In May/June 2013, there was a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem about the lead section of this article. This discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result remained binding for three years (until January 2016). While the binding results of this RfC have now expired, this page is subject to the following page-level sanction: As the results of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem regarding the article's lead represent the community's consensus at a well-attended discussion, a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. Editors editing the lead without consensus from an RfC are subject to sanctions such as page or topic bans or being blocked from editing. Reverts of blatant and obvious vandalism or edits made in violation of this sanction are exempt from this restriction.
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIESThe article Jerusalem, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies resulting from four arbitration cases (see WP:PIA). The current restrictions are:
Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification.
The exceptions to the 500/30 restriction are:
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
Should the infobox contain this flag and emblem?
After careful reading of the discussion, I believe there is consensus against inclusion in light of Wikipedia's previous consensus on the status of Jerusalem. While numerically the discussion was divided, the strength of the arguments against inclusion was found to be significantly superior to that in favor of inclusion.
Editors objecting to the inclusion of the flag and coat of arms in the infobox raised the point that including them would give legitimacy to one claim above another (namely, the Israeli over the Palestinian claim) in violation of both established consensus on the issue here on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem) and our neutral point of view policy. Supporters of inclusion failed to advocate successfully against this argument. The "de facto" situation on the ground has no bearing on our neutrality policies. We reflect what the balance of reliable sources say, not our original interpretations of the complex geopolitical situation at hand. Editors supporting the inclusion failed to supply enough reliable sources agreeing with their argument so as to convince the community.
Additionally, a number of editors supporting the inclusion made reference to other articles including political symbols (such as flags, coats of arms, and emblems) in the infobox where the status of the article's subject is disputed. This argument was discounted as it is necessary to argue that the particular case under discussion is compliant with our core policies, not that all cases of similar character are. Additionally, the consensus to include those symbols in those articles has been reached by a more limited discussion than this one or previous ones about the Jerusalem status. Thus, I believe that (see WP:CONLEVEL), they cannot override wider community consensus on the Israel/Palestine issue or how NPOV applies to infoboxes of political entities.
It is important to note, however, that this discussion and therefore closure did not judge the merits of including the symbols within a suitable section in the article body, such as Jerusalem#Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel. I do not prejudge the result of such a discussion. Editors are welcome to discuss this closure on my talk page. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
No in the infobox, sure in the article - per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem Wikipedia does not state for either Israel or Palestine that the city of Jerusalem is either in their territory or an Israeli or Palestinian city. The flag given in the infobox does exactly that. It states that, as a fact, this is the flag of Jerusalem, when it is strictly an Israeli flag that lays claim to the city. It is already consensus that we do not do that in this article, and it is straightforward NPOV violation to do so with the flag when by established consensus we do not do so in the text. By all means, in a section on the Israeli conquest and later occupation and its effective (illegal) annexation of East Jerusalem, include the flag as an Israeli flag. But just claiming Jerusalem as an Israeli city is unacceptable for Wikipedia to do, and we already have consensus on that. nableezy - 15:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a bunch arguments that are directly at odds with both the article and our NPOV policy. Assertions that Jerusalem is an Israeli city are flatly contradicted by already established consensus, and our article very specifically does not say Jerusalem is an Israeli city, or a city in Israel. The infobox is meant to, per WP:INFOBOX, to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. There is no reading of this article that supports the idea that Jerusalem is an Israeli city besides covering in part an area recognized as being in Israel and, in larger part, an area that is recognized as being in the occupied Palestinian territories. There is no summary of this article that supports the contention that Jerusalem is an Israeli city, or that the symbols the occupying power has imposed on it should be treated as, under NPOV, the flag and symbol of Jerusalem. The WP:OCE, while facially appearing substantive (like many other logical fallacies), falls on its own weight. None of those articles have a consensus against describing the city as being in such and such place. We do have such a consensus here. And the infobox cant just circumvent that. nableezy - 18:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No - despite the different heading, I largely agree with Nableezy that it would be inappropriate in the infobox, if only because of the sheer amount of history encapsulated (let alone political considerations). In a section on Israeli rule would seem appropriate to me. I do kind of like the idea of a flag that incorporates the notion of Qere and Ketiv. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC) (edited after RFC altered)Reply[reply]
Yes, only in the body of the article As per Nableezy, WP in no way can acknowledge this as "official", but it seems certainly reasonable in talking about Israel's claim to governance that this is the flag they claim represents the city. The caption for that needs to be 100% clear to the non-official nature of that. --Masem (t) 15:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No given the binary question related to the infobox. Absolutely doesn't belong there as it would make WP claim a side in the PI issue. --Masem (t) 15:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No per the prior stated RFC. The wording of the lede is chosen so carefully in respect for neutrality, and as such including this flag in the infobox literally shatters all that because it is de facto taking a side. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No because this is clearly not NPOV - this would be the case even without the explicit RFC clarifying the position on Jerusalem. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No since it's an obvious NPOV violation to symbolically endorse Israel's claims in the Israel-Palestine dispute. NightHeron (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Although I can understand why some editors would prefer to see this as a NPOV violation, there are times when we simply need to reflect the reality on the ground. The reality is that Israel controls the entire city, and the lion symbol stands out as one of the most recognizable symbols of Jerusalem, no less than the Dome of the Rock, the Western Wall, or the Tower of David. This symbol can be found all over Jerusalem, including on numerous governmental structures, at numerous public gatherings and tourist destinations, as well as on infrastructure and even manhole covers. I consider any efforts to remove it to be censorship. We can't keep information from our readers; we just have to trust them and let them think for themselves. Tombah (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing it from the infobox is absolutely not censorship. That's a problematic view to bring up. The choice by consensus to exclude information cannot be considered censorship since there's still other places on the Internet that have it. Masem (t) 18:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Per prior RFC and long-standing consensus, consistency with WP, and just reality. This was not covered in the 2013 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, but it seems implicitly accepted by that and it’s own long-standing consensus since they were in there for a few years prior and nine years following that RFC. They are in WP anyway as Flag of Jerusalem and File:Emblem of Jerusalem.svg so it seems just consistent that they are here. Plus reality seems they are the only flag and emblem for the city. If one would be very precise, the flag title might be “Flag of the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem”, and if there is any Palesinian flag specific to the city (i.e. not just generic Palestinian) then show it also. Do not fail to provide anything. And really I just don’t see this as the concern stated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it would be extremely non neutral to exclude the official symbols of the municipality and the city of Jerusalem out of the article or its infobox. Noon (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No The current Jerusalem municipality was created when Israel dissolved the East Jerusalem Municipality (Amanat al-Quds) on 21 June 1967, a few days after imposing Israeli law in East Jerusalem and extending the West Jerusalem municipality to include annexed East Jerusalem in contravention of UN resolutions. Subsequently a wall found to be illegal by the International Court of Justice was built around the newly created municipal border. The municipality seizes/demolishes Palestinian property as well as authorizing new Israeli settlements on occupied territory in flagrant disregard of international law. It is the face of the Israel claim to sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the inclusion of its flag in the article infobox is a non NPOV statement of that claim. This argument is on the merits alone but the prior consensus on Jerusalem in addition makes it clear that saying a thing is Israeli or Palestinian in Jerusalem is in any case not NPOV.[a]. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong. The Jerusalem municipality is a direct continuation of the British Mandate municipality, and existed prior to 1967 and prior to 1948. The municipality operated continuously from the Jerusalem Old Town Hall from 1930 to 1993, when it relocated to a larger building. The municipal elements of the eastern part of the city were fully merged and integrated into the municipality, and the municipality is responsible for all municipal services throughout the city, there is only one trash collection service. The same garbage trucks pick up track in the east as they do in the rest of the city. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even though 38% of the city’s total population live in East Jerusalem, the municipality only makes 7% of dumpsters and 6% of garbage disposal routes available to East Jerusalemites.
Palestinian residents of Jerusalem receive less than 10% of Jerusalem Municipality’s budget; Jewish Israeli residents (most of whom live in West Jerusalem) receive more than 90%.Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Jerusalem municipality is under Israeli rule, this is reality. According to Palestinian claim even Jaffa and Haifa are "Zionist-occupied city", so will we remove all Israeli municipalities? This is the anti-NPOV thing to do. MathKnight 19:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No per Curbon7. No one is disputing the reality of full Israeli control of Jerusalem (as well as most of the West Bank for that matter) or that the Israeli municipality administers the city (hence of course one would find the flag and seal all over town). It is Israeli sovereignty that is missing, at least regarding the eastern half, including the Old City. And finally, no one seems to be disputing inclusion of the flag and seal in a more appropriate section of the article — nothing pertinent is being censored. Removal from the infobox keeps the Lead in line with the referenced RfC. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - Wikipedia must display the de-facto information of real world regardless political recognition. We have plenty of articles on unrecognized and partially recognizes subjects, such as Transnistria, and they have their de facto insignia in Wikipedia articles. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - its the de-facto symbols of the city. Wikipedia should relfect the reality. I believe that not including it will be not neutral stand. Sokuya (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes for the official symbols of the government of Jerusalem. Palestine controls nothing, nor does it have stronger de jure claims to the entire city. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, per the arguments made by User:Loew Galitz et al about the treatment of other contested places. Also, WP:NPOV warns us about false balance arising from giving equal validity to all viewpoints. In this case, it is easy to see that almost invariably the "emblem/coat of arms of Jerusalem" refers to the "lion thingy." Alaexis¿question? 11:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some concerns were raised about the lack of sources confirming that the flag is in fact the official Israeli flag of the city. If that turns out to be the case, my !vote above concerns the emblem only. Alaexis¿question? 06:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[EC] The Jerusalem Municipality website was among the results returned when I was searching for information on the flag, but every time I tried to open it, an "Access Denied on this Server" message was returned. I'm assuming that the Municipality likely filters out connections from most countries. Therefore I have no way of checking for myself that the site verifies that the flag has official usage and exactly what that usage is. I do know that the single source used by the article on the flag doesn't fulfill that task. Nor did I find any other sources that did. I'd also opened the Wikimedia Commons page containing the flag image. As far as I could determine, there was no information supplied there which could be used for verification purposes. ← ZScarpia 11:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, I am almost sure that the emblem is "official", I cannot say about the flag. Official or otherwise, they are entirely objectionable. Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The (fairly obviously non-reliable) commercial website serving as the sole source for the stub article about the flag, hardly contains any information on the flag itself, but does describe the history of the emblem and how it was adopted, albeit in a slightly contradictory way:
"The Jerusalem emblem was adopted in 1949 following an official competition, similar to the one for the national flag and emblem."
"The municipal emblem was published in the official gazette (Rashumot), YP 633, 13 November 1958."
"Some sites describe the emblem of the city but mainly say the same: The official site report: 'The emblem of the city of Jerusalem tell the story of the early days of the State of Israel. Right after the establishment of the state, a decision was made that the emblem of the city of Jerusalem, as the capital of the State of Israel, should reflects the city's special meaning for the Jewish nation. At the first day od Adar 5710 (1950), the official emblem of the Jerusalem the capital, was chosen and printed.'
Somewhat drolly, the source describes the rejection of one proposal: "Among the 1949 proposals there was one that was a truly heraldic achievement: a shield with the five Crusader crosses, lions as supporters and a lion crest. Also a motto in Latin — Nisi Dominus Custodierit Civitatem. The booklet claims that this proposal, by Ronald Bretton of Halifax, England, is an expression of the symbolic meaning of Jerusalem as a Holy City for all three religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). They say that the lions are the Lions of Judea. I disagree — lions are very common in heraldry, and even if this is the Lion of Judea, where is the Moslem element? This proposal made me laugh — it shows that the artist had a good knowledge of heraldry and history — and lack of any knowledge at all about modern Jerusalem, offering a Christian symbol to a Jewish city (in 1949 Jerusalem was divided so the emblem was for the Jewish part only)."
No Who are we to take sides? Should we also place a Russian flag in the lead of the Crimea article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference here is that Crimea isn't in any case a single administrative unit. Not under Ukraine, not under Russia. Thus, there's an article for the Ukrainian and Russian provinces (not including Sevastopol or the northern Arabat Spit) and there's an article for the peninsula. SuperΨDro 14:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I support leaving the flag and emblem. They are all over the city. That is the reality, regardless of the argument about Jerusalem's political status. Atbannett (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Russian flags are on government buildings in Simferopol, the capital of Crimea, despite the fact most countries do not recognize it is as Russian. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is modeled after the Israeli flag, with a Tallit (Jewish prayer shawl) background and the Lion of Judah, representing the tribe of Judah, in the foreground. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I support leaving the flag and emblem. They are all over the city. That is the reality, regardless of the argument about Jerusalem's political status.Deror (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes every other disputed city shows a seal and a mayor in its infobox, even if the city is under military occupation. Please refer to the list of disputed countries and click on any of their cities, even their capitals, and they even if they clarify that the territory is disputed, they still show the city's seal and flag and its mayor. Treating this article any differently is simply misleading to readers. Bill Williams 21:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No – The national status of different parts of the city, according to the lead are in dispute, therefore no emblem or flag should be included. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Per reality and consistency with other city articles. Like it or not, Jerusalem is an Israeli city. And that's not likely to change in the foreseeable future. –Daveout(talk) 10:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Wikipedia is meant to summarize facts, not hide or censor them for anyone's political tastes. If anyone disagrees with how Jerusalem is ruled (and there's plenty to disagree with), this isn't the way to change it. François Robere (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to (neutrally) summarise the contents of reliable sources, not editors' opinions about what the facts are. The issue here is whether the current presentation is neutral or presents a point of view as something more than a point of view, ignoring dissent. It's curious that editors are arguing that admitting dissent is censorship. Similar claims were being made when whether the article should state as a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel was being discussed. ← ZScarpia 20:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's curious is that the OP presented no sources one could dissent from, leaving the matter entirely up to editors and their individual tastes. François Robere (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although there seems to be better source evidence that the emblem has official Israeli status, there seems to be an absence of any from reliable sources for the flag. Any time inclusion or presentation of material comes solely down to the tastes of particular editors, it's an indication of something being seriously wrong, particularly when the context is a bit ideology-bound. ← ZScarpia 00:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, obviously; pr WP:NPOV. Including this flag would "recognise"/help give legitimacy to an illegal occupation, (That is: illegal in eyes of the international community; not Israel), Huldra (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No - The Israeli proclaimed flag, Israeli proclaimed coat of arms and Israeli proclaimed "mayor" must be removed from the infobox. Israel is occupying the entire city with force and Israeli claims of sovereignty over the city is rejected by the vast majority of the international community. To have Israeli proclaimed symbols and titles in the infobox, we would be presenting the Israeli claims as a "truth". This is a clear violation of npov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No per Nableezy and Selfstudier. It's disputed city, currently under illegal occupation by one of the parties in dispute. So it's POVish to include flag and emblem imposed by occupying power in the article like it's not disputed. Sorry for whataboutism, but when other serial occupier will roll out new flashy flag for, e.g, Mariupol, will we include it into infobox? The hell we will. Same applies here. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 08:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not in the infobox, because there is insufficient space there to explain them properly. The Israeli emblems can be shown in some part of the article where the Israeli occupation is described. Zerotalk 08:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as is the normal Wikipedia convention including in capitols of completely unrecognized states: Hargeisa, Sukhumi, Tiraspol. The city government of Jerusalem is verifiable, the flag and emblem are verifiable. The city government is divorced from the issue of national allocation.
Tiraspol flag has the colours of Transnistria with a river cutting down the middle
You realize thats the flag from when it was controlled by Moldova right? Or in your rush to make an WP:OCE argument did you not pay attention to that bit? And that the Transnistria article includes the official Moldovan flag as well in the infobox. Didnt notice that one either huh? nableezy - 14:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're mistaken, it only includes the two co-official Transnistrian flags both of which are different from the Moldovan one. Alaexis¿question? 06:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as the 'verifiability' of the flag goes, note that the article on that subject is based on a single, fairly obviously non-reliable source - the website of an online store - which mostly deals with the emblem, giving no mention of any official adoption or usage of the flag, which is merely the Jerusalem Municipality emblem superimposed on the Israeli flag. ← ZScarpia 20:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my comment of 11:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC) above, where I mention the difficulty of accessing the Jerusalem Municipality website, which I assume is due to geographic location and applies not only to me. Perhaps you could explain exactly what the page contains and how it serves as verification? Failing that, perhaps other editors could confirm that the website verifies the official status of the flag? Is it an official flag of the Jerusalem Municipality itself? What are we supposed to infer from the Wikimedia Commons material? ← ZScarpia 12:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case, government websites, of which I assume the Jerusalem Municipality one is an example, are not normally regarded as reliable sources, though they may be used as primary sources for what those organisations state publicly. ← ZScarpia 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes as those are the flag and emblam of the municipality of Jerusalem, its the jure and de facto administrative body. It has nothing to do with Israel\Plasetine. If there was a different municipality in one section of the city the city there would maybe be a place for a discussion, but that is not the case. CLalgo (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legally, in international law, Jerusalem's proper status is considered to be what it was assigned in the UN Partition Plan, a corpus separatum. When Israel annexed East Jerusalem (without using the word 'annexe'), a UN resolution was passed that any Israeli moves to unilaterally alter the status of Jerusalem were null and void, which would include extending the Jerusalem Municipality to subsume East Jerusalem. ← ZScarpia
General Assembly Resolutions 2253 and 2254 of July 4 and 14, 1967, respectively, considered Israeli activity in Eastern Jerusalem illegal and asked Israel to cancel those activities and especially not to change the features of the city. On 21 May 1968, United Nations Security Council Resolution 252 invalidated legal and administrative measures by Israel in violation of UNGA Resolutions 2253 and 2254 and required those measures be rescinded.
No Per WP:NPOV, Nableezy, and Zero's not in the info box. The logic of insertion is political. As gamesmanship, small measures like this are part of an incremental process of achieving symbolic discursive hegemony, dunam by dunam, plugging in Israeli symbols gradually here, gradually there, so that the article, from tilting one way, eventually falls completely into the arms of a desired, if masqueraded, POV slant.Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not in the current form: I suggest, short of removal to the body of the article, a number of modifications. 1) An indication is given that the flag and emblem are Israeli. 2) That an indication is given that the emblem is that of the Jerusalem Municipality. 3) An indication is given that the flag appears not to have any official usage and is merely the Jerusalem Municipality emblem superimposed on the Israeli flag (the flag article is based on a single, fairly obviously non-reliable source - the website of an online store - which mostly deals with the emblem). ← ZScarpia 19:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YES. If this is the official flag of the city, it should be included just like other global cities. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This survey concerns the emblem of the Jerusalem Municipality and a flag which superimposes that emblem on the flag of Israel. As far as I have been able to determine, that flag has no official standing. The single, non-reliable source which the stub article on the flag is based upon certainly doesn't make that claim. ← ZScarpia 22:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't confirm or deny the official status of the flag, but it is definitely used. I found photos of it flying on the Tower of David and at the Israel Museum. Zerotalk 03:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As regards the flag, we have a curious situation. Assuming the Jerusalem Municipality website is not reliable for anything other than what that organisation states, we have no reliable sources confirming that 'The Jerusalem Flag' has any official status. Regarding the Municipality website, it sounds, in any case, that we're having to infer official status from instructions given about hanging flags. We have photographs of the flag flying from important Jerusalem buildings. But, again, we're having to infer meaning from that. ← ZScarpia 00:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, per User:Bill Williams and others showing it is Wikipedia standard to have seals and flags in disputed cities. Unified Jerusalem is a majority-Jewish city, and is administered by a single municipality. The symbols represent the majority-Jewish nature of Jerusalem. The local governance of Jerusalem is separate from wider conflict. Disliking Jewish symbols of a majority-Jewish city is not a reason to remove them, it would be treating this Jewish-majority city differently from all other cities on Wikipedia. The details of local municipal administration, such as mayor, form of governance, and symbols is important encyclopedic information that is important on the infobox level. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as others stated -- there's de facto reality on the ground. Should it be changed through real and serious agreements/treaties, then it would be fair to follow suit. Doing otherwise would be self-sided, just like Trump's move to recognized it as Israeli, which WIki hasn't adopted. Archway (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does your argument square with Wikipedia policies? If it doesn't, shouldn't you come up with an argument that does? ← ZScarpia 17:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please explain and prove how my argument does not square with Wiki policies (you can disagree with it, but please don't delegitimize it.) I'm arguing against self-sided bias, which is exactly the policy of WIki. Archway (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have not attempted to relate your argument to Wikipedia policies in any way. Some core policies: WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral Point of View, WP:No Original Research. Your argument seeks to impose what you yourself regard as the "de facto reality" on the article. Your own personal opinion buttresses your argument rather than, as the Verifiability policy requires, source evidence. The WP:NPOV policy requires that, where differing points of view exist, that material is presented as a point of view rather than fact. Your argument is imposing a point of view as fact. WP:NOR bans material which is either synthesised from multiple sources or only partially supported by sources, reinforcing the ban on editors seeking to impose their own personal viewpoints on articles. ← ZScarpia 23:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. The one state controlling the city is Israel. We should (must) add notes to indicate that Israeli control over East Jerusalem is not internationally recognized but I do not believe that justifies the removal of the symbols. Wikipedia articles have often used flags and coats of arms of unrecognized entities, and the cities under their control use symbols appointed by the governments of those entities too. If Palestine also had a flag and emblem for Jerusalem, I would favor using both the Israeli and Palestinian ones, but that's not the case. By the way, Flag of Jerusalem exclusively uses the Israeli flag. I'd imagine changing that and making a general article would be the first step before making a RfC in this article. How to expect to see the Israeli flag removed from here when the article on the flag of the city only uses that flag? It'd still be as if Wikipedia was "legitimising" Jerusalem as an Israeli city as some users have said. And I disagree with this last thing. Using the LPR flag on Luhansk People's Republic doesn't mean we're legitimisng the existance of this state. SuperΨDro 14:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire concept of the Luhansk People's Republic is a Russian invention to replace what was, under a unified Ukraine, the Luhansk Oblast, so that page shows the symbols of the occupier because the entire article is about the territory as conceived by its occupier since its 2014 occupation. The article Jerusalem is not about the city as partially occupied since 1967, but about the city over the entire course of its history. There's a very good case to be made that it is inappropriate to have partisan 21st-century emblems occupying space on an article about a city dating back millenia. Articles like London get on perfectly fine without such trappings. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you're right. Still, articles on cities under governments different from the one internationally recognized as ruling over them tend to use symbols appointed by those illegitimate governments, because that's the de facto situation. See examples at Tiraspol, Pristina, Taipei. SuperΨDro 20:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is Jerusalem, not some other place and the fact can be reported elsewhere in the article without contravention of NPOV/Jerusalem consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, there's really no need to have this clearly controversial POV material emblazoning the infobox in blatant defiance of the very specifically agreed past consensus on how NPOV would be handled in this topic area. That NPOV is an overriding fundamental principle is getting lost. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a bit of a whatboutism rabbithole, but I'm not sure I would classify any of the above as "illegitimate governments" - these are all the capitals of breakaway states, which, naturally, aren't recognised by the states they broke away from (though in the case of Taipei, they're the original government that was actually broken away from). But also none are really any kind of direct parallel to Jerusalem's situation of a partially occupied municipal jurisidiction. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, whataboutism, and even then, not very compelling. 'Disputed' is a broad category, and no other situations convincingly parallel Jerusalem's. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Firstly, to re-iterate, my position is that showing Israeli symbols as symbols for the whole of Jerusalem in the infobox isn't objectionable so long as they're labelled in some way to indicate that they are Israeli.)
I looked at four of your examples, the last three (Tifariti, North Nicosia, Stepanakert) and Pristina. From appearances, they are curious comparisons to use. I doubt that only a small part of the population living in any of those places has much objection to the regime ruling over them. The objections would come from outside. You claim a precedent, rather implying that there had been a discussion over whether use of the symbols was neutral. I can't see any sign of that though.
Taking the example of North Nicosia, if the Turkish army had gone on to take the whole of Nicosia rather than just the Turkish Cypriot part, I suspect that there would have been a similar discussion to the one taking place here over the use of Turkey-imposed symbolism for the whole of that city.
No it implies impartiality, or at the very least represents only half of the city نعم البدل (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes we go by reliable sources that reflect reality, not the wishful thinking POV of the UN or other outside claimants. Captions could be edited to specify they're the Israeli flag and emblem for the city. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, we seem to have a dearth of reliable sources here (and, I suspect, the ones we do have are written from a pro-Israel viewpoint). Secondly, that's an intersting attempt to state how Wikipedia works: "we go by reliable sources that reflect reality." What we're supposed to do is neutrally reflect the contents of all reliable sources, not just the ones which echo a subjective personal perception of what reality is. ← ZScarpia 14:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An alternative rendering of this would be "we go by reliable sources that are true", in direct opposition to WP:TRUTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have the most reliable source possible on the subject, the municipal authorities themselves, establishing their official use of the flag and emblem. Here's an archive link if your country blocks the .il TLD (and if that doesn't work maybe a VPN would). Moreover I don't think we have any RS establishing that those symbols are not the official ones used in the city today, hence my reference to reality. Of course there's a dispute over the eastern part of the city, so the symbols could be captioned as specifically "Israeli". But it would make no sense to remove them entirely. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is not about an Israeli municipality. The article, by consensus, does not call this an Israeli city. When we are discussing the Israeli occupation and expansion of the city in to the occupied territories and the resulting municipality then we should include that information. But the article is not about an Israeli city. nableezy - 14:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for supplying the archive link so that all editors, including me, can read the the Jerusalem Municipality webpage mentioned earlier, PrimaPrime. It's very unlikely that the country I live in or my internet provider would block access to that page.
As a rule, government-type websites aren't regarded as reliable secondary sources. When they are used, it is as primary sources for what those organisations themselves have stated.
What the webpage confirms is that the Jerusalem Municipality refers to the given flag as the "Jerusalem flag" and that it flies it to mark occasions including "Independence Day" and "Jerusalem Day", the latter commemorating the "liberation" of the city.
The language used and the particular occasions being celebrated indicate the highly partisan nature of the municipality. See the statement made by the Mayor: “Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel and the Jewish people, proudly flies the national flag and the Jerusalem flag on the occasion of its holiday. This year we mark 55 years since the liberation of the city." He said: "Jerusalem Day is special to us all." Obviously, only the views of certain people count. Instead of celebrating Israeli Independence Day, some residents of Jersusalem would choose to mark Nakba Day. Instead of marking the Israeli Jerusalem Day, some residents would choose to mark the alternative Quds (Jerusalem) Day.
One of the events marking Israeli Jerusalem Day is the Flag March. Reading the Wikipedia article on the march and ones from the news organisations  confirms the controversial nature of symbols such as the Israeli flags and how they are used to assert Jewish ownership of the city. That re-inforces my opinion that the current Wikipedia article is untenable in its current form.
British involvement in Palestine has many parallels with its involvement in Ireland. Britain planted Jews in its "Palestinian Ulster" in much the same way and for the same reason as it planted Protestants in Ireland. Remarkably, the end of British rule in the south of Ireland came just as British rule in Palestine was beginning, with the British politicians involved in each overlapping. The Easter Rising happened in 1916; the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917. The partition of Ireland and the independence of the Republic occurred in 1921, as did the the transformation of the British military occupation of Palestine into a League of Nations mandate (a fig leaf form of colonialism). Editors citing precedents in other articles as justification for retaining Israeli symbols in the infobox in their current form, should look at how articles relating to Northern Ireland, whose situation probably bears a greater similarity to Palestine's than any of the examples given, are written and have evolved. For example, in the Northern Ireland article itself, the depiction of the Union Flag has been removed from the infobox, a note that that flag is the de jure one for the province being substituted. A search of the article's talkpage archives shows how that came about. In order to try to square different viewpoints, a Manual of Style section had to be created for Ireland-related articles. Despite the fact that Londonderry is the "official" name for that city, a compromise had to be worked out whereby the article on the city itself is titled "Derry" while the county it is situated in is referred to as County Londonderry.
PrimaPrime, you wrote: "So the symbols could be captioned as specifically 'Israeli'." That, I'm guessing you know, accords with my own position.
Okay, so like almost any symbol it's embraced by some people—the historic majority population of the city, unsurprisingly—while others are offended by it. But we're not censored because those people don't like a thing we have RS for official use of, and we agree on an ideal compromise solution. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what 'historic majority' is meant to refer to - Jerusalem's history is complex. Also of low relevance. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not bring up similar examples such as the articles on South Korea (regarded as illegitimate by North Korea and invaded during the Korean War) and South Vietnam (invaded and a unification carried out by North Vietnam) also?
I have a more appropriate comparison for you: Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation. If the occupation had persisted and Iraq imposed its own symbols on Kuwait, would we be presenting those symbols as the legitimate ones for Kuwait? Or would we be labelling them as ones imposed by Iraq?
I'm not sure that South Korea/North Korea is an appropriate comparison. The articles for both countries have the flags of the countries that control their respective parts of the Korean Peninsula. I believe the same applies for the article on South Vietnam. As for Kuwait, then yes. If Iraq still controlled Kuwait, the Wikipedia article should use the flags and/or symbols in use. This would not be any sort of endorsement or declartion of legitimacy, it would simply be Wikipedia neutrally presenting the current situation in that country. GrammarDamnerhow are things? 18:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"..it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" per the long standing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem consensus. Showing these symbols is in effect endorsing Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, accepted by no-one. If needs be, the Jerusalem consensus may be reopened to address the confusion evident here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I'm not sure that South Korea/North Korea is an appropriate comparison. ... I believe the same applies for the article on South Vietnam." My point was, that they are not appropriate comparisons ... and, by extension, neither is the example you chose, Taiwan. They might be appropriate examples if the pre-1967 situation still existed. But we are not having a discussion about whether it is appropriate to use Israeli symbols in an article about West Jerusalem and Jordanian ones in an article about East Jerusalem. I doubt that the issue would even come up, just as it hasn't come up in the articles on Taiwan, South Korea or South Vietnam.
I went on to give a more appropriate example, Iraqi-occupied Kuwait. The Iraqi view was that Kuwait was rightfully part of Iraq. If the occupation had persisted, would editors arguing that the article on Kuwait had to reflect reality or the de facto situation, that Kuwait was part of Iraq, be in the right as far as neutrality is concerned? Similarly, would it be correct to present, without comment, say, the Iraqi flag as the official flag of Kuwait? I believe that, in the case of the flag, an indication would be given that the flag had been imposed by the Iraqis.
The situation in Taiwan is almost identical to this situation: One country claims a certain area, while another country controls it. The infobox should display the flag that is in use in the city that the article is about. In that Kuwait example, the answer again is yes. The Wikipedia article should display the flag in use. Showing these symbols is in effect endorsing Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, this is false, and this is tantamount to casting aspersions against the editors involved. Following this line of reasoning, Wikipedia has endorsed the Nazi occupation of France. GrammarDamnerhow are things? 06:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Showing these symbols is in effect endorsing Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, this is false, and this is tantamount to casting aspersions against the editors involved.
Baloney. My opinion is backed up with sources, whereas your opinion is backed up by none, I will copy them here from below since it seems you have not read the discussion:
"By incorporating the emblematic ensigns of the twelve tribes unto their contemporary official emblems, Israeli municipal councils make a political statement; indirectly, they revive a biblical past which enables them to blur Israel's pre-1967 sovereign borders......the purpose of such parallelism is meant to legitimize the country's extension of its borders"Alec Mishory (2019). Secularizing the Sacred: Aspects of Israeli Visual Culture. BRILL.
If you want to use a Chinese example, I would suggest that Tibet or any area that Communist China managed to seize from neighbouring states with a different ethnic makeup, such as India, would be a more appropriate comparison that the one you chose, Taiwan. Notice that the Tibet article currently does not show any national emblems or flags. As the talkpage archives show, however, the current situation is the result of long-term wrangling, with there having been attempts in the past to display the flag of the People's Republic of China as the flag of Tibet.
... So, the situation in Taiwan is almost identical to the situation in Jerusalem, but different from the situation which exists in South Korea and existed in South Vietnam?
- China, Korea and Vietnam are regions, with relatively homogeneous populations with a shared national history which had inhabited the area long term, which ended up being split into areas with different political regimes.
- After the defeat of Japan, there was a civil war in China at the conclusion of which the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and a communist regime was established on the mainland. The population in Taiwan are Chinese, as are, largely, the population in mainland China. No outside body such as the League of Nations or UN was involved in creating a state in Taiwan. Mainland China has never tried to invade Taiwan.
- At the conclusion of WWII, Korea ended up split into North Korea, with a communist regime, and South Korea with a democratic one. South Korea is populated by Koreans as is the North. When the North invaded the South, UN forces intervened.
- After WWII and the subsequent defeat of French Forces, Vietnam ended up being split into North Vietnam, with a communist regime, and South Vietnam with a democratic one. South Vietnam was populated by Vietnamese as was the North. The Americans tried to prevent the communist regime being extended into the South, but ultimately withdrew and the North invaded the South.
Do I really have to explain the differences between the situation (legal, historical, ethnic, cultural and political) in Jerusalem and Taiwan (which you claim is identical), South Korea and South Vietnam?
Selfstudier, those links discuss the use of Jewish symbols in Israel. We are discussing the use of a flag in a Wikipedia article. I've already explained that the Wikipedia article displays the flag in use, and that does not mean Wikipedia is endorsing it, Wikipedia is simply presenting the current situation. ZScarpia, I've already explained why the situation in Taiwan is almost identical. As for Tibet, none of the articles on Chinese cities, provinces, or autonomous regions display any sort of city flag, provincial flag, or autonomous region flag, though they do all list China as the country in the infobox. Please stop engaging in this WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDNHT behavior, because it is not conducive to a collaborative project. Thank you. GrammarDamnerhow are things? 05:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GrammarDamner: Tibet is an inadequate analogy, because the Tibetan people do not currently have a putative state that can contest space. As ZScarpia has noted, perhaps the best parallel is Northern Ireland, where two states both claim a territory held to be sovereign by one party and occupied by the other. And, as noted above, and after long discussion, no flag flies over the Northern Ireland article. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfstudier, those links discuss the use of Jewish symbols in Israel They discuss the use of Jewish symbols by the Jerusalem municipality, which is not in Israel and is not an Israeli city, this is the fundamental issue here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is contentious, and a firm consensus one way or the other would certainly be beneficial for future discussions of this sort. I'll be placing a notification at WP:NPOVN about this, as it has been raised as an NPOV concern. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dont think there any dispute about including it in the body, so would prefer this be a straight yes/no on including in the infobox. nableezy - 15:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's already responses so I'm hesitant to change it now, and I don't think it will confuse the issue too much to have the three options. If there are further objections, and no objections to those who've already responded, I'll be happy to change it to binary. Dumuzid, any input? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not familiar with the history of the article or this particular controversy, but if Nableezy is right that there's no serious dispute about putting it in the body, then maybe a dichotomy makes sense. With all things possibly contentious, however, it's never a bad idea to spell things out explicitly so there's no room for misunderstanding. I guess I would lean towards making this binary (feel free to remove my response) and then another binary if "in the article" provokes further debate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would prefer a binary choice, less potential for confusion, I also do not object to the material being included in a suitable location elsewhere in the article but I do not think we need to address precisely where at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The "reality" argument, made by eight (!) editors, is a complete crock. The sources are WP reality and they are very clear about the situation in East Jerusalem no matter how many Israeli flags and emblems are stuck to walls, hung in windows or anyplace else. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. It amounts to using arbitrary, subjective reasons to argue that one viewpoint is 'factual'. A different set of arbitrary, subjective reasons could be used to argue that an opposing viewpoint is 'reality'. It's basic on Wikipedia, of course, that facts are determined by the contents of sources, not editors' opinions. ← ZScarpia 20:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment "In the case of Israel, Jewish symbols have been extensively used as signs of Jewish sovereignty e.g the lion (the symbol of Judah which is used as the emblem of the Jerusalem municipality.....In order to Judaize the geographical space....to serve the claims of the ideology in power. In contrast, the history and symbols of the Palestinians were either undermined or denied."Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the case for literally every place whose sovereignty is contested (or "occupied" in the parlance of the side who doesn't happen to control it). We do note that Republic of China claims the whole of China, that both Korean governments claim the entirety of the peninsula and that Japan claims the southern Kuril islands, but in all these cases we do not hide who the de facto authorities are. Somehow only here this has become an issue. Alaexis¿question? 20:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in the parlance of the side who doesn't happen to control it. This right here is the POV pushing. That it is occupied in the parlance of the side who doesn't happen to control it. No, it is occupied territory to nearly the entire world. It is contested to Israel and basically only Israel. It is the false balance that one with a straight face pretends applies to those using the language used by the entire world and not the language used by one of the sides. This is the POV pushing, and at least somebody was honest about it. nableezy - 12:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many more examples of the "entire world," or a significant part thereof, not accepting the sovereignty of the current holder of these territories: Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Transnistria etc. There are even more historical examples. We are not here to right all these wrongs by giving equal wright to everyone (per WP:NOT and WP:FALSEBALANCE) but rather to report faithfully on the situation on the ground and on the controversy. Alaexis¿question? 18:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not about righting wrongs, or giving equal weight, because the sources do not treat any Israeli claim to Jerusalem equally. You have your false balance mixed up here. And, oh by the way, the article does not say Jerusalem is in Israel or that it is an Israeli city. And it does not say that by consensus. A consensus you and a number of other people are blithely ignoring. All while saying, with a straight face, that others are pushing for a false balance here. If it wasnt so absurd it would be funny. We can "report the situation on the ground" without violating WP:NPOV by claiming that Jerusalem is an Israeli city. We can show that Israel has imposed this flag and seal in a section on the Israeli occupation. But stating in Wikipedia's voice that these matter of factly are the symbols of a united Jerusalem under Israel's sovereignty, which sources outright reject as a fringe view, is what is a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is obscene how editors are twisting the policies of this website in such a way to push fringe-sized political viewpoints while claiming that others are "here to right all these wrongs". Jerusalem, at least most of what this article covers, is not Israel's sovereign territory. You are pushing a fringe-sized POV while claiming others are doing so. Truly astonishing. nableezy - 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another RS confirming the politicized nature of the imagery:
"By incorporating the emblematic ensigns of the twelve tribes unto their contemporary official emblems, Israeli municipal councils make a political statement; indirectly, they revive a biblical past which enables them to blur Israel's pre-1967 sovereign borders......the purpose of such parallelism is meant to legitimize the country's extension of its borders"Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it's political, just like the emblems, flags and coats of arms of all other cities and countries. Do you have a problem with the coat of arms of Moscow, in which the dragon likely represents the defeated Mongols? Alaexis¿question? 08:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia truly is going to be drowned in an endless flood of whataboutism at this rate. RIP NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to worry, the "reality" and "OCE" arguments (most of the yes !votes) are without merit as well as ignoring the Jerusalem consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ignoring de facto reality, and escaping only to de jure, is, in my opinion, without merit. When a person is not stressed, he tends to have a lot of patience (talking generally). But the reality of the situation is very complexed & stressing, and must hold true for what's happening, rather what should happen based on some protocols or votes in the UN. Archway (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM for opinion.But the reality of the situation is very complexed & stressing, and must hold true for what's happening I suggest you reread that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're going there (nableezy), it can also be challenged: I can argue that most of the world who officially objects to the Israeli occupation does so from clinical and geopolitical or social motives -- while in reality, they don't generate any real actions against Israel to at least be engage in peace process (which the Palestinians have rejected recently under Obama-Kerry). To the contrary, Israel's relations with the world, even the Arab world (see Abraham Accords) is getting better. Again, that shows the difference between de jure and de factoArchway (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
״Again, that shows the difference between de jure and de facto״. With all due respect, you don't have the right to delegitimize every opinion that you don't like, "supposedly" on the merit of violation of a Wiki protocol/rule. Not only that the first sentence proves I was *on topic*, but I also saw some personal attacks from you on me and others (for example, calling our arguments "crock"), possibly violating WP:PA. A month ago I didn't command all of the rules, but now I do. Archway (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"..it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" Showing the municipality emblems in the infobox implies that and RS was provided above to support that "Jewish symbols have been extensively used as signs of Jewish sovereignty e.g the lion (the symbol of Judah which is used as the emblem of the Jerusalem municipality". Obvious POV even on its own merit, faux outrage notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: It is worth noting that both of these symbols are also particularly poorly attested in their own right, with their respective articles, Flag of Jerusalem and Emblem of Jerusalem, providing little in the way of sourcing and substance to support their notability. I am yet to see a source that clearly establishes that these symbols are anything more than the symbols of the Jerusalem municipality. In fact "Flag of the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem" is exactly the title of the uploaded image of the flag. Really, this material should be temporarily excluded based on the sheer lack of supporting sources. Regardless of the result of this RFC, the sources for all of this are still lacking. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It appears that someone from Lebanon has decided to influence this vote on behalf of Hasan Nasrallah and Hezbollah by threatening me and other editors who voted "yes" (Deror avi, Lilach5, researcher and Bill Williams). The hate machine never stops. Tombah (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing to ignore when two more terrorist accounts came and threatened me once again. Bill Williams 17:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course there is, thats the whole point of trolling, or for that matter joe-jobbing type of trolling. If it keeps happening can have your talk page semi-protected. nableezy - 18:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Trolling" is not the same thing as targeted harassment by four separate IPs stating that they are representatives of two different terrorist groups and will murder me and rape any female relatives because Jews are "apes and pigs" who need to be slaughtered. Bill Williams 12:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no reason to a. think these are actually "representative of two different terrorist groups" or b. not a joe job attempt (what exactly does Hezbollah have to do with Jerusalem again? Oh, yeah, it just happens to be what a number of editors have attempted to intimate that others (eg me) support) and beyond that this really isnt relevant here. If youd like your talk page semi-protected Im sure an admin will do it for you. But can we keep this talk page focused on the article Jerusalem? nableezy - 13:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^Salem, Walid (Summer 2018). "The East Jerusalem Municipality Palestinian Policy Options and Proposed Alternatives". Jerusalem Quarterly. 120 (74). After 1948 the Jordanians held four elections for the Jerusalem Municipality (Amanat al-Quds), in 1951, 1955, 1959, and 1963.The Israeli occupying authorities dissolved this council on 21 June 1967, a few days after they imposed Israeli law in East Jerusalem, and extended the Israeli municipal responsibilities to include East Jerusalem
^There was a consensus that it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", nor is it compliant to state "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Was which variety of English to use ever discussed and settled? Where a topic doesn't have a particular national affinity, the variety of English used is supposed to be determined by that used in the earliest edits. The first variety-specific usage I can find is in this edit which uses American punctuation, "U.S." rather than "US". ← ZScarpia 15:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2022 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
there were a number of edits to the lead made since February that were not discussed and did not follow the requirement for a new RFC for lead edits. Among them this and this. Ive restored the lead per that AE sanction. nableezy - 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archwayh, you may not modify the lead, especially on content related to its status of capital, without the required discussion. This is a binding sanction for all users on this page and may be reported to AE if it is continued to be ignored. nableezy - 16:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]