more difficult for someone to deal with information about the population size of West Jerusalem and occupied East Jerusalem combined as it is to deal with the capital status of West Jerusalem and occupied East Jerusalem combined. It's the same Jerusalem, made up of bits that are in Israel and bits that are not in Israel from the NPOV/DUE perspective and yet somehow we are meant to simply accept that saying 'Jerusalem is the largest city' is not quite right, possibly a bit misleading etc but simply saying 'Jerusalem is the capital, move along, nothing to see here', is fine and dandy. The way I look at it is, Jerusalem incorporates East Jerusalem -> East Jerusalem is not in Israel from the NPOV/DUE perspective -> we have a problem for both largeness and capitalness which is reflected in the sources. So no, it's not over. My position is and always has been that we should find the simplest and most pragmatic way to deal with this. It should be easy. I really don't care much about what we do but doing nothing and pretending that the word Jerusalem represents a unified Israeli capital city would be the wrong approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines as Tiamut, it sounds odd that an editor would try to forbid others from discussing how to improve an article. "Forever" (used above) is a forward-looking statement, how do you know that we won't find a solution tomorrow? --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Sadly, in the last 24 hours, Okedem has been attempting to shift attention away from the issues with the article and onto some editors. I disagree with this tact, and with the incivility of tone, but I'm left with little choice but to address Okedem's accusations against me and other editors. I will try to be brief here, can compile and list all the quotes, diffs, edits and details at a later point if required.

Okedem's accusations are largely misrepresentations. Check the places where Okedem paraphrases the comments of an editor he disagrees with; then look through that editor's comments to see if they actually said what Okedem claims they did. Most of the time, they did not, what they said has been twisted into a different meaning. Some might not see this as honest.

While supporting edits that opposed the official Israeli position, DailyCare used the label "propaganda". This outraged Okedem, who has since spat the word back at DailyCare six times, in an apparent attempt to tar him. However, before DailyCare laid down the "P-word," the official-Israeli-position-tending editor Jaakabou had already launched it, right here on this Talk page, and this caused Okedem no apparent concern. Some might wonder about selectivity, and neutrality.

The last point may be the most important one. Okedem is and has repeatedly framed this situation as a problem involving a stubborn group of editors, a small and obsessively dedicated cadre that comes out of the woodwork every few months to disruptively push their POV on this issue. They swarm the article tirelessly, but the majority position finally prevails.

But look at the evidence (an archive of discussions on the issue from 2003-2009. Scores of very different editors have brought up this issue and suggested edits. If there is a small and obsessively dedicated cadre using Wikipedia as a battleground, might it actually be those who are stubbornly supporting only the official Israeli position? The name "Okedem" appears 166 times in this archive. Far more than any other editor's. Some might see irony here.

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To anyone reading this discussion - RomaC has made very serious allegations against me. Despite repeated requests (on the talk page, again, and on his talk page), he flatly refuses to present any evidence to support his claims. This constitutes a personal attack, per WP:NPA ("What is considered to be a personal attack?...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."), and is indeed a very low tactic intended to bias editors against myself. The refusal to present evidence implies the lack of such, making RomaC's claim nothing but libel. okedem (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer not to be combative, but I can do that too. To anyone reading this discussion - okedem has made very serious allegations against me. Despite my appeals to civility, he has used this Talk page to make allegations that I am a hostage-taker-making-demands This analogy to terrorist tactics, especially in a discussion relating to an Israeli-Palestinian issue, constitutes a shameful and unacceptable personal attack, per WP:NPA, and is indeed a very low tactic intended to bias editors against me. As I have said, a Talk page is for discussion not for personal attacks, take this to the appropriate place please and I am fully ready to cooperate. RomaC (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can't accept a metaphor in a discussion, that's too bad. I have made no allegations against you, but characterized your behavior in a way you do not like. Do you feel my supposed rudeness gives you the right to spread libel? Is your accusation nothing but retaliation? Your continued refusal to present a shred of evidence to support your claims only furthers my belief you simply made them up out of whole cloth. okedem (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, you think your firing terrorist metaphors against other editors is ok, merely "supposed rudeness", and it's "too bad" if the other editor takes it differently. By the way, while you are making these personal attacks I have suggested compromise positions on two points at issue. So how does that fit your claim that "nothing short of full compliance with your demands will ever satisfy you"? Diffs please. Truth is, I have moved much more than you have on this issue, my friend. So please, enough with the threats, take your gripe to a NPA claim if that is what you want. The olive branch: Or, get back to the discussion, and if you don't get personal I won't respond in kind. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you're trying to spin this in my direction, but - "holding X hostage" is a common metaphor (just a few examples: Don't Hold Bank Reform Hostage, Democrats’ threats to hold healthcare reform hostage dominate the debate, BROWNBACK TO COLLEAGUES: DON'T HOLD EDUCATION REFORM HOSTAGE, CBC holds financial reform hostage as Congress gets angry with Obama over economy, Science Held Hostage; I can find thousands more) , and is used without any allusion to terrorists. If that's what worries you - rest assured, I had no such connotation in mind, nor any wish to imply you're using terrorist tactics. Clearly, this is an oft-used metaphor in the English language, long parted from the terrorist connotation.

I'm not here to discuss if you are willing to compromise or not. Of course, for me (and others), the footnote was already a compromise, that you're now using as the starting point for more concessions. But the issue is your claim that I attributed to people things they didn't say, or twisted their words. You claim to have evidence. By refusing to present it, you're making your claims nothing but libel. I hold that you are lying; if you want to prove me wrong - present your evidence. okedem (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not here to discuss if I am willing to compromise or not, why did you claim, here, that I am unwilling to compromise ("nothing short of full compliance with your demands will ever satisfy you")? Where did I say that "nothing short of full compliance with my demands will satisfy me"? Diffs please. Or was this your attempt to bias editors against me? RomaC (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cute, but I never said that you stated "nothing short of...". It is only my impression from these discussions. And in case you didn't understand it, my comment didn't refer to this single discussion, but to the tactic. Over time, old compromises are used as a starting place for new concessions; you ignore the results of discussions (like RfCs) that you don't like, and keep pushing until you get what you want.

Clearly, you don't actually have the evidence you claimed to have, and are fully lying. At this point, the NPA route is redundant. The most you'll get would be a warning, but I think you destroyed your credibility thoroughly enough right here, not to mention embarrassing yourself with this clumsy piece of libel. In fact, from this discussion we can learn that your accusation was a sort of retaliation for what you erroneously believed was an accusation of "terrorist tactics"; instead of discussing that, you chose to make a false allegation against me. When I pushed you for evidence, you realized you don't have any, and tried to spin the discussion about me, to make everyone forget your lack of evidence. Won't work. You've been given every possible chance to defend your allegations. You chose not to, and the only conclusion left is that you made it all up, and are too ashamed to admit it. okedem (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say I find it amusing when you use "we" as a personal pronoun? Anyway as I wrote in response to your first personal attack, I see misrepresentations in your paraphrasing of the comments of editors you disagree with. Calling me a liar doesn't change that, nor will it wind me up. I know you know that a Talk page is for discussing content not contributors, so I want to apologize to other editors for this inappropriate little back-and-forth.

I remain perfectly willing to address this in the appropriate place, you said (threatened that) you were going to call me out on NPA policy, please do so and we can go from there. Otherwise, if this goes to RfArb or to an uninvolved admin under the general sanctions provisions then we can proceed in that way. Until then, take care! RomaC (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, as you have decided to go after me, I expect to see detailed diffs of myself making false claims about editors' comment, or "twisting" them into different meanings. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Jaakobou's use of the word "propaganda" was very different, and I don't see much of a problem with it.

It's become about the editors because you guys refuse to accept the fact that you haven't managed to gain consensus for changes. It's okay to raise objections, discuss things, open RfCs. But it seems that their results are meaningless unless they support your wishes. There comes a time to accept that your position hasn't been accepted, instead of trying to tire everyone else. You seem to think that discussions must go on until you're satisfied; they don't.

The claim regarding the various editors bringing up the point is wholly meaningless. I can promise you that if the article said "Capital: Tel Aviv", or "Jerusalem (declared)", etc., you'd have scores of editors coming in to complain that it's wrong, and Jerusalem really is the capital. Of all the people reading the article, only people with complaints will show up - obviously people who think everything is fine won't say anything, and these can be the majority, without us knowing.

You characterize me as as "stubbornly supporting only the official Israeli position" completely ignoring the fact that I've backed up this point with plenty of sources (including the most simple one - the dictionary definition of "capital" as "seat of government", which none of you have managed to come close to refuting). It's interesting that my involvement in discussions is used against me. Perhaps in the future I should try to avoid making lots of detailed comments, and just make one comment per claim - "you're wrong". That way my name won't show up quite that much, and you wouldn't have such silly claims to make. okedem (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, I'm still waiting for evidence to support your claims that I've ascribed to editors things they did not say, or "twisted" their words. okedem (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

And BTW, using sources has to be done with care. This fact-sheet from the Canadian Foreign Ministry [1] leaves the capital slot empty, rather than mentioning Tel Aviv. The infobox about Israel in Al País includes some inaccuracies, e.g. Arabic is an official language of Israel beside Hebrew, at least 16% of the Israeli population is Muslim (yet Islam is not mentioned among prominent religions in Israel). DrorK (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

According to Okedem, that would be the final say on the question of where Palestine's capital isAt the end of the day, we seem to have NOT an objective definition of this term by wikipedia's own policy of reference to reliable sources, but reference to okedem's POV that it does not matter what secondary sources say, but what TERTIARY sources say. But, as I said above, no matter what anybody else thinks, okedem's POV WILL remain on the main article. It has set a precedence that literally throws out the most hallowed wikipedia modus operandi, but these things matter no more to okedem than the opinion of the rest of the world. He merely creates "facts on the ground" at wikipedia. Vive la okedem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.152.106 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

SIGN YOU COMMENTS (I can use caps too). Can you word your above comments in a way that isn't an attack on various things so it is easier to figure out what you are getting out (sort attention span and all). Being serious not silly.Cptnono (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to have the incredible power you ascribe to me; however, it seems that the majority of editors on all discussion here agree with me. okedem (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Lead 2

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

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

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

We could also add "Other major cities include..." and maybe even a mention of East Jerusalem.

Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is not in Israel. nableezy - 05:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. Since it has come up in discussion on this page I thought it would be something to consider clarifying. Fine we won't mention it. Do you have anything constructive?Argh... poopey history. Seriously, anything else? We could leave the lead as is as well but I assume that is not OK for some editors. Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of paragraph that can appear in the Jerusalem article, not here. Too much details for one small point. No one has managed to present any sources about the importance of recognition a city's capital status. All sources we have indicate that the capital is the seat of government, so why don't we just say Jerusalem is the capital? okedem (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand why there might be hesitation on adding more info. Here's what I tried to do (and I hope everyone can do the same): We have a Featured Article. We have a Featured Article on a nation. Featured articles require such drama mentioned in the lead. Nation articles in any given tertiary source (bust out your encyclopedias and almanacs) give weight to major cities. We can easily provide information on the two major cities in the country and this dispute. I could care less if my draft is no good but do want some info added to the lead.Cptnono (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The "drama" is already covered in the third paragraph, and the two major cities are already mentioned in the last sentence. I haven't seen evidence to indicate the importance of recognition the the city's status, so I don't see a reason to cover it in the lead. okedem (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How about agreeing first on something that may have consensus? Taking the start of Ravpapa's proposal, above, and modifying only "many" to "several", we could edit the lead thus and then discuss the "capital" issue further. This only adds mention of the dispute concerning Jerusalem and refugees, which should (knock wood) be a non-contentious edit per WP:LEAD. Suppport/oppose?

In November 1947 the United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. 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.

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

--Dailycare (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's helpful in any way, here's the statistics published by B'Tselem [2]: "At the end of 2005, the population of Jerusalem stood at 723,700: 482,500 Jews (67 percent) and 241,200 Palestinians (33 percent). About 58 percent of the residents live on land that was annexed in 1967 (45 percent of whom are Jews, and 55 percent Palestinians).". The Israeli Bureau of Statistics give slightly bigger number for the total number of residents on 31 December 2008: 763.6 thousand. Some Arab Jerusalemites have Israeli citizenship (most of them only have permanent residency in Israel), so Jerusalem have approx. half a million Israeli citizens. The number of residents in western Jerusalem is more than 300 thousand. There are 392.5 thousand residents in the Tel Aviv-Yafo municipal territory (per IBS, 31 Dec 2008). I think it is still fair to say that Jerusalem is the biggest Israeli city, even if we don't accept the Israeli definition of the city's municipal borders. There are more Israeli citizens in this city than in any other city in Israel, even if we exclude the Palestinian non-Israeli residents, and even if we exclude the Jewish neighborhoods located far from the city center to the east, north or south. DrorK (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Again too much detail, Dailycare. The lead is supposed to be a summary. It's okay to say that some matters remain in dispute (this is basically said already in the lead), but we don't need to enumerate what those matters are. People can read about them in more detail in the article and the many other articles on them. -- tariqabjotu 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of detail for the article on Israel, not Jerusalem. Personally, I think if there is any chance the article will be changed, it will have to include the point that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (not the proclaimed, chosen, etc., capital or simply the "seat of government"). To be honest, I think that's the part supporters of the currently formulation are most tied to, especially, as I said earlier, there are very few sources that contest it directly (several, it seems, who opt for the bizarrely inept point that Tel Aviv is the capital). If those supporting changes are able to accept that point, we may get somewhere by succinctly (again, succinctly) including a bit more information about the controversy alongside the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (so long as it doesn't suggest that non-recognition cancels out the fact that Jerusalem is the capital). For example:

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

...or...

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

But if I'm wrong that those opposed to the current wording are simply asking for more details about Jerusalem's status (i.e. that they really want to eliminate the statement that Jerusalem is the capital), then never mind. If that's the case, there would be very little room for compromise (it's either a yes or no, and in this case I'd stand firmly with maintaining that Jerusalem should be mentioned as the capital). It's still unclear to me at this point what people want, and I'm also sure that some people want to avoid calling Jerusalem the capital altogether, while others are content with just including more details. Comments and clarifications would be appreciated.

Note that I don't think it matters much how The Footnote link is formatted. I think using letters, like [a], would be a good middle ground (especially as they're commonly used on articles that separate "notes" from standard references). The item that is currently Reference 120 (In the 1990s, direct elections for Prime Minister...) could also be separated out if that route is chosen. But, as I said, I think that matter is trivial. -- tariqabjotu 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Of the two suggestions, I think the second one better (proposed by tariqabjotu) reflects the sources. If that were adopted, along with the formatting change for the footnote that you have proposed (i.e. (a)), my concerns regarding the article's lack of NPOV on the way this issue is addressed in this article would be alleviated. Tiamut^talk 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The intent for this part of the discussion was to be devoid of the other shenanigans. The lead. What makes the lead better? The opportunity to discuss the difference between capital and commerce (see NY:DC or other examples that I can't be arsed to provide) plus the opportunity to encapsulate the "drama"/boo-hoo parts in a single paragraph is fantastic and easy enough. This is a featured article. Act like it.Cptnono (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you responding to? And what shenanigans are you talking about? -- tariqabjotu 12:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For consideration:

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

RomaC (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal avoids calling Jerusalem the capital. It's not that Jerusalem is the seat of government, but merely functions as the capital; it's that Jerusalem is the capital (with, of course, all that jazz about other countries not recognizing it as such, locating embassies elsewhere, etc.). -- tariqabjotu 12:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think RomaC's proposal is more NPOV than tarqiabjotu's, but I doubt it will gain consensus. Tiamut^talk 13:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Screw my proposal. Can you word it to call it the capital? I am happy saying it is the capital and would love to see the lead say that while also addressing the other issues.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. As self centered as I am I failed to realize that another way of wording it came on to the table. By shenanigans I mean shit. It really is all back and forth shit. I really just want to find consensus on a lead that doesn't get people on their heels and doesn't suck. "Capital. It claims and functions. International says poop. Another big city is over there. That other city has big buildings"Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I wrote is not exactly a proposal as something for consideration, mindful of editors' point that a part of Jerusalem is not in Israel at all; and of other editors' point that it is nonetheless under Israeli control and generally does what a capital does, ie. function as the seat of government. I would support having it stand as "Capital" in the infobox with the link to the footnote subtly re-formatted as suggested (^[a]) but without any "declared" or "proclaimed" qualification. I hope we may be moving toward something that can improve clarity and be NPOV. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say forget about the footnote. This isn't a game where we negotiate. This is the lead of an article. How do we make the lead FA quality. The infobox can get fiddled with later. This isn't about forcing a compromise in the guise of consensus. It is about making an accurate and informative article. The lead needs to address the sticky point (per FA standards) and should also let the reader know what's what with the capital and major metro areas.Cptnono (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind you a few things, if indeed we are in search of objective knowledge here: (1) Tel Aviv should not be mentioned, as it has no status for this matter. The US's main stock exchange is in NYC, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are the main economic hubs of Brazil, Russia has a economic and cultural hub in St. Petersburg beside Moscow, it doesn't make these cities capitals or even eligible to be called "de facto capitals". Haifa is also an Israeli major economic hub as it has the biggest harbor, and yet it is also not "a capital" of Israel. (2) You can't get away without mentioning that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. This information is too important. As I said, Nicosia is divided between the Rep. of Cyprus and the TRNC, and this information is too important even if many Greek-Cypriot would prefer we say simply that Nicosia is the capital of the Rep. of Cyprus. (3) If we have to avoid footnotes in the lead, then we could write: "Capital: Jerusalem (internationally contested)", which more or less gives the idea of: if you are looking for the Israeli capital, try Jerusalem, but know that many foreign governments are not happy with this situation. DrorK (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What and why Drork?Cptnono (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Er... Tel Aviv is already mentioned in the article alongside Jerusalem. No one is suggesting that Tel Aviv's economic status makes it a de facto capital or a second capital or anything of that sort, no less than anyone would say New York is the de facto capital of the U.S. (although, I mean, if someone personally thinks that New York and Tel Aviv should be de facto capitals because they're economic hubs, it is their prerogative). The article would say pretty much what it says now; Tel Aviv is the economic hub, but Jerusalem it's capital, but with the non-recognition point. Read what you want, but most are simply going to read what it says.

The rest of your comment seems contradictory to what has been said in the progress of this thread. -- tariqabjotu 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

In November 1947 the United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. 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.

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

Israel is a developed country and a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage. 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. Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange, while Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is the capital of Israel.^[a]

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

(edit conflict)Dailycare's suggestion merits consideration for sure, as I have said I am not against identifying Jerusalem as the capital, but a qualification needs to be there to reflect acknowledged real-world issues. I don't presume to speak for other editors though. Suggest a tweak in punctuation and word order: Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange; while Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is its capital city.^[a]

Also would trim this possibly weaselly passage which ascribes to Israeli efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians. While these efforts may or may not be genuine it cannot be assumed that they are universally regarded as such, and so the passage does present a POV that is not needed in the lead. So suggest downsizing from Nonetheless, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success. to something like Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, but remains in a state of conflict with its Palestinian neighbors.

RomaC (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of your proposed changes are fine, save for the introduction of that semi-colon. "While Jerusalem... is its capital city" is not an independent clause, so a semi-colon is not correct. -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

True, we could drop "while" or else make two sentences. Anyway we'll see what other editors think. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I would obviously say no because I think the enumeration of the issues is unnecessary. At the very least, though, you could remove the paragraph break between the first two paragraphs of your proposal (as they discuss the same thing).

Regardless, until this point, the focus of this discussion has been on the capital of Israel aspect and I see no reason to complicate the discussion further by introducing this proposal regarding a paragraph no one has been talking about. We can deal with the capital issue now, as it looks like we're getting some agreement here (you, Tiamut, and I seem to all have okayed one particular sentence), and then move on to your desire to change the third paragraph later. -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is very confusing, so please make it clear - which part of this discussion relates to the lead in general and which of it relates only to the infobox? My remarks refereed mainly to the infobox, although they might be useful for the lead in general. DrorK (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Um... none of it has been about the infobox, except for the change of [1] to [a], which is part of the lead text as well. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can't this just be about the lead? Why are you bringing the infobox or notes in?Cptnono (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just join here - the question here is how much weight to give the non-recognition issue - and this is relevant to all those parts. We can go one by one - they're all interconnected. If we give lots of emphasis on this issue in one paragraph, we don't need to discuss it in the other. If we discuss the problem in the lead, we don't need a footnote.

But I have a question, following the bad experience with compromises - if we find something we can all agree on - will editors give their word of honor that they will not come back in a few months and try to push things more towards their preferred phrasings? This includes the case in which some new editor mentions it - will editors commit to supporting the compromise even then? okedem (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would. nableezy - 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't commit to never bringing it up again ever. Political developments or new srouces could make changes necessary again in the future. However, I can commit to not supporting the reopening of the discussion of this particular issue at this article for at least one year. Given how protracted the discussions tend to be, I'm pretty sure I'll manage to avoid it even longer than that too. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't look at it as a compromise. It is about making the content of this article better. I am happy with the lead saying how it is and nothing else. I won't be screwing with it or trying to take advantage of others good faith though. I also see no problem with people bringing up the infobox since that is a whole new ball game (of goodness hopefully). I will of course say yes as needed. Nableezy and I are on poor terms but I think he would vouch for my thoughts on good form and bad form.Cptnono (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. nableezy - 18:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind then. Maybe I'll bring it up maybe I won't. I'll make sure to do it nicely.Cptnono (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can also agree to not re-open, and to not support another editor re-opening, this issue for a long time if we reach an agreement around this proposal, including the [a] link in the lead and infobox. (Barring some fundamental change in the international situation, such as international recognition of Jerusalem as the capital) --Dailycare (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar to above. I forsee no reason at this point to reopen the matter. Okedem, do you agree with the proposal (the change in the sentence, and the change in the footnote format)? -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the proposed text. I've only dropped into this series of threads as I am quite frankly bored by the whole matter. I therefore cannot foresee myself being the one to raise the amtter agian.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Any statement can be interpreted in a political way. Saying homosexuality is/isn't a psychiatric condition can also be interpreted in a political way, and it indeed provoked a debate at the time, even though it was supposed to be a purely medical-scientific debate. And yet, we cannot avoid using certain terms or phrasings just because they might be unitendedly interpreted in a political context. WP is about conveying knowledge, and "capital city" is a term with a defined meaning in the English language. It is used here in the Wikipedian context, i.e. in the context of conveying knowledge and no more than that. Anyone who reads WP should be aware of that, and interpret the text in this context alone. DrorK (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We've heard this argument before, and it's been rebutted before. We have many sources saying that Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel, a point that is included in the proposal, but we have very few sources explicitly saying that Jerusalem is not the capital or that the capital of Israel is something else (e.g. Tel Aviv). Despite this knowledge, you may believe saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is unacceptable (based on, it seems, your interpretation of neutrality). Conversely, others say there is nothing wrong with saying that by itself and adding additional information about Jerusalem's status waters down a clear fact. But this is the point of compromise; people will agree to something that doesn't fit perfectly with what they desire in the interest of coming to a calm conclusion. I would be happy with the article the way it is now, but I'm conceding that adding more info about non-recognition is fine. Tiamut said she thought RomaC's proposal is the best option of the ones here, but said that she didn't think it would pass and so accepted this proposal. I understand your position -- I've heard it many times -- but I'm asking you be a bit more pragmatic. That does not necessarily mean agreeing with my proposal (although that, of course, would be great), but it would be helpful if you avoided rehashing the firm rhetoric that makes compromise impossible.

In light of that, I don't think RomaC's proposal is faultless; it leans too much to one side, as it avoids calling Jerusalem the capital, a point that, as I said, has been less rejected than qualified in reliable sources. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, I agree with your point regarding NPOV and that the proposed wording is not NPOV-compliant since it asserts a POV as a fact. However, it's much better from an NPOV perspective than the present wording and, importantly, it's something that it may be possible to agree on. --Dailycare (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the reservations, we are at a crossroads it seems. At this point seems we could go with Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange. Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is its capital city.^[a]

Alternatively, we could go to a RfArb to address perceived conduct issues by some editors; or see if an uninvolved administrator will use the existing Discretionary Sanctions for I-P articles procedures to stop such behavior by editors. I can live with the first option but if other editors are up for it could assist in looking back over this issue's talk page history and then proceeding with the second or third option. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RomaC is acting in unacceptable ways. A couple of days ago he made very serious allegations against me, claiming I ascribe to other editors things they did not say, or that I twist their words. I asked him for evidence, on the talk page, again, and on his talk page. Today he replied, flatly refusing to present his evidence, saying he'll only do so for ArbCom. This is completely illegitimate. When you publicly accuse someone, you have to back it up, or retract. To do otherwise is an outrage. If you want to file a complaint against me, go ahead, and back up your claims them, but don't do a hit-and-run on me on the talk page, shamefully refusing me the chance to defend myself, and other editors the chance to judge the evidence for themselves.

You claim there are conduct issues here, but you have clearly now performed the worst aggression. I'm giving you this one last opportunity to present evidence, or withdraw. Otherwise, I will pursue this as a personal attack case, per WP:NPA, "What is considered to be a personal attack?...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.". okedem (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, how do you feel about the suggested text? (Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange. Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is its capital city.^[a]) --Dailycare (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

1. "only stock exchange" - to me, that seems like a rather minor thing to highlight, and feels like filler text. I don't think the physical location of the exchange is that important (especially considering it's all computerized, so you don't have a bustling trade floor like in New York, for instance).
2. I don't like the reverse sentence structure ("Jerusalem, although ... is..."). It seems like poor prose to me; I see no reason not to present the fact first, qualify later - that way people know what you're qualifying - "Jerusalem is the capital, although not recognized internationally as such."
3. If you're already presenting the international recognition issue in the lead text, the footnote (both there and in the infobox) becomes redundant. People looking for further details can read them in the article's body. okedem (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The point here was to present an example of why Tel Aviv is Israel's economic hub. An example of something else would work just fine.
2. Yes, it sounds a bit better that way, but I thought that order would make the qualification sound like it nullifies the "Jerusalem is capital" point. But now that I read it again, it doesn't sound any different. It also makes the footnote better-placed...
3. I don't think the footnote would be redundant. It's a reference, an elaboration, etc, for a point that, to the uninitiated, sounds quite bizarre. I think it's fine.

-- tariqabjotu 12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, you made hostage-taker-with-demands allegations against me, I asked you to change your tone, you refused, so I responded. Now an NPA threat? Ok, if you want to dance, go ahead and start the music, but this talk page is not the place. If you want to participate here, I request you comment on the discussion not on the editor. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I characterized the general behavior of some editors here as "hostage taking", and I stand by it. But that's a characterization, not a factual claim. You, on the other hand, made a very clear, easily provable or refutable claim against me, and you made it on this talk page. Don't like my tone, fine; you can say I'm being rude, uncooperative and pigheaded (I'm sure someone has already said it). But don't try to take revenge by making false claims. If you want to make a claim against me - go ahead; but be prepared to back it up with evidence, otherwise we might all assume you simply made it all up. I think we've all learned something about you and your libelous tactics. okedem (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No. You made specific hostage-taker-with-demands allegations against me. There you go again. Anyway now you have threatened to pursue a NPA case against me. Go ahead, or stop the sabre-rattling already. Oh, and I don't presume to speak for other editors, but I have definitely learned something about you. I'll let you have the last word, then can we return to the discussion, please? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the difference between a characterization of behavior, and factual claim. I view your (and other editors') actions here as akin to holding this article hostage, by refusing to accept the results of discussions and RfC that are not to your liking. This is not a factual claim to be proven to refuted by evidence. I'm not making any factual claim against you - I'm saying how I see your behavior. You made a factual claim against me (attributing to people things they did not say, or twisting their words), claimed to have evidence, but are denying me the right to present any meaningful defense against the claim. By this you are trying to bias editors against me in a very unscrupulous manner.

I'm trying to understand how to continue with the NPA thing, don't worry. okedem (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the stock exchange or the sentence structure are key elements here and they can probably be modified as you suggest. The footnote, however, is a key part as the [a] link is used from both the lead and the infobox to present the more detailed information available in the footnote. As you know, several editors are offering a significant olive branch by agreeing to this compromise text in terms of both the wording and agreement to not re-open the issue anytime soon. --Dailycare (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I brought up the stock exchange is because I saw it at the Tel Aviv article and thought it was interesting. Figured the paragraph could encompass interesting stuff about both cities instead of being based on the capital dispute alone. My train of thought was summarizing some too much stuff in four paragraphs to meet WP:LEAD. It looks like it was more than we could chew though and I personally have no problem removing the stock exchange thing. I would love to see some general not conflict related info in the future but we can tackle the poopey stuff first since it is already a challenge.Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is getting out of whack timestamp wise so I'll put this down here. The footnote is not needed. We have prose to do that. We also have at least two other articles for explanation. If it can be put in a foot note then it can just as easily be put in the main body. Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The footnote is needed at least to provide something to link to from the infobox. If there is a way to link from the infobox to a passage in the body of the article, then I don't think there is a problem with moving the contets of the footnote to such a passage. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the suggested change if the definitive statement "Jerusalem is the capital" is included before the international recognition bit. Qualify facts, don't pre-empt them with trivialization. Also, the current wording sounds awkward (the 'as such'). Maybe "Jerusalem is the capital, but this is not recognized internationally". I don't have an opinion on including info on Tel Aviv... it doesn't suggest that Jerusalem is not the capital as long as it SAYS that Jerusalem is the capital. In terms of the footnote, once we insert the information into the body, it becomes superfluous. I strongly oppose to keeping both the body and footnote when they say the same thing. This is WP:UNDUE weight. Breein1007 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But that be the problem. No country in entire world recognize Jerusalem be capital of "Israel" but many country recognize Jerusalem be occupied palestine territory and be capital of future palestine state. So it be infactual and POV to say definitive "Jerusalem is the capital" because, quite frank, it not. Ani medjool (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I feel obligated to remind people that things like countries or capital cities do not come into being solely upon declarations and recognitions. This is only one aspect, and not necessarily the most important. The fact that countries tell Israel: "we don't like the fact that you maintain your capital in Jerusalem", or "move your capital to Tel Aviv", does not make Jerusalem less of an Israeli capital from the factual point of view - it is still where you would find the Israeli center of government. Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that most countries recognized Jerusalem as a Palestinian occupied territory. The UK, for example, like many other countries, maintains that Jerusalem cannot be said to belong to any country for the time being. The EU recently published a vision in which Jerusalem is the capital of both Israel and a future Palestinian state. The PA itself recently published a plan (the "Fayyad Plan") in which it explicitly stated that East Jerusalem (and not all of the city) should become the Palestinian capital. DrorK (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on multiple counts. The UK explicitly says that it considers E. Jerusalem to be occupied territory ([3]). The EU also considers E. Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory ([4]). Most governments in fact do consider E. Jerusalem to be occupied territory and I added a source that makes that clear. The source is written by Adam Roberts and published in the American Journal of International Law. If you would like, many many more sources can be provided. nableezy - 14:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my speculation, but I think Drork was illustrating the complexity of the issue in response to the somewhat black-and-white comment by Ani medjool. I think if we are going to move this forward we have to accept that there are many different ways at looking at this issue, and avoid entrenching positions which only polarize the discussion. In the "On the Table" section we may be seeing some willingness to find a phrasing that may not say everything a given editor believes to be correct, but at the same time doesn't say anything they'd regard as incorrect. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts and peace treaties

It is good to see that the edit warring on the neutrality tags has stopped. There is another tag that needs to be addressed. This is magnified since this is a FA. The Conflicts and peace treaties has a sync template. Is the subsection of appropriate summary style and is the information inline with that seen in the other article We can always remove the tag if everyone disagrees with it.

• I have a few other concerns with it. It almost solely focuses on international relations (which is already another subsection) and the I-P problem. There are other events of historical significance I assume. Should anything be added and should anything be in the related articles or other subsections instead?
• It gets tons of weight with its amount of text compared to a couple subsections. I know many people think it is infinitely more interesting than transportation but rail and roads aren't even mentioned in the other section (I applaud the inclusion of ports). The transportation thing is kind of a change of subject to make a point. Is there too much in the section when compared to others? If so, is that a problem with the other sections and not this one?Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the sync tag there. "Conflicts and peace treaties" is not a summary of Positions on Jerusalem. Is there any conflict between the section and that article? I don't see the point of that tag. okedem (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked to see who put it on there but I think I get what they are getting at. The section is a little long and single pointed. It very well could have some of it broken off into another article or subsection. I'm not really hell bent on it either way. Since the original tagger didn't start a conversation, it might be appropriate to remove it. I do think it should be addressed but I don't know to what extent.Cptnono (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I had added the sync tag to the "Conflicts and peace treaties" subsection because other editors kept insisting that the majority viewpoint, i.e. "that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem are illegal", belongs in some other Wikipedia article. The Security Council resolution on Jerusalem is already mentioned there and that would require the reader to look in a POV fork article in order to determine the majority viewpoint on one of the subjects discussed in that subsection. There is no valid policy objection to the inclusion of a brief summary in this article. harlan (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The original tagger started a hell of a conversation and it is still in the archives. I don't care about the info box, but this article should stop pussyfooting around the word illegal, since it is used in dozens of UN resolutions on this subject. harlan (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I actually spaced looking in the archives. So what exactly would you need to remove the tag?Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I added a sentence which says "The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions which say that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem are illegal and have no validity whatsoever." harlan (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And the tag is gone. Is that acceptable to everybody?Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm broadly OK with this. This section could benefit from some housekeeping however, things like operation opera or grapes of wrath needn't IMO be mentioned, or individual Israeli elections. If this housekeeping is done, the Jerusalem issue may be dealt with a further sentence. --Dailycare (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

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

This isn't my talk page. Anyway, the latest round of discussion does not read that way at all, and it has never read that if you consider the body of all editors interested in this article rather than just the set of editors who want something changed. But even the set of editors who have generally wanted something changed has moderated its position a bit. Under #Lead 2, Tiamut said "If that were adopted, along with the formatting change for the footnote that you have proposed (i.e. (a)), my concerns regarding the article's lack of NPOV on the way this issue is addressed in this article would be alleviated." Similarly, RomaC said "I would support having it stand as "Capital" in the infobox with the link to the footnote subtly re-formatted as suggested ([a]) but without any "declared" or "proclaimed" qualification." Under #On the Table, Dailycare agreed to most of the proposals, all of which either included the footnote at ^[a] or have no footnote at all (he didn't directly address the infobox issue, but it seems heavily implied that all of the proposals include no change to the infobox except a change in footnote format). Obviously, those editors (and, as you can see in #On the Table, there are many of them) who prefer no change at all would prefer the change in formatting over the lengthy explanation you added. So, I think it's safe to say that the footnote format change is better than what you had. If there is any revert on the horizon, it most likely is not going to be back to your proposal, but back to what was there before (^[1]). But I hope people will get over that relatively minor issue. -- tariqabjotu 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this isn't your talk page. It's to discuss the article, which is what I'm doing. :)

I don't know how you can call what I added a "lengthy explanation." It was 13 words -- "the city's status as the capital is disputed, including by the United Nations." I won't push the issue, but it seems odd not to qualify the lead or infobox, given that people are complaining. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The article had a cryptic blurb in the Conflicts and peace treaties section about a Security Council resolution "reigniting the controversy" without so much as a summary of its contents. I added a summary and citation there to the majority viewpoint that Israel's actions are illegal. If you think that belongs in another section of this article feel free to move it. In any event it can now be included in the summary of the lede. harlan (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

In your opinion. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the infobox simply having a clearer link to the footnote (^[a] instead of ^[1]), so long as the first reference to Jerusalem (in the lead, as it stands), includes a brief NPOV qualification of the issues/disputes, something like the suggestions above. This could then be detailed in the body of the article. I don't particularly like this lead-infobox linkage but am prepared to see what happens with the suggestions for fixing the first Jerusalem reference. Of course, if an editor prefers to de-link the discussions or believes that is the proper way to proceed, then they might want to replace the infobox tag. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the current version, with the [a] link. We had a long discussion earlier about the format of the link (yes...) where I suggested [Nb 1] as the link, to elucidate that it leads to a footnote and not a reference, but [a] also makes it clearer that it leads to a footnote. I'm also of the clear opinion that the sentence in the lead must include the qualification. --Dailycare (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm a bit peeved that you would claim that I'm "resisting" clarifying the point in the lead. Your naivete regarding the progress of the discussion, as evidenced by your parenthetical piece, doesn't excuse you from doing the simple task of scrolling up just a couple sections (to the section I referenced repeatedly) and seeing you're wrong. You asked me about my reversion of your change to the infobox, and I explained why I did it. Some of the people who I even named in my explanation came here to corroborate my point. So, what's the problem? I changed your addition to the infobox, based on the discussion you're not following? Please don't extrapolate that to "resistance" to changing anything. Further, I should say your view is merely a drop in a bucket containing opinions made by many over the years, and the course of the article isn't going to change on a dime due to your input. And, as I have suggested, if you look at the sections above, you'd see you're a bit late to the party; save for your second point (which hasn't been raised much before), we're already on our way to doing what you had in mind. -- tariqabjotu 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe SlimVirgin has looked through the discussion? There is not so much to see really, this Talk page and the archives of this discussion, long as they are, show that basically the same "oppose" argument has met any and all attempts to have the article reflect real-world issues/disputes when it introduces Jerusalem as the Israeli capital; to wit, (1) It's simple, Jerusalem fits the dictionary definition of capital; and (2) It doesn't matter what sources or other countries say, because of (1). But, maybe, now we are moving past that. Maybe. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point. I can't speak for anyone else who has, in general, opposed changes to the last sentence of the lead (or the infobox), but I have never, even until now, backed down on either of the points you mentioned. Yes, Jerusalem is the capital, because it fits the dictionary definition, and regardless of what other countries have to say about it. And none of the proposals I supported under #On the Table say otherwise. In the past, it appeared people were primarily in support of proposals that used weasel words like "declared capital", "proclaimed capital", or the solitary "seat of government" term. It appeared, as many of the supporters, including myself, have said, that the issue was primarily with the word capital, and despite beating around the bush, it was clear the million-dollar question was whether the article should say Jerusalem is the capital or not. As can be seen under #On the Table, some people have made it clear that they would accept the article saying Jerusalem is the capital so long as it's adjacent to something else mentioning the lack of recognition. But, as you can also see, there are others who hold firm that the only "neutral" wording is the one or two that do not call Jerusalem the capital, and there are others still who have held that there should be no changes at all, for reasons like undue weight. But I'm in the first group -- the group of editors who have advocated a solution that includes the capital fact and the lack of recognition. And I have been okay with that since Day 1. -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tariq, I'd appreciate it if you could answer the question, rather than going meta. Do you object to clarifying these two issues in the lead: (a) the Jersalem issue, and (b) the issue of how Israel came to acquire certain territory. And if so, why? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, my respect for you is increasing waning. You never asked me any questions -- you merely wrongly accused me of resistance -- so why did you expect me to give you answers to them?

I'm not going to answer your second question for the moment, because I'd prefer we deal with this one at a time. We're on the first question, and despite a bit of back-and-forth at the moment from a few people, I still think we're at the cusp of a resolution that will keep just about everyone happy. Still, however, I'm not going to answer your first question again here. My position has been made known many times before, in far more detail than I would desire to give you now. And, given the discussions I linked to, there has been no point in the history of this article where it has been made clearer than it is now. It's quite simple; if you want to read the ongoing discussions, you should be able to find your answer very quickly. If you don't want to read the ongoing discussions, you're probably not going to understand my position. But, if you prefer not to brief yourself on what has been happening over the last several days, you really have no business participating in the discussion, and so there's no reason for me to enlighten you (further) anyway. -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tariq, I oppose articles being taken to FAR to settle content disputes. I regard it as out of process and unfair. But that means content disputes have to be dealt with on the talk page. It doesn't mean opponents must have their own way—you are the primary author of this, and I respect that because it almost certainly means you've done more research into this than others have. So the assumption of good faith is massively in your favour, as far as I'm concerned.

But you do need to at least address the issues and reply to reasonable questions, and not with ad hominems. Again, I am asking you to explain at least the first issue: do you object to explaining the Jerusalem issue in the lead, and if so why? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't deflect this or bring me into it. FAR wasn't based on content. It was based on edit warring and a lack of consensus over an argument that has been going on since 2003. Figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, we've been at this discussion for weeks now. Tariq doesn't have to repost his position over and over whenever someone decides to join in. He and many others, with various opinions, have explained their positions in detail, and you're free to read them above and in the archives. okedem (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the way Wikipedia works, Okedem. New people arrive and ask the same questions. They're referred to the talk archives, and if they can't find quite the answer they're looking for, they ask it again, and it really needs to be answered. This is especially true when the article is up for featured article status, or where that status is under review. Surely someone can explain in just a sentence or two why there is any resistance at all to explaining the Jerusalem issue in the lead (briefly). SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely not. People don't owe you answers on command, because you can't be bothered to read the discussion. Specifically, this discussion began around here. It continues on this talk page. You'll find everyone's very detailed positions in the discussion. okedem (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't respond with an ad hominem. This section, titled "Infobox", should have begun and ended with the question of the infobox. I explained to you why I replaced what you added with something else, and others have corroborated that point. So, that's done. The capital point, including my position, is mentioned above in an ongoing thread. I don't have to respond to you personally, especially when you don't think it's important to read what others have already said. Don't expect anything else from me down here. -- tariqabjotu 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have done nothing but respond with ad hominems, in fact. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

{{talkheader}} This talk page is for discussion about the article, "Israel". This is not a place to accuse others of ANYTHING. This is not the place to do ANYTHING OTHER than to assume good faith on the part of ALL other editors. If ANYTHING else other than a good-faith-based discussion of improvements to the Israel article must be discussed, then PLEASE take it to an appropriate personal Talk page. One more little gentle reminder: Please note the "Ask questions, get answers" link in the Talkheader template. If someone asks a question about anything that another editor deems inappropriate FOR ANY REASON, then that is ALSO a discussion for the questioning editor's Talk page, not for this page. Thank you very much!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What pogroms?

What "pogroms of Eastern Europe" are the Jews supposed to have fled? The worst before the Russian revolution was Kishinev, 45 killed ie less than half the reduced number accepted for Deir Yassin (itself one tiny fraction of a campaign completely depopulating 400 villages with multiple massacres, several much bigger again). Label "nationalist myths" for what they are, don't parrot them unlimited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.43.30 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On the Table

1) from Tariqabjotu:

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

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

2) from RomaC

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

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

3) from Okedem:

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

4) proposed but later withdrawn by Breein1007

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

5) (adding) from Ravpapa

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

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

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

• Don't forget my original suggestion at #Here is a different approach. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I support any of the options except for (2a), although I think at least a reference (source) is needed if some want to do away with the note. -- tariqabjotu 10:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I don't support Ravpapa's proposal either. -- tariqabjotu 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support 2a, would also support 5. I'd point out that all the others are essentially the same, apart from the issue of the footnote, so we are really choosing between four options. --FormerIP (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not as emotionally invested in this as some other editors seem to be. So I think most the proposals would be fine. Although I don't care for Ravpapa's suggestion. I haven't read all of the discussion here but I think we'd have been better off tempering the two extremes rather than just fusing them together. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support 2a ~Believe it doesn't say everything everyone wants it to say and doesn't say anything anyone doesn't want it to say. RomaC (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support 2a, though I can live with 2b or 1b (though proposed by two different editors, they are the same, right?). 3 & 4 are unacceptable, primarily because they do not have footnotes. 5 is off the table for me now. Its POV in that it stresses only the Jewish people's historic ties to Jerusalem and ignores its importance to Muslims and Christians. It also doesn't address the foonote issue. Tiamut^talk 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Would you mind, then, also including a sentence or two about the Christian importance of Istanbul on the introductory passage there? Or maybe a paragraph or two about the now-extinct Jewish communities of Mecca and Medina in their respective articles? Leifern (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Leifern, those examples are not parallel to this situation. 35% of the current population of Jerusalem (when it includes East Jerusalem, as it does when it referred to in this article) is Palestinian and most of them are Muslim. There is also a large Christian presence, both Palestinian and non-Palestinian, in Jerusalem to this day. I don't see how mentioning the importance of the city to these groups is any way offensive or inappropriate. Indeed, it seems to be what NPOV is all about. Tiamut^talk 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• 1) is blatantly offensive and beneath contempt. I think that it's only fair that the issue of international recognition is unique in human history, and that by denying Israel the right to establish its capital in the city of its choice, even in (supposedly) non-disputed areas, is a gross violation of sovereignty. Anything else is hopelessly biased. Leifern (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What is blatantly offensive, and how? -- tariqabjotu 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just thought I'd point out that it is not really a fringe view, since it is held by the United Nations and all major governments. You might not think these are important, but they are not fringe. --FormerIP (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UGH. Still??? This point has been answered countless times, including to you specifically. Ynhockey even said in his comment, "this still does not require any international recognition, which is irrelevant to a city's status as a capital". Where again do we have evidence that non-recognition usurps a city's status as capital? Or, at least where do we have evidence that most countries that do not recognize Jerusalem as capital are saying Israel has no capital at all? As was said earlier in this thread, we have evidence that Jerusalem fits the definition of capital as Israel's government is based there. And we have evidence that most countries in the world do not recognize it as the capital of Israel. That's why those two points are in most of those proposals. But we have very little evidence that the latter invalidates the former or that the latter implies those countries think Israel's capital is somewhere else or non-existent. What is it that you don't understand about this??? -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Double UGH. That answer didn't make any sense when it was given the first time. That international recognition is irrelevant to identifying a capital is an opinion. Conversely , that international recognition is relevant is also an opinion. That there exists a test by which Jerusalem might be identified to either be or not be a capital city is wrong. The idea that such a test might involve simply asking whether it was a seat of government is false (consider the example of Amsterdam).

My main point is that any yes/no answer to the central question here can only possibly be an opinion. It's about understanding logic. It doesn't make sense to demand verification of opinions in the same way you would for facts. There are divergent mainstream POVs on the question and no one political viewpoint should be presented as factual.

Incidentally, I also wish that editors could take note of arguments such as these in a way that meant the same ground din't have to be repeatedly gone over. --FormerIP (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam is a unique situation as the Netherlands has proclaimed one city as the capital, and treated another as its seat of government. That is not an issue here. And there is something that might identify Jerusalem as the capital or not: it's called a dictionary. -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam is not unique, it is just a well-known example. Yamoussoukro and Porto-Novo are others (I expect that's not the end of the list). There are exceptions and there is no basis on which we can be sure that Israel is not a case in point. My OED defines capital (in the sense we are concerned with as "the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative centre" (my italics). I don't think it is too controversial to suggest that there are unusual factors involved in the the situation viz Israel, which mean that there is at least the possibility that it is not typical. --FormerIP (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this further again. It's been said enough times already, and I'm tired. -- tariqabjotu 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Former has a point. There are several ways that we can identify a capital. One is the state's declaration. Another is the de facto placement of infrastructure. And the third is the much discussed international recognition. Our line or two should have all three. Jerusalem is the declared (Yamoussoukro) and de facto (Abidjan) site that Israel has chosen. So I would tone done the definitive "is the capital" statement to something like "Israel has placed its capital in Jerusalem" which would reflect both. And then the second sentence could explain the non-recognition. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To expand on that, I think we should identify what we are looking for. In my mind there are four elements that we should address. Israel has (A) declared Jerusalem as the capital and (B) made it the de facto place. We also need to say that (C) there is not international recognition of those but (D) that it is pending a division or shared sovereignty with the Palestinian state. I think that any statement missing one or more of these elements is at least a little bit misleading. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JGGardiner, I think you missed a step there, with "And the third is the much discussed international recognition.". We have many, many, sources saying that a capital is the seat of government (like Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Encarta, and others, too many to list, just see here). Several of them say that it's "the official seat of government of a state", which adds the de-jure aspect of a country's laws. Clearly, Jerusalem fulfills that definition. One dictionary, Oxford, adds the "usually". Not a single one of them, nor of any source presented in this or other discussions, says a single word about international recognition. Not "the city international recognized", not "the seat of government, as long as it's recognized", nothing. I looked up "capital" in several encyclopedias, but it didn't have an entry (in the political meaning), implying this really isn't that complicated. The claim that international recognition affects the city's status as capital remains unsourced. Can you present a source to support this notion? okedem (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously. But there are capitals and there are capitals. International recognition is meaningful and can by itself create meaning (just ask the Pope) so it needs to be noted. A capital that is not internationally recognized might still be a capital but it is a certain kind of capital; it would be deficient of us not to note that. The other side of that coin is the type of non-recognition. We shouldn't merely say that recognition has not been forthcoming like this is some Bantustan, we should note that it is a particular kind of non-recognition, pending a settlement of the issues, like Telaviv1 has suggested.

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

You see my point is that we don't need to let Wikipedia abuse us like that. We should really have some discretion to explain these things to the readers. Cause it's really about the readers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Won't anyone please think of the readers?

But - basically, you reject the need for sources by claiming... what exactly? That it's obvious? That it can "create meaning"? Why is it so difficult to present a source explaining that (and why) international recognition is important for a city's status as capital? okedem (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, as seen in the archives of the discussions on this issue, over the last two years you have invariably framed this issue as a matter to be decided not by editors, but by dictionaries:

"'Capital' is a simple word, found in every dictionary." -Okedem 08:26, 21 April 2008

"You can open any dictionary, and look up the definition of "capital." -Okedem 14:02, 7 June 2008

"open a dictionary" -Okedem 20:47, 18 April 2009

"Capital = seat of government (open a dictionary). That holds true for Israel regarding Jerusalem." -Okedem 20:37, 3 August 2009

"Open a dictionary, and look up capital." -Okedem 21:14, 3 August 2009

"A capital is a seat of government, as any dictionary will tell you." -Okedem 21:16, 3 August 2009

"Open a dictionary/encyclopedia, and read what a capital is." -Okedem 14:14, 4 August 2009

"No OR here. Just a simple dictionary definition" -Okedem 16:44, 4 August 2009

"any dictionary will tell you" -Okedem 09:10, 5 December 2009

"Jerusalem...answers the definition of capital (open any dictionary)" -Okedem 17:29, 14 December 2009

"Open a dictionary, see what it says about capital" -Okedem 17:29, 14 December 2009

(There are more...)

Frankly, this approach seems more dismissive than cooperative. Okedem, the moderate proposals presented here do not say that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Rather they seek to clearly reflect in the article the acknowledged and widespread real-world disputes and issues regarding Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, in accordance with Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view and due weight.

I believe we should be looking for a phrasing may not say everything everyone wants it to say, but won't say anything anyone doesn't want it to say. Otherwise we remain at an impasse. I hope a cooperative and constructive atmosphere can continue to develop here, with your participation, so that we can improve this article for Wikipedia readers. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm consistent! And I take pride in your "accusation" there - yes, when using "words" one generally finds "dictionaries" to be a useful source. Indeed, this is what our policy of Verifiability is all about - using sources, not our personal opinions.

Your speech in favor of cooperation is misplaced; your very own list at the top of this section carries a phrasing attributed to me (a bit inaccurately, since I didn't actually submit it as my proposal), the result of some constructive comments I made regarding other suggestions.

If you don't understand what I'm saying or why, you can ask for clarification. My comment here was in regard to JGGardiner's claim about the importance of international recognition ("There are several ways that we can identify a capital... the third is the much discussed international recognition"), not as a direct objection to any of the proposed phrasings. okedem (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and I agree you are extremely consistent. It's the emphasis on dictionaries as sources I find problematic. Dictionaries are tertiary sources, they were not written about Jerusalem. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources such as respected news organizations or peer-reviewed academic papers. At the top of this page Dailycare provided 43 topic-specific secondary sources. Unfortunately, you summarily dismissed all of them. I suggest they deserve consideration. On catch-all definitions -- when Plato defined "man" as a "featherless biped", Diogenes produced a plucked chicken: "Here is Plato's man!" Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We've also seen various sources specifically designating Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, both dictionaries and encyclopedias. Dailycare provided a long list, mixing news articles specifically discussing the conflict (like building in East Jerusalem), which would naturally give lots of emphasis to this, and official government positions (Canada, EU, etc.) which no one disputes. So we know what (1) a capital city is. It's a word in English with a clear definition; and (2) there's no international recognition. What has not been provided is the crucial link - why 2 changes 1. Why, when no source discussing a capital says anything about international opinion, this should be so important just for Jerusalem. I've used dictionaries to define "capital" because this is the first place to look when discussing words. I tried encyclopedias, but they don't seem to have entries on "capital city". I'm not limiting you to these - please, go ahead, find an academic book discussing capital cities, and show me that international recognition is so important. okedem (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, it doesn't seem to me very reaosnable to say "open any dictionary" and then when I open one to say "er, well open a different dictionary". There are a number real world examples where the capital of a country is not its seat of government. This would seem to me to indicate that that the OED is correct to use the phrase "usually the seat of government...", and that any other dictionary which may omit the word "usually" is simply inaccurate. --FormerIP (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I never said anything of the sort. The word "usually" is ambiguous, and for me means it just depends on the country's choice, e.g. it's the seat of government, unless the country chose something else. You claim international recognition is so important for a capital - please provide a source for that assertion. okedem (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this whole conversation is a good example why there is an I-P problem on Wikipedia in the first place. Editors will see their perspective, usually a legitimate one, as is Okedem's here, and see it as the only relevant one. The problem here is that the dictionary only gives you the dictionary definition. The precising definition(s) are a different matter and important as well. So Okedem and others find only the lexical definition to have meaning and some other editors find only the other meaningful. And each excludes the other perspective.

Incidentally, the first dictionary I open up is usually the Wiki one. It actually gives one of its examples, Cardiff, a claim it notes is contentious: "The Welsh government claims that Cardiff is Europe’s youngest capital."[5]

The challenge of editing Wikipedia, and the main reason that I do it, is because it opens your mind to these other perspectives. Entrenching onself in notions already thought to be true is just boring. I'd rather waste my time on PokerStars. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JGGardiner, I'm not discounting alternative definitions - we simply don't have any. The lexical definition is the only one supported by sources. The whole notion that international recognition is important for capitals has been brought forth by editors, but we've yet to see even a single source (e.g. book, academic paper, etc.) to support this. As such, we have a well sourced definition on one side, and editors' personal opinions on the other side. okedem (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that you misunderstand the nature of our sourcing policies. We use a source to substantiate a fact. In this case that fact is that most states do not recognize Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital. It is a simple Rankean process -- we need to know that the sources say that but we don't need them to show their math. We do not require a second source to validate that the first source's observation is important or legitimate. It seems to me that's what you're asking for.

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

And just case you're wondering, I'm not going to be the one to blink and outdent our conversation. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - are you backing off of your previous assertion, that international recognition is part of a capital's definition ("There are several ways that we can identify a capital. One is the state's declaration. Another is the de facto placement of infrastructure. And the third is the much discussed international recognition.")? This is the comment I was addressing. Please clarify - is international recognition a criterion for "capitalhood"? If so, we need sources. It seems to me that what you're saying now is different - it's that, completely separate from the issue of capital, Jerusalem isn't recognized as part of Israel, and when we mention Jerusalem, we should mention that. Or are you saying that for a city to be capital, it needs to be fully recognized as part of the country's territory?

Oh, and outdenting is for cowards. okedem (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, we don't need to be legal scholars or determine "what makes a capital". It's sufficient for us to determine if a certain view is notable and reliably sourced. If it is, it's in. If it's also a notable controversy, it's also in the lead. Do you disagree about any of these three points relative to international non-recognition? --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true. The cowards part. Just between you and me, I once saw that Nableezy guy outdent a conversation when there was still like a 130 character space left. I swear to God. It was crazy. And I didn't say anything cause I'm polite but I was thinking like "dude, why are you even here?"

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

I don't disupute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Actually I should say that I don't personally agree with most of what I say, I just play the Devil's (NPOV) advocate here. But like I said, there are capitals and there are capitals. Ottawa is a capital. Victoria is a capital. But they are different sorts of capitals. Victoria is a provincial capital, Ottawa is a national capital. But Quebec City is also a national capital. So says Quebec City anyway. But it is a different sort of national capital than Ottawa. Looking up the dictionary definition of "person"[6] I see that I'd qualify, as would, I don't know, Ljudevit Posavski. But I am a living person and he is a dead person. Different kinds of people. He's still a person -- of sorts. But he's not the same kind of person that I am. So this is where precising can be useful.

I will concede your point that international recognition alone is not usually a way to identify a capital. I can't really think of a situation where is has occured. On the other hand, if it did it would surely be noteworthy: "Washington is the capital of the US but for some strange reason Indianapolis has been internationally recognized as such." I'd hate to think that some editors would want to ignore that. But even in combination, it is a meaningful quality. It doesn't undo the de facto or declared nature of a capital but it does limit their finality. So Jerusalem is the capital. But it is a kind of capital and I think we should say that. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

JGGardiner, I understand your position. However, at this point, it is just your position. Personally, I disagree with you; for me, if they call it the capital, and it looks like the capital - it is. No disrespect, but unless you happen to be a respectable political scientist, we are going to need some sources backing up your position. Specifically, that lack of international recognition changes the "kind" of capital, that it's important and notable (remember, no one here is suggesting removing this information from the article - it's there; we're just discussing notability for the lead of this article. In Jerusalem the topic gets a whole paragraph in the lead). Surely some work was written on this subject, if this is the case. okedem (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Oh, come on. There was half the page available!

Anyway - "you're now OK with having the material in the article"? Have you been reading my comments here? I've always been for having this in the article; when others claimed that users are trying to "omit" this information, I pointed out that's it's already in the article's body, and rightfully so.

It's notable for Jerusalem, which is why it's in the lead there. The general state of conflict and disputed territories is notable, which is why it's in the lead here (by the way, I was the one who added a section on the territories in this article - no else bothered to, and it was obviously important enough). The capital issue is just a part of the general territorial conflict, and not the most important one - for instance, no one is really suggesting that Jerusalem would cease being the capital of Israel, under any future settlement. If something isn't notable, it won't be in the article at all. We can't write every notable piece of information in the lead, and this one is quite minor (with regards to the whole country, which is the subject of this article, not the city). okedem (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the material was in the footnote, not so much in the article. Anyway, WP:LEAD says that notable controversies go in the lead, and the one about Jerusalem's status qualifies as notable since reliable secondary sources often comment that Jerusalem isn't recognized as the capital, and looking at the websites of several Western countries' foreign ministries, (Positions on Jerusalem) they also make a point to note it. The point I made about moving embassies away, and several UN resolutions, also remains on the table. If we mention Jerusalem in the lead, then this should be mentioned as well. If we don't mention Jerusalem in the lead, then the argument that the issue isn't notable is stronger. Is it a major point that Jerusalem is the capital? If no, we can omit to mention it in the lead entirely. If we do mention, then the qualification should be there too. --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The information is in the article, under "Occupied territories".

We list Jerusalem in the lead because it's standard to list to capital in the lead of a country article. The dispute and conflict is already mentioned, in paragraph three. The Jerusalem issue is part of the conflict. Your justification for this being a "notable controversy" is not convincing. There are controversies about everything. We write the notable ones in the article. It's important for Jerusalem's lead, not Israel's. okedem (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe Okedem's suggestion that the Jerusalem issues are not notable enough to go in on first reference is not convincing either. The issues are more than notable, they are extraordinary: "No major foreign government has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (New York Times), and there are 42 more such sources at the top of this Talk page -- can you point to another country-capital issue on earth that even comes close? I agree with Dailycare if Jerusalem were not in the lead we could hold off mention of the issues until lower in the article. Okedem, your reasoning against this possibility is incorrect: there are number of country articles that do not name the capital city in the lead, Canada and Poland for instance. But, I support having Jerusalem identified in the lead with a mention of the non-Israeli POV, as communicated in the On the Table options below. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"extraordinary" - let's not get carried away. You can say it's unique, but many other things, about every country, are unique, and we don't mention them in the lead. It has nothing to do with the "Israeli-POV" as you call it. The fact that other countries don't recognize it, and don't like it being the capital, doesn't mean it isn't. It means they don't want it to do; it means they think Israel's actions are not legitimate. But they can do nothing to change the fact that it is the capital, and you've never presented a single source that says anything about international recognition and capitals, meaning - international recognition is irrelevant for a capital. okedem (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me present a hypothetical, Okedem: Israel takes over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are declared new mehozot in an "Eretz Israel" law defining the area from the Mediterranean to the Jordon River as Israel's eternal and indivisible territory. No other country recognizes this and the UN screams bloody murder.

Now, would you also have this article introduce Eretz Israel as an unqualified fact? And present Judea, Sumaria and Gaza as administrative districts, unqualified? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. If you'll remember, I didn't object to having the "largest city in Israel" title removed, as too many of the resident are in EJ. There are enough sources explaining the status of territories and their legality. You haven't presented a single one regarding international recognition and capitals, leaving us with only the simple, dictionary definition. This means international recognition is just another, quite minor, detail. okedem (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Okedem, it's not an analogy, it's a hypothetical. Humor me. RomaC (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought my answer was clear from the largest city thing. Anyway, I'll explain it further - even if there were such a law, I would still be for presenting the dispute over those territories. However, Jerusalem isn't the capital because of the Jerusalem law, as I've been saying for a long time, but because it is the seat of government. The location of the seat of government is purely factual (it's there, or it isn't), and questions of legality are irrelevant to it. okedem (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah I didn't get the "largest city" thing maybe I'm not as sharp as I used to be. Anyway thanks for explaining, Okedem, and helping me understand your position. I'm heartened that you say if Israel were to take over the West Bank and Gaza, and declare Judea, Sumaria and Gaza as new administrative districts (and the UN and all other countries rejected this); you would support qualifications when the article introduced all this. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I thought you stubborn, that is a reasonable position. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that you (Okedem, this outdenting sucks) do understand my "position". Actually it looks like when you use the term, you're wrongly bundling together my opinion on the matter with the edit that I advocate. I should say that my opnion happens to be more like what you've suggested. But I'm trying to write the article from a neutral point-of-view here so I've suggested an edit that does not reflect my personal opinion, at least not exclusively.

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

Now, as an olive branch, I suggested that we could say that even if Jerusalem is not the capital, as the non-recognizers do, we might still say it is something like the de facto capital. The non-recognizers do not say that -- they simply say it is not the capital. But I thought it might not be inconsistent with their position to say that Jerusalem still operates as the capital so I offered that as an incentive so that we could go some way to toning down what both sides here considered offensive. I would like a definitive "is the capital" statement toned down to say it is de facto and declared but I'd also like the non-recognition toned down, as per Telaviv1 to note that it is pending a peace settlement. Ultimately this is a weighting issue. The two positions both seem to have enough support that they should both be included. I'm just suggesting that we do our readers a favour and explain them as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

JGGardiner, when I say "your position" I mean the position you present regarding the edit you want to make. I don't know your personal opinion, and have no real interest in it (don't take that as hostile or anything - it's just not relevant).

If you want to say it's the de-facto capital, you need to present a sourced definition of such a thing. I haven't seen any definition of that, and Jerusalem does fit the definition of "capital", sans qualification. We judge these things by the sources - it fits the definition of capital, it is named as capital by many respectable sources. That's quite enough. We work by sources, not by people's personal views. okedem (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to say it is the de facto capital. I was just explaining that the olive branch I'd offered preserved something like that. If we're going by sources, NPOV demands that we note both. From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Your proposal would suspend the proportionate facet of NPOV in the lead. I agree with you that we have many sources that say it is the capital. But we also have many that say no so we have to say it is not. NPOV demands that we not pick one of these sides over the other.

Dictionary definitions are unimportant in this equation because your interpretation is subjective and inherently OR. Other editors might say it does not fit the definition or that other things are important. Wikipedia didn't want to let half-wits like us decide the truth over the external sources. You might think that the facts obviously support your conclusion but if they did, then the sources would all agree. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the proportion of sources saying it isn't the capital is minuscule. They either say it's the capital, or say it is, but unrecognized. okedem (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the proportion of sources that say something like "Israel claims it's the capital" is large. Anyway, I realized that one of the sources I collected above (#20) says that Jerusalem's status is one of the "central controversies" in the Middle-East, which clearly meets "notable controversy" mentioned in WP:LEAD. I assume that the issue is now settled - this does go in the lead, and just the wording remains to be selected. For example TA's second formulation is, as noted, OK by me. I also located another source, which discusses the very issue of Jerusalem's capital status:

• Link1 "Jerusalem must not be used as a metonym or variant for Israel. It is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital, and its status is one of the central controversies in the Middle East." (The Times)
• Link2 "Perhaps no issue in the long Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more sensitive than Jerusalem, to which both sides lay claim." (New York Times)

--Dailycare (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an important controversy, sure. But as your second quote says - it's an important issue of the conflict. We will not turn this article into one about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Your first link is their style guide. They can make whatever choices they want, for various reasons (for instance, they might choose this position to help their reporters work in Arab countries). okedem (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the aspect I have never understood. Jerusalem is the capital, the term "Jerusalem" includes occupied East Jerusalem when people use that word (correct me if I'm wrong if that is not what people here mean by "Jerusalem" is the capital), therefore "Jerusalem" is directly related to the conflict and the conflict is part of Jerusalem in a quite literal sense of real people and places living with conflict. The sources deal with this spatial/recognition conundrum in various ways after they've said 'It's the capital' but it seems that we are still having trouble facing up to this complexity. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The style guide reflects their editorial policy, in that sense it's even better than individual articles. Concerning your other point, are you suggesting we not mention Jerusalem's possible capital status in the lead? I mean, if we say that Israel claims Jerusalem as their capital (or use the present wording), then we've brought that into the scope of the article and we can't not mention the controversy, per WP:LEAD. --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If Jerusalem were an oil field it would be distinctly odd not to mention in the development plan, prominently in the introduction, that not all of it is in Israel, that a joint venture would be required to develop the field and that there's a bit of conflict over who owns the oil. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

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

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

Thanks for your proposal Telaviv1, commenting on it there may be a WP:V issue since it gives the impression that non-recognition is due to the status of East Jerusalem whereas it's actually due to the partition plan and the corpus separatum. I do however agree with the point that a deal with the Palestinians would in practice resolve the non-recognition issue (not to mention a host of other issues as well).

Suggestion on the footnote: One way to deal with the footnote issue is to remove the footnote, but retain the [a] link as a link to the Positions on Jerusalem page, like this: Jerusalem^[a] (in lead and infobox, combined with 1B or 2A). --Dailycare (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC) --Dailycare (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Oppose all Jerusalem is not capital of Israel, to say other wise be violation of NPOV and express anti-Palestine POV. After all, whole world recognize east jerusalem as occupy Palestine territory and whole world recognize east jerusalem be future capital of Palestine.

Maybe this option work: "Israel claim Jerusalem as it capital but this not recognized by international community. International community recognize East Jerusalem as capital of future Palestine state."

I try reach middle ground here, because i not believe Jerusalem as capital at all, but I will try compromise with above option. Maybe other see my attempt and join me. Ani medjool (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But E. Jerusalem isn't in Israel.[7] Cptnono (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But Israel say East Jerusalem be part of Israel and it say it capital be ALL of Jerusalem not just west part of city. It also say Jerusalem be undividable. So must make clear that East Jerusalem not recognize as part of Israel and that whole world recognize East Jerusalem as future capital of Palestine, but none of world recognize ANY part of Jerusalem as claimed capital of Israel.Ani medjool (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the difference provided above if you haven't had the chance.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong preference between 3 and 4. Those don't have the footnote so I like them. A link to the positions on Underused page as mentioned is fine. A line in the main article is also necessary.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like any of the initial offerings. I think Telaviv1 is onto something interesting, though I'm not sure I like the exact wording of his/her suggestions. IronDuke 00:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all initial suggestions. The simple fact is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and any other description would be misleading to the readers. Tons of reliable sources state this simple fact, and the ongoing debates regarding this issue are astonishing. The recognition by other countries has no bearing here, as Israel, as a sovereign country, is the only country that can choose its capital. The recognition issue, as a minor issue, may be addressed in the article, but definitely not in the lead. Noon (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong Noon. 3 and 4 clearly sate is it the capital. I think there might be a weight issue if editors still don't like it. If there is a weight issue, what is the best way to present it (assuming some alteration is necessary)? Cptnono (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So do 1 and 2b... basically every one except RomaC's first proposal and Ravpapa's proposal that was already rejected. -- tariqabjotu 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose all as currently written, per Noon. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all. Upon further thought, I withdraw my suggestion above. You can keep it up there in case somehow consensus decides it is the best one, but I do not support it anymore. Upon reading WP:UNDUE again, I have realized that it would be inappropriate to phrase the lead in this matter. The issue of recognition should be covered in the body, but it is clearly NOT suitable for the introduction to the article. Breein1007 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein, If we applied WP:UNDUE like that, it would be the minority view (Jerusalem is the capital) that would be left out, not the majority view (The proclamation of Jerusalem as capital is null and void). But we're supposed to include all significant viewpoints. --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because recognition (or lack thereof) is a minor issue. The major issue at hand is the identification of the country's capital. This is seen time and time again on other country's articles here on Wikipedia. Giving this minor issue major status by including it in the lead is a violation of WP:UNDUE, in favour of a minor issue that doesn't belong in the introduction. On the other hand, if we IGNORED the issue altogether in the article, that would violate UNDUE the way you said above. That would be an issue because it IS a viewpoint, and therefore DOES deserve mention within the article itself. Past that, I'm not arguing this point with you any more, because we are repeating past discussions. I have made my vote and explained my opinion. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If, as many editors have come here to say, only the Israeli POV matters on this issue, then the appropriate phrasing would be Jerusalem is Israel's eternal and indivisible capital. RomaC (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit that my preference would be to explicitly state that the Israeli position is 'Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel' so that it is absolutely clear what the word Jerusalem means when we use it in the article as the name of a capital city and what it is that is not recognised by the international community, described as being null and void/against international law or whatever. Maybe it's just me that finds the undefined and ambiguous nature of the term Jerusalem troubling. Telaviv1's suggestion seems to be the only one that tries to directly address this ambiguity. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped that not accommodating a footnote would take away some of the weight concerns. The cute highlights show that all clear say "capital" but it now looks like it is an overall weight concern for some editors. Is there anyway to make a mention of the international community's feelings on this in the lead? If "no" say so now so we are not wasting time. If yes, what would not give the disclaimer too much weight?Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Israel's consensus?

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

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

And in the infobox:

• capital = Jerusalem (in accordance with the Jerusalem Law)^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

— WP:Lede

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

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

No, this doesn't satisfy. We have a long discussion here, feel free to join it.

The city's capital status is from long before the Jerusalem law, from the 1949 decision to make it the capital (realized in 1950), and from it being home to Israel's government. To say "in accordance with the Jerusalem law" is very inaccurate. okedem (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, Paine_Ellsworth. Impressed that you took the time to read through the discussion, thank you. It is my hope that the article will benefit from the fresh perspective of a hitherto uninvolved editor. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nice to have some new NPOV eyes on the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

On the fence if I liked the edit but nice work going for it! I just opened up an FAR based on the tag being back and forthed again along with the quest for consensus becoming bogged down and a few other issues. Hopefully additional perspective from some others will help. The other issues mentioned should not be too hard to address within two weeks.Cptnono (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I'm very disappointed that you opened a review with complaints you've never bothered raising here, about dead links, "alt text", etc. All articles require maintenance, and if you can't do it yourself, you can raise it on the talk page. okedem (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we delist JPost as an RS to punish them for moving to their new dysfunctional .NETASP site ? I've already repointed a number of refs at cached articles (not here though) but there must be hundreds, possibly thousands to be fixed. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are taking it that way Okedom. The transport, edit warring, citation needed tags, neutrality tags, and sync tags are all things I brought up. Adding additional criticism on the alt tags, nonbreaking spaces, and dead links were all just additional things I noticed. I also brought this up on the 29th[8] and there was not improvement while edit warring continued. The current discussion in the lead has turned into several "strong oppose" so I did not see it getting fixed. The point of the FAR is not to delist the article but to improve it. After a review period (which has already resulted in another editor bringing up the image description concerns and external links), there may be an opportunity to voice any thoughts on if FA status should be removed. For now, we should focus on not edit warring and cleaning it up. As I have said over there, I do not think it would pass an FA review right now. I also will be working on getting the article to par so it isn't me giving anyone here the finger or trying to screw it.Cptnono (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Most featured articles promoted more than two years ago would not pass an FAC today, but they aren't all sent to FAR. If problems are long-standing -- e.g. they've been raised a few times and continually remain -- or if the article is just downright bad (a point you haven't even tried to argue), yes, they go to FAR. All of the issues you raised would have been fixed within days if you had made it known that you actually cared about alt text, image descriptions, and the like. The only time you have mentioned FAR is when you have said (to the effect of) "if you don't resolve this capital issue now, I will bring this to FAR". And if that is the impetus of the FAR, you chose a bad time. -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well this one was. There are several issues. The capital thing is a big part of it but the edit warring was even bigger. I also disagree with your take on the ongoing discussion. It appeared to me to be digressing so the timing seemed right. The article isn't stable and there are several tags. Apologies if it hurts your feelings. The intent was to improve the article and that appears to be happening so I am quite happy with how it is turning out. Like I have repeatedly stated, the goal isn't to delist the article.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, your "On the Table" contribution is:

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

Apparently you don't feel the need for mention here of "The Jerusalem Law" in support of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel. Nor do you seem to support the mention of Tel Aviv. I truly do not understand why you would not be in favor of the brief mention of the Jerusalem Law, which is the culmination of all that's happened from 1949 to now. It actually supports your thoughts about Jerusalem! Why would you be against its mention?

On a separate issue, I still do not see the need for the footnote, but if it remains, shouldn't it be placed in a section separate from the inline citations?

==Notes==
 a. ^ The Jerusalem Law states that . . .

==References==
{{reflist}}

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

===The Jerusalem Law===

Main article: Jerusalem Law

Not to be confused with Jewish religious law (Halakha).

This would be far less distracting and confusing than the use of a single footnote. Also, be gently reminded that, if the trend is moving toward use of these older footnotes and making more of them, if I remember correctly, they are not automatically sequenced as are the {{reflist}} citation notes. This can become complicated for future editing.

These are my objective thoughts as an editor who's been "uninvolved". Thank you Okedem, RomaC, Sean.hoyland and Cptnono for your comments, thank you very much! This article is in good hands, and I'm certain that consensus can be reached in order to maintain this article's FA status.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... You keep saying "Jewish Law", but surely you mean the "Jerusalem law"? The one saying Jerusalem is the "eternal undivided capital"?

NOTE: Instances of "Jewish Law" when "Jerusalem Law" was meant have been altered by Paine.

"Nor do you seem to support the mention of Tel Aviv" - Not I, nor anyone else here objected to the mention of Tel Aviv ("... is the financial center..."), and so it's not being discussed above. The conflict is about the Jerusalem sentence, not Tel Aviv.

Now, if when saying "Jewish law" you mean the Jerusalem law, I'll explain why I don't support mentioning it. This law is from 1980; Jerusalem is the capital from 1950. The law merely reiterates what already was, with the emphasis on the undivided part. Both the declarative aspect of Jerusalem's "capitalhood" does not depend on it (government decision, Dec 1949), nor the factual aspect (seat of government from 1950). So - it's really not very important here. okedem (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, so sorry, as I started out using the correct name of "Jerusalem Law" and then became confused when I read about the religious "Jewish law". I now understand that your omission of the part about Tel Aviv in your "On the table" contribution did not construe objection to the financial center's inclusion.

So if there is no mention in the lede about the Jerusalem Law, this seems to satisfy you? In fact, by asking for "no footnote", it seems that you feel that no mention of this law should be included at all? I can understand your thinking that the title of "capital" for Jerusalem does not depend upon the JL, however I still cannot reconcile this thought with any need to completely omit information about the JL. And since it's still surrounded by significant controversy, it probably should be minimally summarized in the lede. So it is my feeling that your objection must go deeper than that. How can you be so adamant about absolutely no inclusion of the JL? It seems to me that including info about the Jerusalem Law is more NPOV than omitting it. I could be wrong.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  09:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I objected to this edit, which seemed to say that it's the capital because of the law. As I explained, that's not true. The Jerusalem law itself is of little importance; it is covered in the article, and I see no reason to waste space on it in the lead. Even before the JL Jerusalem's status as capital wasn't recognized. It was just that the JL was sort-of "in your face", so the UN specifically addressed it. But it's really to the most important thing here. With Israel, everything is a significant controversy. It's a controversial topic, and a controversial article. The lead cannot possibly cover all of it. okedem (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Reuters in today's news: Citing biblical roots to the city, Israel regards all of Jerusalem as its "indivisible and eternal capital," a claim that has not been recognized internationally. This seems a phrasing that acknowledges both Israeli and Palestinian/World positions, we could look at it per an apparent new flexibility from some editors who have thusfar opposed clarification/qualification. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Okedem in that the Jerusalem Law isn't central in itself, since Israel considered Jerusalem to be it's capital already before it, and the world also rejected Israel's claim already before the JL. The main points are that Israel claims Jer is the capital, and that the world rejects this, and if both are mentioned in the lead, I'd be OK. Okedem, are you proposing that we just omit the mention of Jerusalem fron the lead? I'd be OK with that too. --Dailycare (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, RomaC suggested this, and I objected and still do. okedem (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okedem when I asked above if you would have the article qualify a hypothetical Israeli annexation of and declaration of new administrative districts in Gaza, Judea and Samaria; you said "I would" and so I thought this discussion was getting somewhere vis à vis your assumed veto power on edits to this article (on which I think editors have been very patient and accommodating). But now it seems you are saying that the international Jerusalem-as-capital positions are minor and not noteworthy, but the Israeli position should be in the lead. As you displayed such a reasonable position in saying that you would support the qualification of Gaza, Judea and Samaria as declared administrative districts, I don't get it. Can you please explain. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as in most discussions on the topic here, my position was supported by a majority of editors, your accusation that I have "veto power" is nonsensical, and you know it. I don't feel like explaining any further to someone who makes such claims against me. okedem (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit)I was asking you a question -- what gives? You would support qualifying the Israeli-declared administrative districts Judea and Samaria; but opposed qualifying the Israeli-declared capital of Jerusalem? The exact same arguments could be made against either, ie. "Where is a source that says international recognition is required for the borders of states, provinces or administrative districts..." Anyway, I see that finally a qualification was made on the introduction of Jerusalem, and the footnote link was formatted for clarity -- and this earth-changing edit only took what three years? Peace.RomaC (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

External links

• The links came up at FAR but have been swallowed up by the capital thing. It appears to me that we have too many. The "Media" links already get linked to one way or the other in the body. They might be a good precursor to a future section. For now, do we need them all listed there?
• Do we need the extra maps?
• Do we need the individual government ministries listed? This also might be better spelled out in the prose but is too much for EL.

Cptnono (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I removed some links from the "Government" section - I left one each for the three branches of government (executive, legislative and judiciary), two offices oriented towards foreign audiences (foreign affairs, and tourism), and the statistics bureau, because it's so full of good info. This seems reasonable to me.

Of the maps I removed UT Austin, which is just the standard CIA map - we have a better one in the article. Also removed hweb - doesn't seem too useful, and I don't understand what that site is. okedem (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We had the exact same thing in mind there. What about Media? Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I removed a couple of links from there. Left the three major papers that publish in English, and the government body. That seems reasonable to me. okedem (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be trimmed more but that might just be personal preference and keeping those doesn't take away from quality.Cptnono (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

lead question

Is there a reason the word "occupied" does not occur one time in the lead? nableezy - 17:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And where's the word "pineapple"?

Must we use a specific term, to show how evil Israel is? The territories are clearly mentioned. okedem (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing a state of belligerent occupation recognised by the Supreme Court of Israel with a pineapple. It's certainly a novel approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a link to Israel-occupied territories in the lead. Perhaps we should make it bold and blinking? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it say pineapple ? If not I've mostly lost interest in this issue. It was mainly the mention of fruit. Oh there it is, it says controls territories like with a remote. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It may look fine to you, but it refers to the occupied territories in the following way: "in consequence controls territories ...". Why not just have it be "in consequence occupies territories ..."? nableezy - 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

<- Also, how about, "though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success." ? I'm a fan of understatement but "Have so far been unsuccessful" is probably closer isn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians", is POV. Maybe some see "efforts to resolve conflict", maybe some see a wall, blockade and bombings. Just say Israel remains in conflict with the Palestinians. RomaC (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be so negative. Let's look at it from the beginning of the peace process (Oslo) - the concept of a Palestinian State has been recognized by Israel, and Israel recognized by the Palestinians; Palestinians have (limited) self-rule over most of the population (Gaza, most/all of the cities). The future is murky, and the present certainly isn't what we'd like it to be, but I think we're much closer to ending the conflict than we were before Oslo, when Israel directly controlled everything. okedem (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Very tiring. The issue is there. It doesn't say "occupy" or "apartheid" or any other buzzword, but the point is made. Made much better than in other articles regarding controversial territories; Morocco doesn't even mention Western Sahara in the intro. Kashmir is nowhere in the intro of India and Pakistan. People's Republic of China doesn't have Tibet mentioned anywhere in its lead and, insofar as I can tell, the conflict regarding it is mentioned nowhere in the article. There's a lot that isn't said in various articles' intros; we shouldn't be complaining about one word when the point about it is made clearly, and many times later on in the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel tired (well, not really), but this is not about buzzwords and other such nonsense. We have seen the argument on the use of the word "capital" where a number of users, the two of included, arguing that because a. sources say it, and b. it fits the definition, that we should use the "buzzword" capital (neither "capital" or "occupied" are buzzowrds, and comparing that to "apartheid" is just silly). Military occupation is well-defined and any number of sources can be brought saying conclusively that Israel occupies the territories it seized in 67. Yet that word is unacceptable but capital is just fine. I would say I am tired of the rank hypocrisy displayed here, but I surprisingly am used to it and it no longer tires me. The lead should include notable controversies; perhaps the most notable controversy about Israel is its more than four decades of occupation of Arab territory. The idea that we should whitewash that to say "control" when the sources are clear on this point is plainly bogus. Regarding those other article, I am not working on them. I am working on this one, and this one needs to include mention of the fact that Israel occupies these territories. nableezy - 19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're just bringing this up to make a point? Okay, got it. Not interested. -- tariqabjotu 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am bringing this up to change the article to reflect the sources. The word "occupies" should be used in place of "controls". And if you are not interested go be annoying somewhere else. nableezy - 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I go away for two weeks hoping that Nableezy is behaving himself and come back to find that his main point of interest still does not involve improving aritles on this project but rather making sure that Israel and Israeli topics do not have a good image. If only Nableezy would invest at least an equal amount of time in improving Islam-related articles, as he does on Israeli articles, that would afford respect, but time and time again shows that all he cares about is not improving Islam's image or anything else but tarnishing Israel's. So, especially based on Tariqabjotu's comparison of other countries' articles' leads, I deem this 'lead question' proposal as a tragic reflection of the editor's objectives and motivations. --Shuki (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deem whatever you like. Why should I be concerned with "improving Islam's image"? And how is including the verifiable fact that Israel occupies this territory "tarnishing Israel's [image]"? And finally, why should this article not include perhaps the most notable controversy about Israel in the lead? Perhaps you should be less concerned with "improving Israel's image" and start caring about writing a NPOV reference work. nableezy - 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See, all you care about is controversy and your editing hypocrisy. All I have to do is go to your beloved Chicago and I do not see any controversy in the lead and we know there is no lack of controversial information. Scroll down and we see this juicy item, The Potawatomi were eventually forcibly removed from their land following the Treaty of Chicago in 1833. If you want to show that you really care about NPOV (as you claim) that you will add that info to the lead at Chicago. Frankly, in contrast, I don't have to justify my editing history to you. I have been caring about improving all articles I edit since my first day here. It's too bad you can't claim the same thing. It's never too late to turn over a new leaf. --Shuki (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you learn what the word hypocrisy means. And the information on the Potawatomi being removed from Chicago (and the city is "beloved", I couldnt care less about the article) probably should be in the lead. And I refuse to pay any attention to you of all people claiming that my edits are not NPOV. You have no idea what that concept is, so please dont try to educate others on topics that you are so clearly ignorant of. But, back to the point. I am still waiting for a single person to explain why the most notable controversy about Israel is not spelled out in the lead. If you could try and do that and stop commenting about what you think about me that would just be great. nableezy - 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the nableezy. Occupied must at least be mention, other wise it only offer one POV and not the POV of Palestine and rest of entire world. Ani medjool (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whenever people raise serious issues about the use of language and policy compliance they are met with dimwitted distractions, partisan nonsense and wilful ignorance of the discretionary sanctions. For example, Shuki, sorry to single you out but there was nothing necessary or helpful in what you wrote. At least Okedem responded with his measured and sensible "Well, I wouldn't be so negative..." explanation and the pineapple reference was at least funny rather than nasty. Can't we do better than this ? We are just meant to use words based on prevalence in RS. It doesn't require the use of any emotions. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Dimwitted distractions" and "partisan nonsense"? Coming from you that's pretty rich. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Did I exclude myself ? If so it was unintentional. I did use the word 'we'. It's always funny to be treated as something you're not. It happens a lot here especially when it comes to the I-P conflict here. Ask for policy compliance, you become a Hamas supporter. Being partisan is a measurable thing. You can look at my edits and do a policy compliance analysis anytime you want. If you find that I've been creating policy compliance problems that I'm not aware of let me know, I won't mind. Nableezy already told me to stop hating Muslims. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you get tired of trying to be funny all the time? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, tariqabjotu is the one who is tired. But I wonder about Sean and his indefatigable policy-pushing. Being pro-Wikipedia can sap one's energy in this topic area, don't you agree? RomaC (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-Wikipedia"? Now you're being funny without even trying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "pro-Wikipedia" as in believing in the project and editing dispassionately. What's so funny about that? RomaC (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody actually address the issue here? nableezy - 13:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's funny because it's exactly the opposite of what you do.

Anyway, I addressed the issue above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? That is interesting, as the only thing of any substance, and it is not much, that you have written in this section is "looks fine to me". Would you care to try again? And sorry, but I cant take you seriously when you say I am not addressing the issue; I raised the issue Sherlock. nableezy - 15:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you did not address it, Watson. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Then learn to properly indent. You directly replied to my request that people address the issue with it's exactly the opposite of what you do. nableezy - 17:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had problems figuring out who I was talking to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

<- I will. Is there any policy based reason not to change it to "in consequence occupies territories ? Changing it would seem to increase compliance with several policies in my view but I've been wrong before. 'Occupies' is the word that more accurately reflects the sources, no ? It has higher compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DUE and most of all WP:COMMON. This is not about whether anyone here thinks a territory is occupied or whether it hurts anyone's feelings or whether it makes Israel look evil or victorious. I suggest that any comments that do not address this question in a focused, constructive, reasoned, policy compliant way are moved out of this area. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please just change "control" to "occupy". It's not worth this. -- tariqabjotu 17:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to take Nableezy seriously with his OR the most notable controversy about Israel. Can you get consensus on that claim? I don't believe that controversy should be in the lead of most articles in general unless the controversy is the main part of its (person, place, object, event) existence. Israel no different on this. --Shuki (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Source for Jerusalem capital

Since I know this discussion will come up again in the future, I just wanted to record this source that states unequivocally that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. [9] Breein1007 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Autonomous Oblast

How come in this entire article, not even the see also section, not one single word is mentioned about the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? Although the similarities - a piece of land designated specifically for Jews in modern times.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How come? Because it's a forgotten failed experiment. The Jewish population there never even came close to a majority (the article states that in 1939, there were 17,695 Jews there, 16% of the population). Whatever Jewish nature it had was mostly destroyed by Stalin. It's an interesting anecdote, but it has nothing to do with Israel (both now, and back before the establishment of the state). okedem (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

Fellow editors,

Please pull together, and add alt text to the images in this article, per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. We had alt text for all of them, but then many pictures were replaced or added, and now they need new alt text.

Please pick a few pictures, and fix them. This link shows which pictures lack alt text.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Half of the problem is that there are too many pictures. I fail to understand how people who keep adding pictures are unable to see that they are overloading the article. If pictures begin to encroach on following sections on 1280px- and 1024px-wide screens or if you get a solid wall of images (back-to-back along the right or left), there are too many pictures. It's really not that difficult, and I'm tempted to categorically remove every picture Gilabrand unnecessarily added to the already well-illustrated article. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are offensive. You don't have a monopoly over this article - as I have told you in the past, and will repeat again. This is something that you have been accused of in the past, by the way, scaring off other editors. I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate it. My additions to the article (including photos) have improved it in every way. In fact, you have never been to Israel and are not even qualified to decide what photos should represent it. A featured article on a country should have a fair sampling of photos that represent its different features - not just political maps.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gilabrand regarding the inclusion of photos. Photos enhance articles tremendously and convey information that text cannot, no matter how well it is written. "A picture is worth a thousand words" -- while it is cliche phrase, its a saying that could not be more true than in this instance. nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow; I can't believe you're arguing with me on this. I'm not monopolizing the article; I made the very simple point that you need to be conscious about the number of pictures already in the article before adding more. If something is already well-illustrated or adding another picture will cause there to, for example, be three images illustrating the four-paragraph geography section, you don't need to add your image. On high- (but not uncommonly high-) resolution monitors, the images you added a couple weeks ago resulted in a solid wall of images along the right side from the top of the "Geography and climate" section down to the bottom of the "Foreign relations" sub-section as well as from the top of the "Demographics" section to the bottom of the "Sport" section. It seems you paid no attention to the aesthetics of the article or the fact that adding images pushed other pertinent images away from the content they were supposed to be illustrating, thereby reducing their relevance. Despite what appears to be your understanding of image use guidelines, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be stacked full of images simply because they look good. You're obviously not taking my word for it, so I'll quote directly from our guidelines:

You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place... When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers. -- Wikipedia:Layout#Images

Therefore, consider most of the images removed. Further, I should note that you have made the point many times before that because certain people have never been to Israel, they are not qualified to work on the article. That is absolutely ridiculous, and I should add that your assumption regarding me is demonstrably false. Don't pose arguments like that if you have no basis for them. -- tariqabjotu 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the claim that there are "too many pictures," please see other featured city articles: New York has 36 photos + a collage of several photos in the introduction and Germany has no less than 52 images. At the moment, Israel has 32 (3 of them maps).--Gilabrand (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's largely about aesthetics. Both Germany and New York City have the images well-placed and spaced out evenly so that there's room for them. That contrasts to here where we had three images illustrating "Geography", a short section, or images illustrating sections that are shorter than the height of the picture itself (at 1280px-wide, and even in some cases, 1024px-wide screens). It's not about numbers. In fact, I would argue that the image layout on Germany is better that on New York City (particularly in the latter's History section). -- tariqabjotu 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The current photos depict Israel as a barren desert. The Kinneret has disappeared, the Bahai gardens have disappeared, the Judean hills and cypress trees have disappeared, the peace treaty with Jordan has disappeared, the Jordan river has disappeared, Orthodox Jews have disappeared. The arguments for removing these photos are unconvincing. My suggestion regarding consensus was snidely rebuffed. --Gilabrand (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Few of those images helped alleviate the desert image. The Haredi image was in a desert too. The Bahai Garden image has been a long-standing image, located in the Religion section, but you decided to move it a section ("Tourism") it doesn't really depict (and isn't long enough to have a picture), and add a different, less-colorful, more ho-hum image to the Religion section. That's not my doing. -- tariqabjotu 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand, I appreciate the effort you put into finding nice images for this article. Many of them do help - but Tariqabjotu is right - it's too many pictures. Now, you may disagree, but your attitude here is unacceptable (mostly, but not limited to, your attacks on Tariq). Your "image-blitz" was problematic for another reason - this article is currently undergoing a review for the Featured Article status. One of the new criteria for FAs is alt text. The fine editors here spent a while writing alt text for all the images, and then you come and replace them - but don't bother writing alt text for them (despite my repeated requests). In this you reduced the quality of the article (as far as FA status is concerned), and created extra work for others. This is not cool. okedem (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has deteriorated due to the very rigid thinking of one and a half editors. Please restore geography photos that show the country is more than a pile of rocks and the peace accord photos that were deleted in favor of a lousy photo of Netanyahu and Putin that shows nothing. The issue of alt text is so picayune that I can't believe this is the problem. You want them, add them. Get real people. Don't let this article go down the FAR drain for petty reasons.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, cut the sob story. We already have two photos related to peace treaties, one that has the exact same composition as the one that I removed. The Putin-Netanyahu photo existed in your version too. And if you're so worried about the FAR, you should be considering the image policy I quoted above, which you blatantly ignored when you added all those photos without considering existing ones. Seriously, Gilabrand; do you think we're dumb? We can look at the history. Quit exaggerating. -- tariqabjotu 10:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with nsaum75--can someone please restore the photos? I also agree that for our highest-level articles alt-text does seem to be the way to go (though I'm guilty of not remembering to add it myself most of the time).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are so many people advocating completely ignoring a Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:Layout#Images, on a featured article, especially one undergoing FAR? Do you not believe me that the photos don't fit in the article at 1280px-wide screens (a very popular resolution)? I can take a screenshot if you don't. -- tariqabjotu 10:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This one isn't that complicated. The MoS is pretty clear. We can probably fit it a couple more but need to make sure we aren't overriding the text. Name an image that looks good and start a quick discussion on it.Cptnono (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dollar sign; consistency

Does anyone have thoughts as to which is the better way to reflect the dollar sign? In the article as it stands, it somewhat haphazardly uses either "US$" or"$". I guess my preference would be to either never use "US$", or use it only the first time, dropping the US in future instances. But I'm open on this -- would be interested in others' views. In any event, I think we could have an approach that reflects greater thought/consistency. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:$. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tx. So, if I skimmed well, "x United States dollars" for the first reference, and then simply $. Sound good?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the recommendation. It's not how I've been doing it elsewhere...d'oh. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense ... assuming we can be bold and make the first reference "US$", which communicates the same information in a format that is shorter and closer to the later format. Sound good to all?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

"Shrine of the Báb in Haifa, one of Israel's most visited tourist sites"

I'm not sure who added this or when, but... really? That's a claim even the shrine's article doesn't make. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds impossible to me too. Probably it is one of Haifa's most touristed sites though. Zero^talk 23:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tourists flock there like crazy... it's beautiful, and any tour book that mentions Heifa demands a visit to the gardens. It's not sourced though so naturally it doesn't belong, and I doubt we'll be able to find a source for such a claim. I definitely don't doubt that it's true though... if by "one of the most" we mean, oh I don't know, top 10? I'd be willing to bet that it is. Breein1007 (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Baha'i Gardens already are the sixth or seventh most visited spot in Israel. They join eight other Israeli sites on the UNESCO list, including the oldest portions of Jerusalem and Acre and the tels of Beersheba and Hazor." (as stated in USA Today and many other sources).--Gilabrand (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

According to official statistics, 80% of tourists in 2008 visited Jerusalem, 57% visited Tel Aviv-Yafo, 52% visited the Dead Sea, 50% visited Tiberias and the Sea of Galilee, 26% visited Haifa, and 19% visited Elat. So 6th or 7th for the Bahai Gardens seems dubious. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Zero^talk 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would we use the sixth- or seventh-most visited site, especially in a country so small, to illustrate Tourism? I think Masada should be used instead. -- tariqabjotu 11:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't know the first thing about Israel.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

With over half a million visitors a year, the Bahá’í Gardens in Haifa and ‘Akko are among the most popular sites in the Middle East.....In July 2008, the Bahá’í Gardens in Haifa and ‘Akko were inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, in recognition of their “outstanding universal value” as holy places and places of pilgrimage for the followers of the Bahá’í Faith. [10] Stellarkid (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And at ebay, you can buy a 2009 Israel stamp of the Bahai Temple shrine at night. Stellarkid (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) See Also the 1979 cover with image of Saadat with the Shrine as background. Now I realize this doesn't show that it is the {number here} most visited place but it certainly shows some serious relevance. Stellarkid (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) This source says that "just during the last year over 600,000 people visited..." Stellarkid (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"a popular tourist destination" would have been an easy and appropriate fix (popular is less restricting than most as pointed out). "the second holiest place on Earth for Bahá'ís" might be even better.Cptnono (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dimona

there is no need to put a picture of the alleged israeli nuclear facility, this is alleged. israel has yet to confirm or dent, no other country in the world has said Israel has nuclear weapons except Iran's dictatorial leader who also wants to wipe israel off the map. in the picture it is written in a bias fashion that israel has nukes. this has NEVER BEEN PROVEN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star-of-David92 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Our criterion in Wikipedia is what is reported in reliable sources, not what is proved according to some standard devised by us. Numerous academic and intelligence studies have concluded that Israel has nuclear weapons and it has even been admitted many times by Israeli leaders. In fact, I think it is unnecessary to write "widely believed to possess". According to the rules we can just cite plenty of good sources that say Israel does have such weapons. Zero^talk 05:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also worth noting, is that the facility isn't alleged to be a nuclear facility, it is known and confirmed to be one.[11] What's alleged is that it is used to produce nuclear weaponry, but, as Zero notes, this is a widely accepted view that no one really doubts. Rami R 08:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

and it is an alleged facility it was never proven some gut took pictures wow, no country recongnizes that israel has nukes. now if ur saying that we jyst go by what professors elieve than i know some professors who belive the palestinians dont actualy exist, why do we have articles about palestinians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.127.242 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

hes git a point, if its alleged than i see no reason that a picture needs to be there. you can write a sentence or 2 about it and there is a main article about it, BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE A PICTURE! y do u have to put that up when you can put a picture of israeli soldiers, or something better.

NOTE: I say, for the tenth time - when adding a new picture, please add alt text to it. I'd like this article to remain a FA, and, unfortunately, this is a criterion. Don't create work for other people by sticking a new image in the article, but not bother to add the alt text. okedem (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, these political agenda-pushing photos are OK, but the ones added to show different facets of the country are not? And all you comment on is alt text??? What a farce. --Gilabrand (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

foreign relations

im not a big fan of the netanyahu-putin pic from some 14 yrs ago either put a current picture, or put the chaim wiezman and harry truman pic-that is the best choice in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star-of-David92 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

i agree that picture is outdated and not so good, the wiezman-truman picture is a lot better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivalafrance1789 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 

request for change

{{editsemiprotected}} There are two references to Great Britain in the article (after World War I / In 1956...). These should be changed to the United Kingdom since Great Britain ceased to be a nation state in 1801. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callainen (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 March 2010

Not done: Great Britain is a common way to refer to the United Kingdom. See Terminology of the British Isles. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

request for change

change the foreign relations picture to either something more updated or back to the chaim wiezman-harry truman pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.127.242 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I agree, so I changed it back. okedem (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WEIZAC picture

I returned WEIZAC picture in the science section as the development of this computer was one of the first in world to be done and certainly have very much relevance for the subject.--Gilisa (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are adding a picture, then make sure it has ALT text. See the thread a little way up about how it is required for this to remain a featured article and also for the debate about thepictures overwhelming texts. I have reinstated the Alt text you duscarded on the other picture. The diff on my edit after your four should show you how to insert ALT text properly.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why the picture was removed. It's very well fit in the article-WEIZAC is the fourth computer ever built and Israel is the third country in the world to build a computer, after USA and UK. WEIZC is formally acknowleged world wide as a milestone in the development of computers. It had many revolutionary features. It is also relevant as precursor for the Israeli hi-tec industry.--Gilisa (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether the picture is in the article, but your claims about WEIZAC are mistaken. See History of computing hardware#ENIAC and History of computing hardware#Commercial computers for information about some of the earliest computers. WEIZAC wasn't built until 1955. It wasn't the world's fourth computer, and Israel wasn't the third country to build a computer. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik, just out of curiosity-can you summarize it for me? I realy don't feel like reading all of this...It may well be that I'm mistaken, but that's what I read in a source out of wikipedia (or maybe it was the ninth computer?).--Gilisa (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In brief, the first computers were built in the early and mid 1940s. By 1950, at least 11 computers had been built by four countries. By 1955, when WEIZAC was built, several companies in the US and the UK were selling computers, so WEIZAC couldn't have been "one of the first computers". But I fear we're getting off-topic now.

As I wrote, I don't care whether the picture is in the article, and (as you wrote) as the first Israeli computer, WEIZAC was certainly important in starting Israel's hi-tech industry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the brief review.--Gilisa (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin fix this tiny prob

"Anti-Zionism" is listed twice under the related topics box. --LeedsKing (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The duplicate entry was on Template:Aliyah. I've removed it. Good catch. Dawnseeker2000 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty

Isn't it inaccurate to say that Adolf Eichmann is the only person ever sentenced to death by the state of Israel? Since Israel carries out "targeted killings" of people it identifies as terrorists mustn't these individuals by definition be condemned to death in absentia (by Israel)? (And if you agree that it's not the death penalty in a civilian sense because these people are not Israeli citizens then you can't really use the phrase "death penalty" to describe the killing of Eichmann [who was not an Israeli citizen either]). Historian932 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship is not the standard. Trial by jury, through the judicial system, is. Targeted killings fall under military or intelligence operations, not an exercise of the justice system. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FA review

shalom, I posted a long message on the Discussion page of the Project page, hope it will be read there (I'm a bit lost with all that many locations), see / read / you around, --Hope&Act3! (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Tel Aviv is.

Please make sure you correct this error so that Wikipedia has some credibility for its users. The UN and the International community doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.245.125 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Recognition is irrelevant to a city's status as capital. A capital is defined as the seat of government; Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government, so Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Other countries cannot define a country's capital for it. okedem (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please have look at the Old archives - Jerusalem as capital at the top of the page since the issue has been discussed before...at length...several times. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding info to the under "Culture" part.

House and Trance music should be mentioned in the part when music is discussed. Israeli D.Js such as Infected Mushroom and Offer Nissim are internationaly successful and have been major contributers to the Trance and House scene (respectively). Israel is an exporter of Electronic music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.160.206 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, do you know of a good source for that? For example, an article in a music / arts magazine discussing this? For every piece of information here, we need to have a good source, even if things are quite well known. okedem (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

request for change

although the picture of president shimon peres and obama is quite nice i think the picture of harry truman and president chaim wiezman is more historic and better. please either change it back to the truman-wiezman picture or just have both the truman-wiezman photo and the obama-peres one.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the Truman-Weizmann picture is better, it has some copyright issues - it's not clear if it's free for use or not. So, it's better to use a picture we're sure is free. okedem (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Conversion

(53.7 °C (128.7 °F)) works, (53.7 °C or 128.7 °F) does not work. Peter Horn User talk 22:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"occupied"

can we change the name of that "occupied territories" to territories under israeli control. i know a lot of people call it the occupied territories but it is incorrect as it gives main reference to the palestinian territories, while areas like the golan are not part of the Palestinian territories and it is also under israeli control(not occupation, in the golan there are no checkpoints as their is no need for them). in other words id like to change it the article name to Territories under Israeli control.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Golan is under Israeli occupation, I can provide hundreds of high quality sources that say this. Same with the West Bank (including E. Jerusalem). There is an actual dispute as to whether or not Gaza remains occupied following Israel's "unilateral disengagement" with some soruces saying that Israel no longer exercises "effective military control" over the territory and others (including human rights groups such as AI or HRW, organizations such as the UN or the ICRC and others) maintaining that Israel remains the occupying force given it controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters and most of the entrances. This has been dealt with many times, the super-majority view is that these territories are held by Israel under military occupation. nableezy - 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

yes but the golan isnt held under israeli military control. golan heights law of 1981 i believe made it under civilian control. so your wrong on that part, if you have sources could i see them.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 497. The UN and nearly every state on the planet agree that the Golan is held under military occupation. And I will compile the references for you. You can start with Israel#cite_note-150 which I added earlier. nableezy - 21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

even that security council resolution states that israel has put the golan under civilian law, they just dont recongnize its annexation. i agree with the marbehtorah change it to Territories under ISraeli control--209.255.127.242 (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The resolution specifically says that Israel is the "occupying power" of the "occupied Syrian Golan". nableezy - 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because the resolution is a political one taken by an organization (the Security Council) into which Israel has never been a member and was denied being a member. Nobody takes it seriously except for Wikipedia users, and the widespread use of quotations from UN and SC resolutions in articles is ridiculous. Amoruso (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the only people I have seen who dont take it seriously are Wikipedia users. And I provided a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal by a scholar that says flat out Israel occupies the Golan. nableezy - 16:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoruso, if you aren't interested in abiding by wiki policy simply stop editing wikipedia and save yourself some time. It's easy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Really Sean? Thank you so much for that insight. LOL. Please keep to the discussion. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

nableezy, really? the only people? that's strange. Perhaps you missed all the peer-reviewed articles condemning and criticizing the United Nations, its Security Council and the ICJ for interfering with state's policies, for ridiculing International Law, for politicizing legitimate discourse. Perhaps you missed the objections of the European Union and of The United States, Canada, and Australia to numerous political attempts by United National political organizations, to acts of Congress against the politicized travesty, etc? Perhaps you need to read on that a little before making such a generalization. Amoruso (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. The US considers the Golan occupied, as does the EU, Canada and Australia. Cites for that can be found on the Golan Heights page and the talk page archives. It is a super-majority view that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. A few Wikipedia editors, one of whom made this piece of propaganda from the original CIA map being upset with that does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of governments, intergovernmental agencies, and scholarly sources consider the Golan Syrian territory occupied by Israel. nableezy - 18:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an original map from the website, and an WP:NPOV version of the map that POV pushers have tried to enforce. Your false allegation is as false as your current one. People do use the term "occupied" to refer to the Golan Heights. It's false of course - by International Law standards there is no military occupation since there is no military presence and all the residents are citizens or eligible for automatic citizenship if they so wish. It's just false political use. What I was referring to to obviously was the silliness of the quote from SC resolution as if that meant anything to show that it's an occupation. Amoruso (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is simply put a lie. The original map labels the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. You moved Syria off of the Golan, removed the words "Israeli-occupied" and put the word "Israel" over the Golan. Stop lying. nableezy - 19:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did the work for you. Yep, it wasn't me. I would have remembered obviously. It was this person - [12], so what do we have here? A user attacking another without provocation. I think you should be reported and banned over this attack and allegation. Amoruso (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That isnt the file, the file is this which was moved to commons by Liftarn with the note "Original uploader was Amoruso at en.wikipedia". See File:Golan_heights_rel89.jpg. nableezy - 19:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's RIGHT, the ORIGINAL photo, UNMODIFIED, was uploaded by me. Amoruso (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, then I apologize for saying you were lying. I struck that out. But if you have no problem using a map that says the Golan is "Israeli-occupied" why is it a problem for us to say it is occupied? nableezy - 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that image is better, but I wouldn't have uploaded it on a fraudulent basis like you implied. So obviously I don't accept such map as WP:NPOV but that's the map that was available, and better than the "same color as syria" version. i accept your apology. I react very strongly if people accuse me of lying. Amoruso (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway.. No, Golan Heights is widely held as being Israeli-occupied territory.

“ The Begin and Shamir governments rejected any withdrawal from Golan; on December 14, 1981, the Knesset passed legislation applying Israeli “law, jurisdiction, and administration” to the Golan Heights, in effect, annexing the territory. The United States disagreed with the Israeli move as a violation of international law (Article 47 of the Geneva Convention which forbids acquisition of territory by force, and U.N. Security Council Resolution 242), and as a violation of the spirit of the Camp David peace process. ” — Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress

Unomi (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me edit

Hello, I've got some new pictures for the paragraph "Geography", it would be nice to get a confirnation to edit this page.

Hi,

First off, please sign your comments by writing "~~~~" (four tilde signs) at the end. Now, you'll be confirmed and able to edit in a few days, but it would be better to just place your pictures here, so people can comment on them. We have nice pictures now, and in order not to overload the article, for any new picture, a current one will have to be removed. So place them here, and we'll discuss it. Thanks, okedem (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, few days had past, and I still can't edit the page. I can't upload picture here too, because im not "autoconfirmed". Can anyone help? Ok, now about the pictures, I think we need to emphasize the change regions of Israel, although its small area. this is what plan to do, 1 picture of Jerusalem in the snow, 1 picture of the dry desert of the negev, and 1 picture of Judean mountains (and more specificly: jerusalem mountains, so not from the mountains in the west bank), and 1 picture from Jordan valley (again, north side of this, not on the west bank). I think it can really improve the paragraph, just give me a chance to edit, you can always retrive the last version of this artical. Thanks. Sipio (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to me, sorry... There are a lot of pictures in Wikimedia Commons - better look there first before uploading anything new. okedem (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

history

Someone need to write/expand or write a quick summary of pre-israel/palestine history E.g stone age ,copper age cave men when Judaism ,Islam,Christinaiy,zorantirians etc did not exist .Mughalnz (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be too much for this article - all that information is covered in History of the Southern Levant. okedem (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

it is possible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India india has it ,it would just further enrich the article.

I agree, the article sorely misses some kind of mention to the past of Israel. I mean the archaeological one, I always feel uncomfortable when I see the biblical account under the "History" banner. Every other country has at least one paragraph, detailing the first known inhabitants, and then some very general data, which are always useful to give a start to people interested in the past of the country.

Italy, for example:

"Excavations throughout Italy reveal a modern human presence dating back to the Palaeolithic period, some 200,000 years ago.[35] In the 8th and 7th centuries BC Greek colonies were established all along the coast of Sicily and the southern part of the Italian Peninsula became known as Magna Graecia."

Short and nice. I think The article would greatly benefit of this.Leirus (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So it is agreed somthing short and nice about israel prehistory.Somone Could write this when ever they want.Mughalnz (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Demogragphy

the refugess from the arab world to israel are noted (mostly jewish), i think to some extent. So arab refugess from israel ,should also have som mention in the demography http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3629923.stm Mughalnz (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC) refugees roughly 3-5 mil

The refugee issue is mentioned in the history. It's not mentioned in the demography section, as they are not part of the population of Israel. okedem (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• but don't you think it is relevant and important info , Also Pov when saying that only jewish arabs came to israel .
• But not saying those Arabs left israel Under UN( uN created modern israel) resolution have the right to return.This would make more npov.
• Article itself refers to the demography.
• Also info cited from a reliable / NPOV source.
• We could also state that this is a very sensitive issue for Israeli government and Arabs Nations that is still trying to be resolved.

thanks man for replyingMughalnz (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Demography talks about the population of the country, not people who might possibly come to it at some point (otherwise we would have to discuss all the Jewish communities around the world, which are much more likely to come to Israel). In the history section we already say: "According to UN estimates, 711,000 Arabs, or about 80% of the initial Arab population, were expelled or fled the country during the conflict.[75] The fate of these Palestinian refugees remains a major point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[76][77]" Note the second sentence. okedem (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Arabic

Were spoken by indiginous Palestinian Arab jews before creation of modern israel ,before the arrival of European jewish people,Asian jewish people,African ,Arab etcMughalnz (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

THere is no such thing as "Palestinian Arab jews" . If they are jew is an ethnicity. And the jews living in occupied land of Israel before 1948 should be considered just Jews ( or Israelis to be more accurate as it denotes descendants of all tribes). And besides knowing the the language of the occupying power (arabs) they knew and spoke among themselves Hebrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.158.92 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The language section of Hebrew language would be a start. Although it is very clear, what I understand Aramaic was the main spoken language at a certain point.--Stone (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

so there is an agreement that arabic was spoken along side hebrew ,aramiac and not only came to israel. when arabs j refugees from the arab world imigrated to israel.I dont want to get into an argument about the ethnicity of full blooded indegionious jewish people in the region ,(technically where are all from africa and extremely distanly related) so i am not talk about it .Mughalnz (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Arab jews? there is no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipio (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Arabic was spoken by the indeginous Jewish people in the region .So what is the Ethnic name of the indeginous Jewish people of the region called.Mughalnz (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Mughalnz (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It simply called "sabra jewish", wich actually mean, a jewish person that born in the "Land of israel". Jews dont use the term "Palestine", so even if the britian called it "The British Mandate of Palestine", its still called in israel as "The British Mandate of The land of Israel".using the term "Palestinian Arab jews" is just wrong, and politicly unacceptable. "Sabra jewish" is the right term.Sipio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Actually, during mandate times, the term Palestinian was used for all resident of Palestine, Arab or Jewish, by the Jews themselves. The word "Palestine" was also commonly used in Hebrew ("Palestina"), alongside "Eretz Israel". However, "Arab Jews" was never used; it's a modern invention by some sociologists. The Jews of Palestine before the immigration waves of the 19th and 20th century typically spoke Arabic, like the Jews of Arab countries like Syria or Egypt. Hebrew was rather seldom used, mainly for liturgical purposes, and communication with Jews of other lands (like European Jews). okedem (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Palestinian Jew used to be a commonly used term back in the old days. You only have to look at the newspapers in google archives. Try having a browse through something like the The Canadian Jewish Chronicle here. It's well worth it just for the marvelous adverts. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So their is an agreement that Arabic was spoken by Jewish people in Israel and not just Jewish immigrant from Arab world .

Small section about "Judah kingdom"

Hey guys, what do you think about making "mini - section" on the history section about the Judah Kingdom? consider that "Judah Kingdom" has strong connection to the Modern state of Israel, and all of the Jewish people are posterity of "Judah Kingdom" people. So what do you think? --Sipio (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

others areas were also envisioned as homeland for J

does any one think Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast so bear a mentionMughalnz (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Okedem (from his edit summary) that the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is irrelevant for this article. Having said that, it's an interesting subject with a wealth of good sources available including superb Soviet era propaganda posters etc that could be loaded to commons. Someone could turn both the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Birobidzhan articles into really very interesting articles indeed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with :Mughalnz that the Jewish Autonomous Oblast should be mentioned in this article. I brought this up for discussion before:[13]. It should be mentioned here that in modern times there was other lands designated specifically for Jews. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an article on the concept of Jewish homelands. It is an article on the existing country of Israel. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is an interesting article: Proposals for a Jewish state. We could be in Uganda or Japan right now. . Stellarkid (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

incorrect statement

The sentence here is speaking about the variety of geographic features that Israel is home to, but this area is not in Israel: [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarting paragraph Israel (is a multi cultural society)

Reference about

Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל‎, Yisra'el; Arabic: إِسْرَائِيلُ‎, Isrā'īl), officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةُ إِسْرَائِيلَ‎, Dawlat Isrā'īl), is a country in Western Asia located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan and the West Bank in the east, the Gaza Strip and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.[7][8] Israel is the world's only predominantly Jewish state,[9] with a population of 7.5 million people, of whom 5.7 million are Jewish.[10][11] Arab citizens of Israel form the country's second-largest ethnic group, which includes Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Samaritans.

specifically

Israel is the world's only predominantly Jewish state,[9] with a population of 7.5 million people, of whom 5.7 million are Jewish.

by saying 5.7 million as an Jewish ethnicity .It negates israel Multicultural background .But majority Jewish population

From it Houndreds of different ethnicities from Albanians to Zambabwean Jews. Maybe say israel has 5.7 million jews but also that it is a muticultural nation as well what you guys think.Mughalnz (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we better stay it like that, the term "muticultural nation" is politicly unacceptable, Israel recgonize herself as "Jewish state" wich mean "Ethnic state".Sipio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

world's only predominantly Jewish state,[9] with a population of 7.5 million people, of whom 5.7 million are Jewish however the Jewish people are from different backgroundsdiversity of Jewish backgrounds.

The would shows jewish as an ethnicity but also show its diversity in it in the first paragraph.I worded it better ,what do guys think about it now wiht the addition of ; diversity of Jewish backgrounds.Mughalnz (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is relevant to the demographics section, which discusses backgrounds, but not the lede. The old divisions are swiftly fading, and the Jews of Israel predominately identify as simply Jewish (especially with the very large percentage of younger Israelis with mixed ancestry). okedem (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

West Bank Wall

The article says concerning the west bank wall which protects Israelis from terror attacks:

which is partially built within the West Bank.[172]

Partially? or Mostly? And if Israel capture the West Bank in 1967, why is it called the West Bank if it is Israeli territory? Shouldn't it be called Israel?

119.82.255.116 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The West Bank isn't regarded as Israeli territory by Israel. It's referred to as "territories that are held by the State of Israel under a belligerent occupation." and similar terminology by the Supreme Court of Israel. See here for an example ruling and you can find other examples at the Supreme Court's website here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal issues surrounding the holocaust

Just an observation: The article touches briefly on Israel's bringing Eichmann to justice. There is an interesting aspect to this and related topics in that Israel has unusual legal authority in these matters. That is, normally a nation has little or no legal jurisdiction on matters that did not occur within its borders. I don't see any explicit discussion of this and it seems to me a unique aspect of the state's sovereignty (and how it is recognized internationally).

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Any country can put someone on its "wanted"-list. Most countries just don't come and get people. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an oversimplification. True any country can choose to go after somebody but it is usually only superpowers that get away with it. The fact is that countries around the world have recognized Israel's jursidiction in these matters and extradition has been granted for former Nazis. I don't claim to know the details of the agreements and laws surrounding this (hence the reason I did not modify the article myself) but I do know there is more to it than Israel does what it wants. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also not very unique to do it, as Britain did with Pinochet. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Britain did not claim any unique jurisdiction. They in fact were not the ones that issued the warrant. It is true that universal jurisdiction is a concept recognized by most countries but Israel has held a special jursidiction wrt Holocaust crimes. It is unclear to me to what extent that is by agreement and to what is extent that situation is de facto but it is interesting nonetheless. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you present a source stating this? After all, even the article on Eichmann points out that the US was within its rights to arrest him, even if we chose not to. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Israel has any special legal status regarding holocaust crimes, even though many people are sympathetic towards Israel's standing there. The capture of Eichmann was illegal according to most learned opinion (once I did a search of journals of international law) and the Security Council also had that opinion, see United Nations Security Council Resolution 138. Later Israel signed a kiss-and-make-up agreement with Argentina admitting that the action had "infringed fundamental rights of the State of Argentina". Zero^talk 01:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That was part of my point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All countries have the right to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity against their own people, regardless where the crimes were committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prwagner3 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The key to that is "their own people". Modern Israel did not exist at the time and so cannot legally claim that these were crimes against its citizens. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought any high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions were obliged to search for and prosecute people who breach them no matter what their citizenship happens to be or where the alleged crimes took place....in theory. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this in your talk page, but The Israeli court addressed that - the court ruling was that the nazi regime's intentions were also against the Jews in the Land of Israel at the time and that's why Israel could prosecute even if the State of Israel didn't exist yet. The court said that it didn't concern itself as to how the defendant came to the court (btw, legal/illegal is an incorrect term regarding this). Amoruso (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge as a lawyer, the aforementioned Universal Jurisdiction means that there are crimes against humanity that are understand to be commited against humanity as a whole. Such crimes may be prosecuted and judged by any country, regardless of the nationality of the individuals involved. I guess there must be an article about that somewhere in the wiki. Which Israel could not do, is to violate the sovereignity of another country to kidnap a national and bring him to justice, and that created some roblems, which led Israel to deny initially his involvement. So there is not a "Israeli Special right" to prosecute nazis around the world. There is an interest though, by obvious reasons.

I do not think more is necessary here, as there are other articles dealing with it. Leirus (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

British fugitive Ronnie Biggs was snatched off the streets of Brazil and found himself in Barbados. The kidnappers claimed to be acting in an 'deniable operation', the British Authorities refuted their claims. Biggs was not returned to Britain as Barbados does not have an extradition Treaty with the U.K. If that technicality had not been noted perhaps Mr Biggs would have joined Mr Eichmann in that route to face the music.Johnwrd (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)